I have profound respect for the General Commission on Religion and Race (GCORR). Their goal of challenging the continuing existence of racism in our denomination and the larger society is both difficult and laudable.
Randall Miller
Dr. Randall Miller
It pains me, then, to say that GCORR’S recent “Urgent Request,” released on behalf of Bishop Minerva Carcaño, is profoundly troubling for the one-sided approach it takes, the breaches in established protocols it urges, and it’s sweeping indictment the very organizations in the Western Jurisdiction charged with ensuring fairness, equity, and confidentiality; i.e., the College of Bishops, the Jurisdictional Episcopacy Committee, and the Commitee on Investigations - all of which are comprised of some of our Jurisdiction’s most thoughtful leaders. Nor are people of color missing in our leadership structures. We are there doing our best to navigate a difficult situation.
What is more, in reading through the letter, there seems to be little daylight between what GCORR has written and the arguments that Bishop Carcaño and her team have been making in public and private for many months. It is one thing to zealously call for integrity in the complaint process and urge non-discriminatory treatment for people of color; it’s quite another to act, in effect, as defense for a bishop under complaint, particularly if one’s only source of information about the process is said bishop and her defenders.
Let me briefly respond to some of the other statements in the “Urgent Request”:
The idea that the protections surrounding both the bishop, the complainant(s), and the process are in effect only during the initial deadlines of the complaint process is both novel and objectionable. For many reasons, maintaining confidentiality is a necessary and principled commitment that should be maintained during and long after investigations are completed.
GCCOR’s proposal to strip to release the names and roles of the complainant(s), especially given; its history and purpose is bewildering. No such power should be granted in any church - agency - ever. We must critically ask ourselves, why is this necessary and who would such an extraordinary violation of due process benefit? The answer to the latter question is self-evident: it would bring the full weight of the unbalanced power relationship squarely down on those who have the temerity to raise concerns about the actions of a sitting bishop and subject them to other potentially negative repercussions.
The release of Bishop Carcaño’s name and the fact she has been placed on suspension is due to the practical need to explain her prolonged absence from duties to the California-Nevada Annual. Otherwise, as is typical, most of us would know nothing of this episcopal complaint. Indeed, there has been no public word about the content of the complaint or whether or not Bishop Carcaño is culpable. In fact, quite the opposite, those of us in the annual conference have been told almost ad nauseam not to make assumptions.
The length of Bishop Carcaño’s suspension is indeed regrettable, but a majority of the Judicial Council found that such extraordinary measures may be required to protect complainants from the very real possibility of retaliation - and that possibility trumps other requirements for an expeditious trial. We all have opinions about various Judicial Council rulings, but it was Bishop Carcaño and her defense team who sought appealed the matter to the Judicial Council and received a response that was not favorable to their case.
In weighing the various contradictory goals of the complaint process, the majority of the Judicial Council wisely chose to protect those with the least power in the unequal relationship between a bishop and those in her care.
Additionally, the GCORR letter omits acknowledging that the actions of Bishop Carcano and her defense team are at least partially responsible for prolonging the complaint process. The Bishop has every right to make multiple, lengthy appeals to the United Methodist Judicial Council and, in effect, halt the complaint process from moving forward, but presumably she and her team cannot then turn around and complain that the established deadlines have not been adhered to.
As a former chair of the WJ Episcopacy Committee, I find the letter’s argument that the complaint process should be shifted to the Council of Bishops because of the Western Jurisdiction’s long experience with Bishop Carcaño to be quite strange.
The current polity of the United Methodist church envisions bishops being held ultimately accountable by Jurisdictional (not annual conference) episcopal committees and colleges of bishops. Bishop Carcaño was elected and consecrated in the Western Jurisdiction, and, as a bishop, she needs to be held accountable by those with whom she has been in relationship during the full history of her episcopal leadership.
To many of us in the West, including many people of color in leadership, what is now unfolding, most especially the urging to move the complaint to the Council of Bishops, seems like little more than an attempt to find a venue that would be more conducive to Bishop Carcano’s perspective. I believe that a majority of those within the California-Nevada Annual Conference believe that Bishop Carcaño must be held accountable and be accorded due process as determined by the appropriate judicatory bodies. And for the sake of Bishop Carcano’s continuing role as bishop and the increasing conflict within our annual conference, this must process must remain in the purview of the Western Jurisdiction.
There can be no doubt that racism and misogyny have shaped much of the UMC’s history. We are not unaware of this in the Western Jurisdiction and in the California Nevada Conference, which remain predominately white but also represent one of the most diverse regions in United Methodism. We have come a long way towards embracing our diversity and remain in the first third of journey to embrace full inclusion for all people.
I say all this because I believe to characterize the argument that the investigative process as being significantly impacted by Bishop Carcaño’s status as the first Latina Bishop is reductive and over-simplifies the complex happenings in the Western Jurisdiction and the California Nevada Annual as investigatory phone calls to any ten POC leaders in the West would have revealed.
Please do not mistake our relative silence as these issues involving a Latina episcopal leader have unfolded as something less than vigilance. For some of us, our cultural and religious upbringings make us shy away from actions that might seem to publicly undermine another POC leader; others of us genuinely have no knowledge of the charges and are awaiting the outcome of this complaint; still others of us are committed to due practice and, in our personal interactions with Bishop Carcaño, have come to believe that retaliation is a very real possibility. Again, like elsewhere the people of color leaders in the Western Jurisdiction are not of one mind, but I believe that we are united in our belief that proper respect and due process must be afforded Bishop Carcaño and her complainant(s).
Honestly, no real credence can be given to GCORR’s suggestion that Bishop Carcaño is being persecuted because of her stands on immigration reform and other controversial issues. The Western Jurisdiction is the most progressive region in the United Methodism and for many years, we have actively encouraged our bishops to take bold stances. Indeed, we have offered them strong protections when they have done so and been challenged by others in the UMC. Yet we are also fully committed to holding our bishops accountable and expect them to abide by the same rules that they have enforced within their episcopal regions.
Finally, a conciliatory note. As must be clear, I strongly disagree with the assumptions and called for actions in the GCORR and don’t believe that I’m alone in this among people of color and many others with whom I share ally relationships. Notwithstanding these disagreements, please know I continue to strongly support. I know the importance of your legacy and continued work within the UMC and pray that you will be immeasurably strengthened in the months and years to come.
Dr. Randall Miller describes himself as "Consultant, Changemaker, and Educator." This post is republished from his Facebook page.