Last year, I wrote about the controversy surrounding Amy DeLong. Her church trial—and the way it was reported—raised troubling questions for me that still haven’t been answered. She asserted in interviews that her same-sex partnership was a well-known secret that her unnamed superiors (who were they?) condoned with a wink and smile.
You think I’m exaggerating? In this recent Christian Century interview, DeLong described being called into her bishop’s office after it came to light that she performed a same-sex union service. She said:
The bishop’s assistant put up his hands and said to me: “Self-avowed practicing homosexual”—that’s the disciplinary language. This is language that as a gay person in the church, I have wrestled with forever and ever. I said, “Val and I aren’t practicing any more.” He said, “What?” I said, “No, we are pretty good at it by now.” He laughed.
Does this bother anyone besides me? Is it easier being an ordained Methodist elder in other conferences? Do other conferences set the bar lower than ours? At times, I feel like I went through… ahem… hades during my eight-year long process of ordination. And one of the central questions the church wanted to find out during that process was, “Do you agree with and/or will you abide by the United Methodist Book of Discipline?”
I never got the impression that the North Georgia Conference wanted me so badly that they would tolerate my answering “no” to that question.
Is it all a laugh in Wisconsin? It cheapens my experience of being ordained.
Regardless, the interviewer lobbed nothing but softballs. I wrote the following comment in response. Please note that the questions I raise are good questions irrespective of one’s opinions about the issue of gay equality in church. A good journalist ought to find answers.
I’m a United Methodist elder-in-full-connection. The church’s position on homosexuality is the same today as it was when she was ordained. DeLong wasn’t blindsided by the church’s position after she got ordained. She chose to become a United Methodist clergy knowing that her sexual orientation put her at odds with the same Book of Discipline that she promised to abide by.
As a matter of integrity, why did she go through with it? Did her bishop know she was “self-affirmed” and “practicing” when she was ordained? If not, did she ever have to lie about or misrepresent her sexual orientation to her bishop, the Board of Ordained Ministry, the District Committee on Ordained Ministry, or other authorities who interviewed her during the lengthy process of ordination? Did the question never come up? It seems very unlikely from my experience.