Living the Connection: let’s deal with our woundedness
Articles, DC Archive, Living the Connection Tuesday, May 15th, 2012
Bishop Minerva G. Carcaño is resident bishop of the Phoenix area of The United Methodist Church and provides leadership to The Desert Southwest Conference.
On the last day of General Conference 2012 I went by the information booth. I was on my way to my last official responsibility and I wanted to make sure I knew where I needed to go. Our wonderfully kind United Methodist volunteers from the Florida Conference were there serving us all with their smiles and extraordinary hospitality. I went up to a volunteer at the booth, she greeted me with great warmth and asked how she could help me. As she asked, I realized that there was a beautiful little girl by her side, so small that she was hidden by the front booth half wall, but there she was, waving at me and smiling. It was clear that she felt part of the welcome team and was doing her part to welcome and help me. I said hello to her trying to match her sweet and loving spirit. How I wish that all of our churches had this kind of welcoming spirit.
The little girl then went off and I began to receive the help I needed from the woman at the booth. Before the adult volunteer could fully direct me to where I needed to go, though, the little girl returned with a small plastic box and lifted it up to me. It was full of band aids. I looked at her and I know she saw the puzzlement on my face because she then lifted up her box a bit higher and told me I could take one. I wondered what she had seen, looking at my hands wondering if per chance I had a paper cut. I didn’t see anything on my hands or my arms, but I took a band aid, and watched as the little girl smiled even bigger as she fulfilled her task. I walked away and somewhere down the hallways of General Conference I realized that this child had sensed woundedness and was responding to it. It wasn’t my woundedness, it was our woundedness. Our 2012 General Conference showed the world our woundedness as United Methodists.
Many good things happened at General Conference. They did not necessarily happen through legislative processes though some of the good came through our legislative work. Establishing a global theological education fund to help prepare persons for ministry, our commitment to mission and ministry around the world supported by a strong financial plan, the commissioning of missionaries to serve in a great variety of settings, our continued commitment to US racial ethnic plans, our ecumenical work, and certainly our Service of Repentance and our clear covenant to repair the cruel offenses we have committed against indigenous peoples, were all good things that came from our General Conference. I also rejoice in the great diversity we saw at our General Conference 2012. I heard many more voices from young people and persons from Africa, the Philippines and Europe. There were, in my opinion, deeper conversations on the floor of General Conference about what it means to be the church than in previous recent General Conferences. But here is where I saw our woundedness. We bared our woundedness through our fear of failure, our racism and sexism, our homophobia, and our U.S. centric attitude.
I support our direction for renewed ministry among our congregations in the U.S. Our Vital Congregations efforts to help our churches become more fruitful in making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world are critical and important, but our efforts should never compromise our integrity out of a fear of failure. What I saw in the effort to pass the Call to Action and IOT recommendations felt to me like a manipulation of the process and rules of decision making that govern our General Conference. We are in decline in our U.S. ministry, a decline that concerns all of us, but if we allow a fear of failure to so dominate our thinking and our work that we are willing to lose our integrity in order to pass a piece of church legislation, then we have lost already; lost our way, lost our purpose and mission, lost our faithfulness. I believe we must have serious conversations about what happened at this General Conference starting with conversation at the table of our Council of Bishops.
Our renewed racism and sexism was captured in the words of a delegate who in an effort to eliminate our Commissions on Religion and Race and Status and Role of Women rose and stated that she was a pastor and received the flyers of training events of these commissions and they weren’t helpful to her one bit. Her language was derogatory of the work of these commissions who have long labored to help us be faithful to our commitments to overcome our racism and sexism, obstacles to our fully being the body of Christ Jesus. In a denomination that continues to be over 94% White, this delegate is right; it’s going to take more than monitoring and training, it’s going to take a conversion of our hearts to address our racism and sexism.
Our homophobia was blatant as we heard delegates compare homosexuality to bestiality, and voice other dehumanizing expressions against our LGBT brothers and sisters. Delegates from Africa once again proclaimed that their anti-homosexual stand was what U.S. missionaries taught them. I sat there wondering when our African delegates will grow up. It has been 200 years since U.S. Methodist missionaries began their work of evangelization on the continent of Africa; long enough for African Methodists to do their own thinking about this concern and others. Our conservative U.S. United Methodists continue to depend on the conservative vote of African and Filipino delegates to maintain our exclusionary position on homosexuality, a position I believe would be changed for the inclusion of our LGBT sisters and brothers if a U.S. vote for a U.S. context were taken. The manner in which we deal with the concern of homosexuality affects all of ministry in the U.S., and we are the poorer for it. It is time for us to let go of our wrong position and be the church of Christ Jesus, a church that excludes no one.
