Editor's note: Conducting a simple marriage ceremony at Chicago's Broadway United Methodist Church for two gay men had the result of thrusting Rev. Greg Dell into the national spotlight more than a year ago. A church trial resulted in his suspension that ends next week—June 30. What follows is an edited version of Outlines' phone interview with this uncompromising straight ally and leader in the effort to have the LBGT community fully embraced by communities of faith in general and the United Methodist Church in particular.
RS: Why do you believe there has been continued interest regarding your plight within the Methodist Church?
GD: Well I think to some extent it's a symbol or touchstone for the concern that a lot of people have, and for the efforts that a lot of people have put forth to try to bring a new awareness to the faith communities in our country. So there's a sense in which both in the case of Jimmy Creech and myself, because there was a fair amount of publicity around our individual our trials, I think the interest is partially about us. But much more of it is what is happening to LGBT folks in our nation.
RS: What is your current status vis-à-vis the Methodist Church?
GD: I'm still suspended. I'm under suspension until the end of this month. And then on July 1 I'll be appointed back to Broadway Church as pastor there.
RS: What does that mean to return as the pastor to Broadway United Methodist Church? Does that mean you will continue forth in your belief in honoring same-sex marriages?
GD: Certainly, there is no question about that. I think the only question will be how will the larger church respond. There can't be any question about the kind of the ministry that Broadway Church [ which is in Lakeview, the heart of Chicago's gay community ] or that I experience together.
RS: Did you miss your pastoral duties this past year?
GD: I missed it a great deal. Being a pastor is being part of an ongoing community. It's a place where support is given and received. People collaborate together on how to reach out beyond the walls of the church in a variety of ways with a variety of concerns. And to be without that community, even though I working with some incredible folks over the last year, I really missed that experience of being part of a local church.
RS: What have you done over the last year with the group In All Things Charity?
GD: I did a great deal of speaking. I spoke to thousands of people over the last year in states from California to New Jersey, from Michigan to Texas. I spent a great deal of time organizing around the country both within the denomination and outside the denomination speaking at universities and various lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender groups as well as straight groups in the United Methodist Church.
The other part of the work was serving as the director for this movement called In All Things Charity. It's very specifically designed and organized to try to impact the recent General Conference of the United Methodist Church. We worked in coalition with some of the other long-standing groups and provided staffing around issues of legislation and contacting delegates.
RS: Do you mean church legislation?
GD: Church legislation that was being proposed to the United Methodist Church. That's not work that is new to me. Around 1980 [ my work on issues of justice had ] increased emphasis on issues of sexual orientation. Ironically I was suspended for pastoral ministry but it gave me the room to do full-time on issues that I've worked on a voluntary basis part-time during the last five General Conferences.
RS: Where you arrested at the conference for non-violent demonstrations?
GD: Yes, in fact I was arrested twice. The first witness was on Wednesday of the second week. That [ demonstration ] was organized by Soulforce that is directed by Mel White. It was part of a witness that the faith community and the community outside of the United Methodist Church were trying to say to the United Methodist denomination that this is an issue that has great impact. Your decisions will have a great impact beyond the delegates that are organized here, beyond the United Methodist Church. To be joined in that witness by the daughter of Martin Luther King, Jr. and the grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, and by other leaders in the civil-rights movement, it was a very powerful time. It was a strong word to our church but also to the society that this is not just some small little issue that can be marginalized around the edges. This is a central issue of justice, human rights, and fairness for all people. It was a way of saying that the voice of the lesbian gay, bisexual transgender communities and their supporters will be heard even if the church doesn't want it to be heard. The Thursday witness was of a different character. That was organized by the coalition I was helping to coordinate. We had decided to do this when it appeared there was not a likelihood that there was going to be a rejection of any kind of moderation in the church' negative position on sexual orientation. We said that we had participated faithfully in the processes and the structures of the United Methodist Church sharing stories of our lives as gay folks and supporters sharing analysis and engaging in debate and conversation. We asked first for the church to change its position. But if it couldn't change its position for the majority to treat the minority the way the minority has been treated historically in our denomination around other controversial issues. To treat the minority with respect and give some room to have a dialogue. It became clear that it wasn't going to happen. The general conference was in fact of a very different character than other denomination gatherings. Majority vote or not we can't allow evil to be done with an attempt to stop the process so we went onto the floor and disrupted the conference. There were 29 of us who got arrested.
RS: What techniques of non-violence did you use on the floor?
GD: We had spoke with the presiding officer ahead of time. We had negotiated. We said it was our intent to come to the floor, which was a violation of the rules, and to stop the process. We said we wanted to make it clear it's our intent to stop business unless there was an agreement to at least a moratorium. When that vote was taken the bishop then responded to our presence by saying it was a slight inconvenience and the conference will continue its business. We decided then that the conference was treating our response as simply a witness of conscious as a group of people who didn't like what we [ the conference ] did. We were very clear that we were saying more than that. We moved to the speaker's dais and blocked access to the podium. We sung "We Shall Overcome" loud enough so that business could not be transacted. The bishop had us arrested.
