The United Methodist denomination is currently in the midst of a church trial regarding the election of Bishop Karen Oliveto. Actually, a ruling was just handed down by the Judicial Council. Many are still dissecting the ruling, and its actual force and effect might take some time to shake out. But here’s something that’s struck me throughout all of this: we are pretty inconsistent when our speech is measured against our words. Here’s what I mean by this. Many of us say things like “We aren’t about labeling people” and “One’s race/sex/sexuality doesn’t define him or her.” And yet, every story I read about Bishop Oliveto including press releases and statements from church leaders referred to her as “lesbian bishop…” or “first openly gay bishop…” Hmmm.
Now, I understand that Bishop Oliveto’s sexuality is precisely what has brought about the church trial. However, the continued referencing of her primarily in terms of her sexuality indicates to me that, for many, the only thing that matters about her is that she is a lesbian. This perpetuates an improper and unhealthy fixation with someone’s sexuality. It also ignores a primary Christian claim, namely that while we have identity markers (nationality/race/sex/sexuality) these are not and cannot be our primary identity because of our baptism in Christ Jesus. This is what I understand Paul to be saying in Galatians 3:28. I think this passage is often misunderstood as if Paul is saying these categories (Jew/Greek, slave/free, male/female) cease to exist. Well, that’s of course nonsense. Clearly I am still a male after I am baptized, and I will continue to have identity markers. But I don’t introduce myself as “straight white male pastor David Hollis.” Maybe Bishop Oliveto does introduced herself at parties with “Hello. I’m the first openly gay bishop, Karen Oliveto.” But I highly doubt it. So to have virtually everyone else call her this puts that identity before her primary one - Karen Oliveto, baptized child of God.
I don’t think most of the people who are labeling her in this way are intending harm. It’s a social construct - I think particularly in the South. To this day I will still have people say “This black minister so and so” or “That asian gentlemen who was with you.” I don’t think they even know there is anything wrong with what they are doing, because it’s usually just what they’ve learned. Then again, there are many practices that we learn which hurt and dehumanize others. So “that’s how I learned to talk” can’t be a valid excuse for long. It’s also the case that sometimes it is necessary to describe someone with their race or nationality in order to distinguish them. If someone asks, “Who was that gentleman you were speaking with after the board meeting?” If there is just one person I spoke with, I likely know who they are talking about. But if I spoke with several gentlemen, maybe we will have to get a description. And at some point, that description may involve color or another marker of that person’s identity. So, I get that. But once again, the way we use words matters a great deal. It isn’t just what we say, it’s how we say it. And it’s disingenuous to say labels don’t matter when we use them to such a degree.
So, either go all in, and always introduce everyone with as full a description as possible: “This is my single, Jewish friend Jesus” or leave it out from the first line of someone’s name and get there when and if you need to get there.
No comments:
Post a Comment