Then there is the U.S. centrism that has forever led our General Conferences, from our insistence on the use of Robert’s Rules of Order, a system of decision making used in the U.S. but nowhere else in our global church’s decision making processes, to lengthy discussions of U.S. issues with no comparable discussion of issues relevant to ministry in other places of the world. I for one was terribly embarrassed and even ashamed when much time was again given to a discussion about our U.S. clergy benefits. It is not that our clergy do not deserve to be supported through equitable compensation, health and pension benefits. It is that we in the U.S. have benefits that others in our connectional church do not have. Why should our sisters and brothers from the Philippines, Africa and Europe be subjected to our long discussions about such matters? It felt to me like salt in the wound of a church that is inequitable and that reflects the economic values of the world rather than the economic values of the kingdom of God. Our Central Conference Pension Initiative is on the right track. All our clergy around the world should have the caring support of the church as they strive to serve Christ Jesus. United Methodist laity at every place in the world should be able to count on the support of The United Methodist Church as they minister in the world in the name of Jesus.
I have heard over and over again the statement that without the U.S. church the rest of United Methodism around the world will fail because the U.S. church foots the bill. I no longer believe this U.S. centric statement. We have much to learn from United Methodists in other regions of the world who give sacrificially, for whom serving Christ Jesus is primary, and who believe that above all, we are citizens of the reign of God who has come among us with grace and mercy through Christ Jesus, and who does stand as the Sovereign One above all powers and principalities.
One day during plenary in the middle of a particularly difficult discussion, a delegate expressed concern about the witness the body was giving. The delegate said, “The world is watching us.” A few minutes later another delegate rose and said, “If we think the world is watching us, we are delusional!” Well, the next day the New York Times reported on our General Conference discussion! The world is watching! Let’s deal with our woundedness, so we can focus on the woundedness of the world. Let’s pray to the Lord for our healing so that we can be His church in the world, agents of His grace and mercy. In our healing we will find our hope and the joy of being, truly being, Christ’s own church in the world. But even as we wait for our own healing, let us be faithful disciples of Jesus the Christ, wherever we may find ourselves.
—Paz, Bishop Minerva G. Carcaño
Short URL: http://desertconnection.org/?p=1580
thank you Bp Minerva G Carcaño for your insight, leadership and wisdom. i am thankful for your ministry and leadership in the UMC. your willingness to speak to the woundedness and the issues that are pining for address is something that helps rebuild a sense of hope and sense of trust that God is in and with the UMC as it ministers and shares throughout the world. thank you, and just peace be yours, always, all ways, for ever.
I completely agree with everything that you said. Thank you for openly supporting all people, not just the people in power. I especially thank you for supporting the LGBT community. The tide has turned in favor of including all people and the Methodists are way lagging behind what is right and honorable.
Thank you Bishop for your thoughtful and discerning wisdom. Indeed we have much work to do and the mean spiritied things from this conference would do little to witness to the world. May the next four years be filled with thoughtful dialogue especially with ways to deal or have a handle on issues that deal with only the North American context. We must deal with the wounds and may the Holy Spirit be part of the conversation.
I respect you, Bishop Carcano and agree with most everything you say in this piece. It bothers me though that you think the members in Africa “need to grow up” and make assumptions that they’ve not thought through the issue of homosexuality themselves. That also seems like a passive aggressive way to say that all that do not agree with your stance on the issue need to grow up and think about the issue and come to your conclusion.
The thing is, people read, study, pray, struggle, etc. about the answer to this issue. Some have decided that homosexuality is not a sin. Others have read the texts and felt a different conclusion. Who’s right or wrong?
We exclude many from the ordination process, persons acting on homosexual feelings are not the only ones.
As bad as a person comparing homosexuality to bestiality, there were advocates calling those who disagree with them bigots. Intolerance is different, and frankly, we have people on the far reaches of each side who are intolerant. People in the middle are loving and welcoming even in their disagreements.
What are our wounds? What will our healing look like? Our wounds are many and inflicted by all, to all. If our wounds are where a person perceives The UMC is wrong, we’re in trouble, for only healing will come when the church agrees with that person. We will have about 8 million wounds and who will find healing?
Bishop, I believe conversation does need to happen around the CoB about GC2012. I believe conversation and a plan needs to be discussed on how each bishop will recognize the wounds and begin healing within the members of their conference. We can not wait until 2016 to address our misbehavior at GC2012. We can not wait for a mandate from 2016 to tell us what needs to be done. (When I use “we” or “us”, I’m referring to delegates and those who kept up with the happenings at conference. We have many members who are oblivious to our troubles and what’s been going on.)