RS: Was the issue that was before the body about same-sex marriages or was it about broader LBGT concerns?
GD: The initial issue that brought us to the floor was the broader issue that is the church's basic stand in regard to sexual orientation. The proposal was to remove it. The basic stance of the church is that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. Our contention is first of all, that is a lie. Secondly it's not only injurious but it doesn't represent where the church is. We tried to change that and make it an inclusive statement and falling short of that to modify it so it would say the practice is incompatible with some Christian teaching or to make room for the diversity of option. All of that was denied and that was when we came to the floor.
Now we stayed on the floor after being asked to move several times and negotiated further with some of our supporters who wanted to have a chance to work at the legislation regarding services of holy union. Once again in spite of every attempt at moderation, to permit it [ holy unions ] under some circumstances the General Conference was rigid in its rejection. At that point we disrupted the conference because we saw it as the final major issue and it was clear that there wasn't going to be any gracious response to the minority opinion.
RS: Officially then, the church has taken no steps to accommodate the issues.
GD: Yes.
RS: What have you learned from your experience and activities from the past year?
GD: We had begun developing a more careful and thorough strategy for communicating with delegates and trying to influence votes. It was clear to me that we did it as well as we ever had done it. Further, the religious right in our denomination, which is very well funded, better funded than we are but they did not do any more than we did. So it was not a case of saying well, gee, if we had been just a little more organized or had a few more dollars or if we had done this piece of strategy things would be different. The first thing that became clear to me is that the United Methodist Church has made a decision, a very clear decision about its rejection of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people and their allies. That decision ultimately will be reversed but it's not likely to be changed significantly for the next 10 maybe 20 years. There were structural pieces that were put into place along with the positions that were taken. Given that reality it changes how we approach our future in the denomination. In the past there have been people that say that this relationship has become abusive. And you don't stay in an abusive relationship. And there are others who say it's hard, it's painful but it's worth staying in because there has been progress. And there had been until this year. So with this decision of this General Conference I think it calls for a reassessment of how people choose to relate to the denomination.
RS: I understand there is a meeting in DeKalb, Ill., for Christian LBGT people of faith and their supporters this summer—what can you learn about the struggles to find a place for LBGT in other denominations that applies to your issues? What do you think other denominations can learn from your struggles?
GD: One thing is already clear from the coverage of the Southern Baptist Convention. It's taking a path that other denominations need to observe because they began around the issue of sexual orientation and now with that power of the religious right they are attacking women and a whole range of issues that are the darling of the religious right. We need to take a look at that and say this doesn't need to be destiny of every denomination. But we don't need to be naïve and say it's about one issue. It's about real human beings. And it's about a lot of real issues that affect other human beings. The second thing we might learn is that the Southern Baptists already developed a kind of a confessing church model. There are Southern Baptists who have created a network of churches and individuals that take issue with their denomination and stand in resistance to the policies supporting one another while keeping their identity. I think that reflects some of the confessing church movement in Germany in World War II. This is something we are looking at for the United Methodist Church as well. As far as the learning that goes the other way, it can help people, to use the scriptural words, "to have eyes that see and ears that hear." ... [ Like in domestic violence situations ] there's this wish that if we could just do it better they would stop beating up on you. If they just knew who we were. They couldn't do this. They say they love us. Just as in a domestic abuse situation there comes a point where you explore all you can explore and you say, no this is really abuse. It's not a matter of doing something different, it's a matter of recognizing that you have an abusive partner. One of things we might share with other denominations is that when you do it all right it doesn't mean you are going to accomplish either acceptance or an attitude of gracious tolerance. There is a point where bigotry and violence against people simply becomes the way. At that point you begin looking at other strategies.
RS: What is a simple effective response a gay person ( Christian, or otherwise ) or even a straight person can say to the religious right or a fundamentalist?
GD: There are two realities about that. One is there's a set of fairly simple arguments from scripture. This is not a difficult issue. For the cost of one book someone can equip themselves to engage in the debate or argument. They can say if I use scripture the way you are using it against gay and lesbian people I would have to condemn people for wearing polyester clothes. Or they can remind people that scripture has been used in this way around issues of gender and race. That's a small part of what people might need to remember. The other thing to remember is that the argument almost never does any good. I don't say this cynically. I say this as someone who for 25 years has been debating issues around homosexuality and the Bible. I've become pretty good at it. I learned. I have a good Biblical education and I've used responsible scholarship. After 25 years of debate I have never won a single argument and I've never lost one. When you are up against bigotry you are up against something far bigger than rational argument. You're up against something bigger than the type of feeling that happens when you establish a personal relationship.
That's important for people to remember that folks who proclaim the message of the religious right are human beings who are most often operating on a deep conviction but they are not open to debate and new experiences that might enable them to see something in a new way. They are locked into their positions. My advice to LBGT people is to engage in the debate to the extent that you feel comfortable in doing so. Prepare yourself with material fairly easy to obtain so you understand both their argument and yours. But don't be mislead into thinking that by rational argument or personal relationship the core of the religious right is going to change.
