LGBTQ

What this Pastor Learned from S-Town

In my endless quest to be current and relevant (a failed quest, my children will tell you), I recently listened to a fascinating podcast called S-Town, one of the most downloaded podcasts of the year.  The story begins when the show’s producer -- Brian Reed -- is contacted by a resident of the small town of Woodstock, Alabama.  This resident, John B. McLemore, claims that there is a murder cover-up going on in the town.  After much telephoning and emailing, Mr. Reed eventually travels down to Woodstock to investigate.

We find out fairly early in the series, that there was no murder or cover-up, but the story morphs into a process of discovering who John B. McLemore is, along with the other characters that inhabit the town of Woodstock.  And I will acknowledge – to my deep embarrassment – that, as a northerner, listening to the voices, accents, and cadences of the people on the show, it was all too easy to immediately pigeonhole them.  So, too, many of the settings – from the K3 Lumber Company (called KKK Lumber by John B. McLemore, which doesn’t seem to bother the owner) to the local tattoo parlor – fell immediately into my stereotypes of rural southern culture.

But as this southern, gothic tale unfolds, an interesting thing begins to happen.  Brian Reed invites us into his conversations with John B. McLemore and his fellow Woodstock denizens, and they evolve into deeply unique and interesting people.  McLemore himself begins by defying the stereotypes, as a brilliant, polymath, “antiquarian horologist” (he repairs antique clocks), who self-identifies both as a rabid environmentalist and queer.  Likewise, the other characters in the story begin as stereotypes and quickly become – unexpectedly – full-blown individuals; far more complex and nuanced than they initially seemed to have been.

Encountering John B. McLemore was a wonderful reminder to me of my – deeply unattractive -- tendency to pigeonhole those who I perceive as different.  I would probably feel more guilty about this if I didn’t have a sense that this seems to be a nearly universal human characteristic.  In his seminal work on the nature of knowledge and consciousness, The Phenomenology of Spirit, the German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel tells a compelling story that we call the “master/slave dialectic.”  In this story, Hegel argues that one of the primary ways in which we develop identity – both as individuals and as groups – is by finding characteristics that differentiate ourselves from “the other” – those not like us.

In this process of “othering,” we generally identify characteristics in ourselves that are attractive and characteristics in others that are repellant.  There is, also, an unfortunate power dynamic in this process in which an element of the differentiation also involves seeking to place one group (us) in a position of superior power to the other group (them).  So we seek to define (and value) ourselves, by degrading the value of the “other.”

We see a lot of “othering” going on in our national life today.  Under our current administration, the “other” has been immigrant, refugees, and Muslims.  This latest chapter of “othering” has built on a long tradition of making people of color the “other.”  In our United Methodist denomination for decades, the “other” has been our LGBTQ+ neighbors.  But whoever, the “other” is, it is our responsibility to look beyond that “otherness” and to find the places where we are not different, but the same.  It is to acknowledge that our similarities always vastly outweigh our differences, and that we are all sacred children of God.

The first step in countering this destructive tendency is to be aware of it.  It is to acknowledge our own cultural biases.  It is to acknowledge (for those of us who are white and heterosexual in this country) that we live in a bubble of privilege.  To claim that we live in a “color blind” society, is to ignore who we are and how we have always engaged “the other.” It is our responsibility to have the ruthless honesty to see ourselves for who we are, and thus provide the possibility for moving beyond that.

A next step is to actively seek to engage, and build relationships with those whom our society “others.”  This process requires great intentionality.  It requires us leaving our comfort of our bubble (whatever that bubble looks like), and really building relationships with those who come from different places, who may look different, and speak differently, and may believe different things.  This is what made S-Town such a gift.

A recent Atlantic magazine article on S-Town was entitled, “A Monument to Empathy.”  In that article, the author noted that “again and again, characters initially presented in caricature-like fashion by McLemore or another source get a chance to speak for themselves, and the liberal ideal of universal empathy and understanding gets applied on a granular scale.”  The process of learning empathy is the process of building a world that works for all its people, and is ultimately the process of learning to be human.