If you’re following the conversation on social media about GC2012 and the state of our denomination, you know that people are not waiting for leadership from the top to filter down to members. They are marching ahead with ideas and actions to “fix” the denomination. As you can imagine, the directions of the march are not in line (from #dreamumc to actions like stop paying apportionments). We have been bludgeoned by the CtA and Vital Congregation reports. Numbers, money and stats are not motivating. I believe we need to hear a collective voice from the CoB; give us motivation, energy, encouragement to move forward. A direction. If there is not a collective agreement from the agencies and CoB on moving forward (think of the soft sciences), then we will all find our own person or group to follow which will not lead us to unity.
I still believe in The UMC and I want a healthy version to be around for generations to come. I have great hope for these next few years. Change happens in our heart, not our legislation.
With utmost respect of your work, the CoB and agencies.
Thank you for your faithful witness and leadership. GC12 goes down as a missed opportunity to move into the future God calls us to live into together. Lord have mercy. God have mercy. May God continue to bless your ministry, our ministry together, and bring peace with justice for alll.
Thank you Bishop for your leadership.
I believe that what you are suggesting is a US Central Conference. I would agree with that stance for all of the reasons you have already stated.
I’m responding mostly to Anne, as I think I read some of Bishop Carcaño’s words a little differently than she did. For example, when the Bishop used the words “grow up,” I’m quite sure that she did NOT mean that “all that do not agree with your [her] stance on the issue need to grow up and think about the issue and come to your [her] conclusion.” My take is that the Bishop was identifying evidence of theological immaturity (which adherents to biblical literalism, biblical inerrancy, and especially bibliolatry all demonstrate), and was wishing that the UMC might better exemplify the “Open Minds, Open Hearts, Open Doors” slogan “…and be the church of Christ Jesus, a church that excludes no one…” as she wrote. She wasn’t attacking individuals for their own carefully-chosen beliefs, but rather symptoms of the vestigial influence of what used to be taught by missionaries. My ancestors were missionaries, so I’m particularly qualified to opine on this aspect.
I think that some of the intolerance clearly present in this denomination is indeed due to bigotry, but I would agree that intolerance is not entirely located on just one “side” of the “conservative/liberal” divide, but rather that we should all struggle to extinguish any underlying bigotry in ourselves before calling attention to it in others. I confess to having anti-Southern tendencies, sometimes making assumptions about someone’s intelligence by the way that they speak, and I shouldn’t do that. However, lest we fall prey to the “false dichotomy syndrome” of taking the “middle of the road” stance and indicating that both sides are equally at fault, I would argue that no, they are not. The selective and singular focus on the homosexuals in our churches is indeed wrong and unnecessary, and as have a number of other Christian denominations, it’s time we moved past that stumbling block to fulfilling our mission in the world by removing the hurtful language and exclusions. The younger people, whose voices are often suppressed, would clearly have us do this.
I would also like to support the concept that we could minimize the US-centric nature of General Conference by letting the US also be a “central conference” (and they should all have been changed to “regional conferences” had the conservatives not successfully shot that down). While we are united by many things, there are valid and obvious cultural differences that prevent consensus on many issues, and by allowing for a balance between regional differences vs. global unanimity, our “connectionalism” would not only survive but greatly improve. Given the opportunity, the delegates from the US would have removed the “incompatible” language a while ago, but the conservatives know that the more conservative Africans they can bring to “the table,” the stronger their majority will be, and they will continue voting on the rights of a minority, which is rarely a good idea.
I married a Methodist, and one who would like to work for change from within, but I also remember when my parents had no choice but to leave a Methodist Church that was unwilling to speak out for fair housing for minorities back in the early 60′s. The United Methodist Church I love is the one that best demonstrates Christ’s love for ALL–a church that not only strives to “make disciples” but does so for the right reasons, that is a model of social justice and that truly has open hearts, minds, and doors…and much more!
Bryan,
Thank you for your respectful response. I wish more discussions like this could take place. I appreciate you bringing to attention the way you interpreted the Bishop’s post. It’s hard to correctly infer tone and intention in writing.
Most of the Africans I have spent time with are very theologically mature, much more so than most people I meet in the U.S.
Here are the problems I see from my discussions with people (I’m going to use Liberal and Conservative for ease of discussion):
Liberals- believe that because we are not allowing the ordination of homosexuals, the UMC does not live into our “Open” slogan.
