Church, It Isn’t LGBTQ Inclusion Without LGBTQ Participation

The United Methodist Church is currently in the midst of potentially Denomination-splitting discussions on the Church’s official stance on LGBTQ inclusion.

As someone who has served in the UMC for 17 years, nearly a decade of those in one of the 100 largest churches in the country, it’s about time.

This should be a pass-fail deal breaker for people who claim to love LGBTQ human beings.

Traveling this country and engaging thousands of Christians every month, I encounter local faith communities, both inside and outside the United Methodist Church—who claim to be LGBTQ-affirming or LGBTQ-inclusive, but who want to do so with all sorts of caveats or conditions in place. They aspire to see themselves as open to diversity in areas of sexuality, but with barriers in place that make those aspirations disingenuous at best.

If LGBTQ human beings aren’t able to fully participate in the life of your community, you aren’t affirming or inclusive or hospitable or loving to them, regardless of how you label yourself. Withholding aspects of community as a penalty or incentive, tells people they are not yet suitable for full participation, that they are currently unworthy—that they must be changed or fixed or “made right with God,” in order to find themselves suitable.

This is spiritual segregation; to claim equality with LGBTQ human beings, while not allowing them access to the totality of the community that others have as birthright.

In my last UMC church, our “official stance” was that we loved and welcomed people who identified as LGBTQ, but that they could not preach, could not be married, could not serve as leaders, could not be on ministry teams—unless of course they concealed their identities and orientations (even if such things were common knowledge.) It was a game we played and asked LGBTQ people to play along with. As a minister who questioned this, I was told to tell such people in my care, that being gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender was “not God’s best for them.”

I couldn’t do that. I don’t believe that.

I don’t believe exclusion of LGBTQ human beings is ever going to be God’s best for them. I believe treating them with dignity and respect, is.

Community that is selectively available, or that causes people to deny essential and immutable parts of themselves in order to participate, isn’t authentic community it’s conditional community—it is relationship with an agenda, love with stipulations, God with fine print.

If LGBTQ people aren’t allowed to marry the person they love, or to share their gifts on ministry teams, or to preach from the pulpit, or to volunteer out of places of passion, or if they are asked explicitly or implicitly to hide themselves in order to do any of the above—your community isn’t inclusive yet.

The UMC, like many religious entities and local communities is talking in semantics right now, when it needs to be cutting to the heart of the matter.

Either you believe LGBTQ are made my God and fully indwelled with beauty and dignity—or you don’t.
Either you value their contributions and talents and intellects and stories to allow them to share such things—or you don’t.
Either you declare their worth by inviting them fully into your community—or you refuse to.
Either you believe gender identity and sexuality aren’t moral flaws—or you believe they are.

Choose which of these is true for you, and get on to living that out.

Love isn’t inclusion or affirmation, it’s participation.

Get John’s book, ‘Hope and Other Superpowers’ HERE.

28 thoughts on “Church, It Isn’t LGBTQ Inclusion Without LGBTQ Participation

  1. Are you trying to help the UMC work through this unfortunate issue or are you fueling the fire of divisiveness? Your post is as just as divisive as the out come of the vote. Although the voting is completed there are still legal hurdles within the church to be pasted before this is finalized. I’m not even sure the vote is valid according to US law regarding discrimination.

  2. Seriously, are you reading my mind from afar? It seems for this retired pastor that you re spot on everything I read from you.
    Thank you!

  3. The UMC vote on LGBTQ is over now, and the The Traditional Plan won. However, they were able to take a machete and hack off the harsh new requirements that had been added on to it by the UMC fundies who live in Africa and other such places. So basically, The Traditional Plan is about the same as it was before the vote.

    The delegates in my UMC conference voted for the One Church Plan recommended by the bishops and high up management in the UMC. The UMC churches in my local area have established a post-vote position that they will continue to welcome LGBTQ folks as they were already doing.

    Lastly, just so you will know, a full two-thirds of the UMC delegates here in the United States are in favor of being LGBTQ easy and welcoming. The problem is the overseas UMC churches in places like Africa. Most of the members in those churches were introduced to the Christian faith by short-term, itinerant missionaries from nonUMC Christian fundamentalist churches. When the short-term fundie missions pulled out (after brainwashing the natives), there were no fundie churches to attend—but there were UMC churches—so they went to those churches, packed them tight, and introduced their fundie brainwashing into those UMC churches

    However, there is good news here. After the big conference vote on LGBTQ issues in St. Louis a couple of weeks ago, the UMC in the United States is thinking seriously about taking out its machete and cutting the foreign UMC churches loose from the UMC denomination. Whack!!!!. I think that would be an excellent idea because those ignorant foreign fundies have no business being in the UMC. Why? They are really Independent Fundamental Baptists (IFB) in mind and heart. They are not UMC people truly, and they have no business being in the UMC denomination.

Comments are closed.