What Do We Really Need to Know?

Clergywoman's Complaint Finds Gap Between Process and Justice

UPDATE June 9, 2017: United Methodist Insight has received permission to reprint the articles from Texas Metro News regarding the Rev. Yvette Blair-Lavallais. In order to make reading easier, we offer these links directly to Texas Metro News, the Garland Journal, and I Messenger, three Dallas area Black publications in which the articles have appeared. Our thanks to Cheryl Smith, editor and publisher of Texas Metro News and I Messenger, for her cooperation.

"Clergywomen Under Assault: No More Suffering in Silence" by Cheryl Smith

"When Your Good Works Are Interrupted" by Yvette Blair-Lavallais

"Sound the Alarm: Breaking the Silence Together" by Yvette Blair-Lavallais

A United Methodist Interpretive Analysis

How much does the wider United Methodist community need to know about what happens in cases of alleged sexual harassment in churches? How much do United Methodists need to know about how such complaints are investigated within the church? Do United Methodist “fair process” procedures protect the innocent, or do they actually prevent justice being served in the church?

These questions and more became public June 6 at the 2017 session of the North Texas Annual Conference. To hear church authorities tell it, United Methodists beyond those immediately involved in the allegations need only know that “a process” exists and is being followed. From the perspective of a clergywoman who followed that process and her supporters, United Methodists need to know that “the process” broke down, leaving the clergywoman vulnerable to continued sexual harassment while her harasser faced no consequences.

Serial sexual harassment

According to remarks by conference members and accounts in two Dallas-area African-American newspapers, the sexual harassment incidents and the church’s response are alleged as follows:

The Rev. Yvette Blair-Lavallais, a black clergywoman, was subjected to a series of sexually harassing actions by a white male parishioner while she was associate pastor of a Dallas-area United Methodist congregation. In Rev. Blair-Lavallais’ account, the man repeatedly touched her inappropriately despite her protests and rebuffs, even to menacing her in her church office, demanding that she succumb to his advances.

Rev. Blair-Lavallais reported that she informed the senior pastor, the Rev. Andy Lewis, of the harassment. However, the clergywoman contends that Rev. Lewis allegedly did nothing about the incidents, because they continued. After confiding in others, Rev. Blair-Lavallais said she learned that her harasser was known as a sexual predator by several people in the congregation, but that no one confronted the man about his behavior. Nor did anyone warn the clergywoman to be wary of the harasser. (Because the alleged harasser was not named during the North Texas Conference session, he is not named here).

The incidents were investigated by city police, who found no evidence of sexual assault and closed the case. Subsequently, Rev. Blair-Lavallais was moved to another church.

The incident came to light earlier this year after Bishop Michael McKee announced that Rev. Lewis was being appointed to head one of the North Texas Conference’s “ministry centers” in the conference office. Seeing Rev. Lewis’ appointment as a promotion, Rev. Blair-Lavallais filed a complaint against him, which is the complaint that is now being processed.

At this point, the story became public, because Rev. Blair-Lavallais’ story was published in the Texas Metro News and drew the attention of Black church leaders. Digital copies of the newspaper containing the clergywoman’s article were emailed to conference members prior to the opening of the 2017 session, where printed copies also were distributed.

Public discussion sought

On June 6, the session’s final day, the Rev. Dr. Clara Reed, a former district superintendent, attempted to bring a discussion of how the church handled Rev. Blair-Lavallais’ case before the full annual conference. Bishop McKee ruled her move out of order, but Dr. Reed refused to back down.

“When is it out of order to demand justice?” Dr. Reed challenged, raising her voice to be heard because she did not access a microphone.

Bishop McKee repeatedly cited “the process” – meaning the investigative process outlined in the Book of Discipline – as justification for not bringing the matter to a public discussion. At one point, the bishop accused Dr. Reed of “tainting the jury pool” for any possible public trial by continuing to insist that the matter be aired openly.

Throughout the remainder of the day, other advocates for Rev. Blair-Lavallais came forward to press Bishop McKee for an open discussion of the church’s response to sexual harassment. One conference member threatened to “go national” with Rev. Blair-Lavallais’ story if the bishop didn’t allow public discussion.

Bishop McKee continued to cite protection of “the process” as justification for refusing discussion. He emphasized that he had turned over the investigation of Rev. Blair-Lavallais’ complaint to two conference staff members since he would ultimately serve as the “adjudicator.” At one point, he asked a conference staff member, the Rev. Marti Soper, to explain the process in answer to a question from the Rev. Roy Atwood, a newly commissioned provisional elder.

Conference members voted

Finally, Bishop McKee put the question of a public discussion before the annual conference for a vote. With votes on legislative matters including constitutional amendments still to come late in the day, the conference voted against a public discussion by about two-thirds. (Full disclosure: As a lay member of annual conference, I voted in favor of discussion).

Bishop McKee then promised that in the coming months he would hold meetings in each of North Texas’ four districts to explain “the process” of dealing with a complaint against a clergy person. He expressed hope that many laypeople would attend the sessions so that they could understand the United Methodist investigative process. However, he continued to insist that “you don’t need to know everything.”

The confrontation that erupted at the North Texas Conference session left both clergy and laity with a host of questions, some of which center on factors that go beyond the specifics of one church workplace incident. Among them:

What’s the United Methodist “process” for investigating complaints against clergy (see an accompanying article explaining “fair process”)? How well was the process followed in the North Texas Conference in the case of Rev. Blair-Lavallais?

What was done to protect Rev. Blair-Lavallais from the unwanted sexual advances of the harasser? Her newspaper account alleges that her ministry supervisor, Rev. Andy Lewis, apparently failed to discuss the matter with the alleged harasser or make other efforts to protect her from harassment. The incidents were reported to local police, who found insufficient legal evidence to charge the harasser with sexual assault. 

Like most United Methodist annual conferences in the United States, North Texas has a “zero tolerance” policy toward sexual harassment in churches. Yet in this instance, the policy appears to have been applied toward the victim, Rev. Blair-Lavallais, by moving her to a different appointment, rather than confronting the male church member who was harassing her. Was Bishop McKee aware of Rev. Blair-Lavallais’ allegations that Rev. Lewis did little to protect her from continued sexual harassment before Rev. Lewis was appointed to the conference staff? Was it sufficient that Rev. Lewis wasn’t the harasser of Rev. Blair-Lavallais?

What role, if any, did Rev. Blair-Lavallais’ race play in both the incidents and the investigation? By her own account, the clergywoman was threatened by a “six-foot-tall white man” against whom she, as a less physically imposing black woman, felt unable to defend.

What’s more, the clergywoman’s account and the manner of its exposure during annual conference revealed continuing racial tensions in the North Texas Conference. This was evident in the June 6 confrontation, as Rev. Blair-Lavallais and her supporters expressed the issue as one of racial and gender justice, while church leaders framed the issue as one of administrative process.

Amid these complexities, one thing is clear: Rev. Blair-Lavallais and her supporters felt North Texas Conference officials failed to recognize the clergywoman's treatment as an injustice. That’s why she turned to public media to tell her story, and why her supporters sought to be heard by clergy and lay members of the annual conference. Those perceptions of injustice are where future discussions of the matter should start, because the possibility of an injustice having occurred – and the need to redress it – are things we all should know.