Conservatives- believe that we can still live into the “Open” slogan without agreeing with a person. Ex: A church can welcome an adulterer and totally disagree with their behavior.
Liberal 1- Homosexuality is not a sin. Scriptures that are used by conservatives are not talking about monogamous homosexual behavior and some of those verses refer to hospitality and not homosexual behavior.
Liberal 2- Homosexuality is a sin. All are sinners therefore all should be able to be ordained.
Conservative 1- Homosexuality is a sin. The Bible verses are believed to be talking about homosexual behavior and beliefs through the years would agree.
Conservative 2- Homosexuality is a sin. It is not a super sin, but someone who is engaging in homosexual behavior should not be ordained. The same goes for adulterers, pornographers, alcoholics, etc.
Conservative 3- Understand that people interpret scriptures differently, but still believe it’s a sin. Understand that people think all are sinners and that means all should be able to be ordained. In thinking like that though they see that anyone could be ordained and they don’t believe child molesters, abusers, etc. should be ordained.
Liberals- believe people were born that way.
Conservatives- believe people can be born that way, but it doesn’t make a behavior right. Ex: People can be born with a gene that could make them alcoholics, prone to addictive behavior. It’s the continual act (drinking, drugs, sex, etc) that is sinful.
Liberals- believe God loves everyone.
Conservatives- believe God loves everyone, but requires us to “go and sin no more.”
I’m no expert on either sides’ beliefs, but this is what I’ve picked up in conversations. Knowing these things about each side, what is the conclusion? Is there a decision that would make everyone happy?
I don’t know the history of this debate (except that it’s been going for decades), but I often wonder if the language was added to the BoD because the subject was coming up so much and that there was a feeling that there needed to be a written stance. I could see this happening in a number of other instances if something was brought up continuously. There would be a feeling that the issue needs to be addressed and that it needs to be put in writing.
You may be right, that if there were regional conferences that the homosexual vote would be different. However, our delegates speak only for themselves, not their conference. So, even if it were to pass in GC, it doesn’t mean that’s what the whole of members would agree.
Cultural differences can be tricky. There are many cultures and sub-cultures. If I were in Utah with a Mormon culture I might believe polygamy is ok. I hope you get my point. Culture can make us believe a lot of things that are not true, healthy or contrary to what the Bible teaches.
We need to learn where the other is coming from. I’m sorry, I just can’t find fault with the protesters because they have passionate beliefs on this issue. But, I can’t find fault with those who believe differently. I can no longer say I’m right, you are wrong or vice versa. Perhaps this makes me lukewarm.
Respectfully,
Anne
Blessings on you sister Bishop..Thank you for being a prophet within and for the UMC…Pax
Anne,
Dialogue like ours is fine. Hurtful, exclusionary language is not. While there may not be a “decision that would make everyone happy,” the removal of the “incompatible” language would go a long way toward bridging the gap on this issue, realizing of course that the matters of same-sex unions and the ordination of “practicing” homosexuals would still be unresolved. You wondered if “language was added to the BoD because the subject was coming up so much,” but given that it was done at the 1972 General Conference, only four short years after the birth of the “United” Methodist Church, I rather doubt that there had been time for that to have happened. It was done at a time when much less was understood about homosexuality, and when other Christian denominations had not yet evolved in their policies on this issue.
Regardless of the history, I feel that the current younger generation of Methodists, who clearly tend to agree in far greater numbers with the “liberal” views on this issue, may not have the patience to wait for change of these policies and many are already considering leaving the denomination, or are simply walking away from our “organized” (a pretty ironic term, after this GC) religion altogether.
The president and publisher of Good News posted a very incendiary post-GC blog in the “GC2012 Conversations” that communicated very strongly to the pro-inclusion folks that the view of the “traditionalists” he represents is the “only view” that will hold the church together, in that they are not willing to budge one bit, and if they have to, millions of them will leave the UMC, en masse. When I read between the lines, I’m pretty sure he would be much happier if people like me would simply leave, and that’s a shame, Anne.
You are right, the “incompatible” phrase does hurt people whether it was intended to or not.
There are probably more of the younger generation turned off by our stance on this issue and bickering in general. They aren’t the only ones thinking about leaving the denom though. Some have grown tired of the fight or have felt like the change was coming.
The traditionalist view is not holding us together. But, in the same way, the liberal view will not hold us together. This one issue divides us, yet we have so many things we agree with, but it seems we forget.
I find a lot of things I read or hear people say can be turned around and apply to the other side. You feel like the Pres. of GN would rather people like you leave. I suspect there are leaders in Reconciling or MFSA who would like to see traditionalists leave. And you’re right, that is a shame.
