Last year my teenage son got in trouble for playing Pokemon with a friend before school instead of attending a meeting he was supposed to be at. He informed me that it was my fault he was playing Pokemon because I would not let him be in Pokemon club. So he had to play before school with his friend.

“No,” I told him. “That was not my fault. You made a choice–a poor choice–about what to do that morning. You had the power in that situation. I don’t have a remote control that works on you. (If only I did!) You need to take responsibility for your choices and their consequences.”

I find myself wanting to have this same conversation with our denominational leaders.

The Executive Board report released the end of June does not come right out and say “It’s the delegates’ fault that we have to refuse to recognize Theda Good’s credentials,” but that is the distinct impression I get. The implication of the report seems to be that the board must abide by the foundational documents (approved by delegates) and therefore they must refuse to recognize Theda’s credentials. And gosh gee if the delegates would just do something already because the board’s hands are really tied here.

“No,” I want to say to Ervin and the board, “This is not the delegates’ fault. You are made a series of choices that lead to your decision to refuse to recognize Theda’s licensing.”

First, the “foundational documents” that the board has to abide by are documents that they chose to identify as foundational. Yes, many of them have been approved by a delegate body. As have many other documents that are not listed as “foundational.” The board chose which documents to consider foundational.

Second, the board chose which parts of the documents to emphasize and how to interpret those documents. (Gordon Oyer articulates well some alternative understandings of these documents.) It is not the documents themselves that prevent an acknowledgment of Theda’s credentials, it is the board’s particular interpretation of those documents.

Finally, the board chose to respond to their selection and interpretation of foundational documents by refusing to recognize Theda’s licensing. It was completely within their power to say, “These documents indicate that Theda should not be licensed, but we don’t care. We will recognize her pastoral calling and authority anyway.”  

The board report indicates that the delegate body can present resolutions at our 2015 convention that might allow for a new understanding of credentialing, and indeed several people are currently working on such resolutions. The fact remains, however, that the Executive Board is exercising power in the choices it makes about how resolutions are submitted and processed and which resolutions get to the floor for discussion and vote. The idea that the delegates are all-powerful over the Executive Board is a false one.

Currently the denominational leadership is refusing to send Theda a copy of the survey that is going out to all credentialed MCUSA pastors. She has been told that the Executive Board statement leaves the survey-sending powers that be “no choice” but to not send her a survey. In reality any number of people at the national office could choose to send Theda a survey. It would take a computer connected to the internet and about three minutes. Would that choice have consequences? Of course. But that doesn’t mean there is not a choice.

Obviously I disagree with many of the choices the Executive Board has made and continues to make regarding LGBTQ inclusion in general and Theda’s credentials in particular; but I am most concerned about people with power pretending that they do not have power; about people with choices convincing others–and maybe even themselves–that they are left with no choice.

The denominational leadership does have a choice. A very difficult choice. If they choose to “enforce” their interpretation of the “foundational documents,” many congregations and even conferences will be placed under discipline and possibly choose to leave the denomination. If the board chooses to regard and interpret the church documents in a way that allows space for conferences such as Mountain States to ordain LGBTQ clergy, then many congregations and even conferences will choose to leave the denomination. If they choose to continue on the current path of pretending not to choose and referencing the ever-ellusive “third way,” we may all just collapse from exhaustion.

As we move forward in our conversations and (please, God) actions related to inclusion of LGBTQ people in our denomination, we all need to be honest about the power we have and the choices we are making. We need to make the most loving and faithful choices we can make, and we need to take responsibility for those choices and the consequences that come with them.