The media attention given to the
ecclesiastical trial in Pennsylvania for United Methodist pastor Frank Schaefer
has a lot of folks confused and concerned.
Rev. Schaefer performed a same
gender wedding ceremony for his son and his partner in 2007, violating the
United Methodist Book of Discipline. A
member of his congregation filed charges against him. A jury of his UM Pennsylvania clergy peers
found him guilty and Rev. Schaefer was given a 30-day suspension and told that
if he can’t
uphold the Book of Discipline in its entirety, he must surrender his
credentials as an ordained clergy of the United Methodist Church. Rev. Schaefer
has publicly stated he will not make such a promise.
Any United Methodist can file
charges against a UM clergy person or Bishop.
If those charges warrant a trial, which is determined by the local
Bishop, trial procedures are carried out within the boundaries of the
Conference in which the clergy serves.
In recent years, a handful of trials across the country relating to the
UM prohibition against the ordination of gays and lesbians, or clergy
participation in same gender weddings has resulted in a variety of outcomes,
from dismissal of charges to suspensions and loss of credentials.
While Rev. Schaefer’s trial and punishment
establishes a precedent, it is regional.
Each geographical Conference is left to work out its own process within
the framework of the Discipline. In other
words, just because Rev. Schaefer was found guilty and defrocked in
Pennsylvania doesn't mean that all other UM clergy in other Conferences will
necessarily meet the same fate for similar violations of the Discipline.
The list of "chargeable
offenses" for UM clergy and Bishops is long, running from fiscal
malfeasance and criminal behavior to interfering with another pastor's
ministry. Rev. Schaefer was charged with
"disobedience to the order and discipline of the UMC" (BoD,
2702.1d). That could include a pastor
refusing to baptize an infant (BoD 216.1) or failing to lead his/her
congregation to pay 100 percent of their Apportionments (BoD 340.2c1(e)); Two-thirds
of pastors in the California-Nevada Conference could be charged with the latter
offense! Chargeable offenses that lead
to trial are very rare; their application in our denomination’s struggle with human
sexuality is quite arbitrary.
This most recent trial coupled
with a complaint filed with the Council of Bishops against retired UM Bishop
Melvin G. Talbert for participating in a same gender wedding celebration in
Alabama says much more about the denomination's majority than the actions of
these pastors.
The “majority” to which I refer is a 60-65 percent voting blocks of
elected delegates to the quadrennial UM General Conference, the governing body
with authority to adopt or amend the rules of the church. Delegations are based on a ratio in
proportion to church membership within each Conference. In other words, at the 2016 General Conference
the California-Nevada Conference with 78,000 members will have 6 voting
delegates. The North George Conference
with 362,000 members will have 22 delegates.
Most North American United Methodists live within a zone bordered by
Dallas-Indianapolis-Washington DC-Atlanta.
Delegates from those Conferences are the core of the “majority" to which I
refer. This majority and the ancillary institutions they support have also
successfully organized the voting delegations from outside of the U.S. (In 2016,
30 percent of all delegates will come from Conferences in Africa) especially on
issues of human sexuality.
Since 1972, the majority has
legislated to the prohibitions for ordination of self-avowed members of the
LGBTQ community and clergy participation in their "holy unions" or
weddings. The language describing human
sexuality in the Book of Discipline reflects the tension within our
denomination with an awkwardly mixed message; describing those in the LGBTQ
community as "no less of sacred worth" than heterosexuals while
living "incompatible to Christian teaching."
The majority use of church trial
to punish pastors violating their prohibitions against the full inclusion of
the LGBTQ community in the life of our church may be some of the last options they
have in a losing battle. Yes, they consistently win General Conference
skirmishes due to their superior numbers and their manipulation of
international delegations. But restoring
to the trial of pastors and the threat to censure retired Bishop Melvin G.
Talbert exposes the emptiness of their doctrinal and theology arguments.
Church trials and threats of
censure are about power and control.