“I for one was terribly embarrassed and even ashamed when much time was again given to a discussion about our U.S. clergy benefits. It is not that our clergy do not deserve to be supported through equitable compensation, health and pension benefits. It is that we in the U.S. have benefits that others in our connectional church do not have. Why should our sisters and brothers from the Philippines, Africa and Europe be subjected to our long discussions about such matters?”
Now imagine how the majority of delegates feel each year when progressive Methodists from the USA continue to try and overturn the UMC’s stance on homosexuality, which has been upheld for well over 30 years now. To quote you, “Why should our sisters and brothers from the Philippines, Africa and Europe be subjected to our long discussions about such matters?”
Perhaps you find the use of scripture and tradition by Africans as “immature.” I find this theological vision much more compelling than an American one centered on reason, experience, and emotion.
This is a great argument for term limits for bishops!!
Cute story about the little girl and her band-aids, although I’m not really convinced that her motivation was her deep sense of our woundedness. More than likely, some adult, pushing some agenda, put her up to it. So be cautious reading too much into it.
Bishop, your comments about the African United Methodists needing to ‘grow up’ is way out of line. They are faithful people who were taught by us, and then went to their Bibles (provided by us), and read the same thing we had taught them. That’s not immaturity, that’s being faithful! O that United Methodists in the United States would be THAT faithful!
As for the bestiality comments and such, I was not there and had not read nor heard of those comments, so I’ll take your word on that. I personally think that would have been overly inflammatory. However, the Bible does speak to bestiality and does so with the same language and in the same areas of the Bible as it does of homosexual behavior, so I can see how that jump could have been made.
Frankly, if we are to really go about this process of dealing with the LGBT issues the American way, then we need to acknowledge that we are NOT the only choice of churches in the U.S. any more than McDonalds is the only American restaurant. And if I were standing in a McDonalds, and saw that the lobster fest I really wanted wasn’t offered there, I surely wouldn’t keep standing in that McDonalds where they opposed every menu change attempt I suggested. No, I’d leave that restaurant and go find one that served what I wanted. Because I CAN have exactly what I want if I’m willing to go into the right restaurant. It is stupid for me to expect lobster in a McDonalds that will not change its menu.
The definition of insanity, I am told, is to keep doing the same things that don’t work, and expect a different outcome. It’s been 40 years. Same outcome every time. AND now the African United Methodists are growing and having more influence (in number of delegates). Is there really anyone who thinks the UM “menu” will change next time? or the time after that?
I personally have no problem with a person with homosexual urges or whatever attending our churches, but the church has, for the 11th time in 40 years, said ‘NO, we will NOT change our stance on homosexual behavior.’ Isn’t it about time that someone, especially bishops who are to safeguard our Discipline and covenant, start listening and pay attention?
Wow so much being said and nothing is being resolved. My questionis is this when are we really gong to have OPEN MINDS, OPEN HEARTS, OPEN DOORS. Its time now to really stand behind this statement.
This is an exceedingly balanced analysis by a prophetic Bishop! Bless her!
Carolyn,
How about bishops upholding the discipline that they took an oath before God to uphold? I guess I need to just “grow up” as well? The bottom line is that it is time for those US jurisdictions that are footing the bill for those jurisdictions who are not growing or better yet not following the discipline with outright defiance to stop! I wil stand with my African brothers and sisters any day!!!
Thanks Bishop for your views and witness at the GC. I have concerns that we are all called to serve Christ in truth and spirit and that passion should not override the general will of United Methodists. As an African i can infer from the article that you are asking us to act more maturely by views that you believe are progressive to the UMC when others think its contradictory. Since morality can’t be universalized i would request consideration for people from Central conferences because it seems like we are becoming a burden to the UMC by not agreeing with what the council of Bishops and other sections of the church wish. Its always necessary to acknowledge equality of men and never undermine the intellectual ability of people because of the passion we hold on certain issues. You will also have to note that the vote on the homosexuality stance is not the exact representation of the delegates from central conferences but that some delegates also from the US voted in favor of the status quo. My point is the need to be considerate when especially leaders make public statements because it may have an interpretation you might have had no intention of. I hope God will lead us all to a renewal of our minds and souls so that the 2016 GC will not be filled by individual zeal and expectations but by the need to listen to God’s voice.
I appreciate your sensitive analysis of General Conference. As a PFLAG dad and a retired UMC clergy person I am deeply saddened, though not surprised, by the conference’s response to the issue of homosexuality. I believe that at the heart of this response is fear. It is so difficult to face our own fears.