Wesley's Call for a 21st Century Church

As with many of you, it was with deep sadness that I read the rulings of our United Methodist Judicial Council last night.  Declaring that Bishop Oliveto's election violates the Discipline is yet another slap in the face to our LGBTQ brothers and sisters, and another message to our country that our church is mired in a previous era.

While this ruling is very discouraging on a number of levels (which I will discuss in a forthcoming blog post), I'm not sure how much difference it will ultimately make in our denominational struggle over this issue.  Clergy like myself will continue to be committed to the process of challenging the Book of Discipline through acts of civil (ecclesiastical?) disobedience; while other clergy and lay people will continue to file complaints against us.  And in the process we will continue to we will continue to squander talents and resources, and ensure that the only thing that the secular world knows about our church is that we are locked in this perpetual battle.   

We are all stuck in a holding pattern until the Commission on a Way Forward brings its proposal to the specially convened General Conference session in February of 2019.  Sadly, I fully expect that the Commission will bring forward some proposal that will involve the splintering of our denomination.  I say “sadly” because this whole struggle so deeply compromises absolutely fundamental aspects of our DNA as United Methodists.

One of those essential parts of our DNA is our passion around social justice.  John Wesley told his young revival movement that there was “no holiness but social holiness,” meaning that our spiritual life is devoid of power unless it is lived out in seeking to change the world.  And, of course, Wesley and the early Methodists did just that, advocating for prison reform, and child labor reform, and abolition.  Fighting for justice is at our core as Methodists. 

Wesley was not opposed to breaking a few rules to make sure that the work of the Kingdom was being advanced.  He ordained clergy for the church in America, in direct violation of the canon law of the Church of England; he appointed women as lay preachers, in violation of his own rules.  Conscience always trumped rules for Wesley.

Which leads to the second piece of our DNA that this struggle violates: Wesley’s deep desire to create a movement with theological breadth.  “On all issues that do not strike at the heart of Christianity, we think and let think.”  Wesley believed that people of good faith could disagree in their theological beliefs and still be part of the same community together.  In fact, theological diversity strengthens our church, as we engage in the rough-and-tumble of theological discourse and Biblical interpretation.

I recognize that people of faithfulness disagree with me on the nature of homosexuality.  But I think that we can disagree and still remain a church together.  I do not seek to impose my deep commitment on this issue on another clergy person: if officiating at a same-gender wedding will violate someone’s conscience, they should not have to do that.

But likewise, I am not willing to violate my own.  And this is where the ways part, and schism seems inevitable, being forced on us by those on the right wing of our church who seek to force me – and others – to violate our consciences.  It feels like an abuse of power being heaped upon abusive theology.  I am unwilling to be part of a denomination that seeks to force me to violate my conscience.  I am unwilling to treat some of my parishioners differently than others, and to offer some the ministry of officiating at their weddings, but deny others.  

We have been here before as a denomination, when we split over the issue of slavery in 1844.  That split presaged the coming of the Civil War, but 95 years later we reunited again.  Likewise, we will reunite again, after the culture wars around homosexuality have blown over.  This will not be an issue in another generation: our children – conservative and progressive – don’t even understand what this fight is about.  For the next generation this is a non-issue, which is probably why those on the right are so adamant about the idea of compromise.

And so the cause of justice suffers another setback.  Painful, but temporary.  Please keep Bishop Oliveto in your prayers, as well as Boards of Ordained Ministry around our connection (whose work was severely constrained by another ruling yesterday). It is another dark day for our church.  We should be able to do better than this. 

Rev. Dr. Charles A. Parker is the Senior Pastor of The Metropolitan Church, Washington, DC

Rev. Dr. Charles A. Parker is the Senior Pastor of The Metropolitan Church, Washington, DC