It is hallow to claim the need to
uphold "scriptural authority" or warn against "conforming to the
world" (Romans 12:2) as secular society and the young rapidly accept non-heterosexuals as full citizens. For
example, the teachings of Jesus are unambiguous that divorce is akin to adultery,
a capital offense and abomination
(Matthew 5:23, 19:9 note Genesis 2:24, Ezekiel 22:11). Yet taken in their historical context, our
denomination long ago accepted the full participation of the divorced in the
life of the church. In a secular society
with a 50% divorce rate, we ordain divorced clergy and commission divorced Bishops. Clergy who confess to adultery and are
willing to work successfully through its’ consequences under the supervision of a Bishop while
suspended can eventually return to active ministry. Yet often based on the very same biblical
verses, the majority will insist that marriage is only to be considered between
one man and one women or that the "abomination" of homosexuality is
incompatible with Christian life while going through a divorce can be.
Today's argument from the “majority” is that as clergy and
Bishops openly violate the Book of Discipline's prohibitions, they break the
covenant taken in their ordination vows to "uphold the order and
discipline of the church." They
argue that having failed to change the rules within the proscribed process of the
General Conference, the minority now disregards our ecclesiastical democracy.
They are absolutely right.
For example, at the induction of a
military officer, vows are taken to uphold and defend the U.S Constitution
against all enemies. They also promise to obey the orders of military superiors
in a chain of command that reaches to the Commander in Chief, the
President. However, tested in military
and civil courts throughout our history, that vow cannot nor must not allow our
soldiers to follow illegal or immoral orders.
A soldier’s first
commitment is to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. That doesn't allow for the mass murder of
civilians at Mai Lai village Vietnam (1968) or the summary execution of an
Iraqi family in Fallujah (2004).
Soldiers fulfill their primary vow by disobeying illegal or immoral
orders from a superior as difficult and contextually limited as that may be.
The minority has the duty to
"uphold the order and discipline of the UMC" by acts of
"biblical obedience" to call the larger church to accountability to
its injustice. Those in the minority are
willing to face the consequences of their actions to redeem the church we love.
It is dishonest and dishonorable
to insist that openly homosexual people are disqualified from ordination when
thousands have served and are serving as clergy, even as Bishops, as long as
they hide their sexual orientation. The discriminatory language suggesting that
anyone's sexual orientation makes them "incompatible" with Christian
teaching is based on the most arbitrary and capricious hermeneutic and ignores
the latest science of human sexuality.
Former debates over slavery and
women's rights warned of the dangers of "conforming to the world"
when the church was confronted with society's advances in human rights. Northern European cultures and its younger
generations are rapidly changing in attitude and understanding of sexual
orientation. Sixteen states and the
District of Columbia now offer legal marriage licenses to same gender couples
and the world has not come to an end.
Might the church listen and learn from this sweeping social change
rather than erect its narrow walls in defense?
Thousands can see through the
emptiness of our denomination's tag line..."Open Doors, Open Minds, Open
Hearts." The hypocrisy and empty
dogma of our denomination's majority is blatantly exposed as they defrock a
father who wanted to participate in his son's celebration of love and
commitment, or by censoring a distinguished Bishop's act of conscience, a
Bishop who as a young man marched along side of and slept on the floors of
jailhouses with Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who served as president of
the National Council of Churches and Ecumenical officer of the UMC to the World
Council of Churches.
Yes, the majority can win votes at
General Conference, but those are hollow victories as our North American
denomination continues to decline in numbers of members, worship attendance and
financial resource. The minority cannot
and will not stop its "biblical obedience" protest. It is our duty to disobey the rules and break
the covenant when our majority brothers and sisters insist that we acquiesce to
their injustice.
Twenty, forty, sixty years from
now a United Methodist General Conference will hold a repentance and
reconciliation worship service for the way we as a church excluded the LGBTQ
community from full participation. The
names of Rev. Frank Schaefer, and Bishop Melvin Talbert, Rev. Jimmy Creche and
Bishop Mel Wheatly among many others will be lifted up with praise and
thanksgiving.
Many in the majority know that day
is coming. All they have left is to
exert power and control. I would expect
that there are more trials to come and that the consequences shall become harsher.
That just may be the price to pay
to redeem the church we love.