We are witnessing the end of grace in the church that was
built on a foundation of grace.
If you are a United Methodist, you have almost certainly
heard of Rev. Frank Schaefer. An ordained
elder in The Eastern Pennsylvania Conference of The United Methodist Church, in
2007 he chose to officiate at his son’s same-sex wedding in Massachusetts. As a result, charges were brought against
him, a trial was held and he was suspended for 30 days so that he could
consider whether or not he could promise to uphold the “entire” Discipline of
the church (essentially a promise never to do this again). After 30 days he returned and said that he
could not promise to do so and the Board of Ordained Ministry (BOM) voted to
remove his credentials (the newspapers call this being “defrocked”).
What follows is a weird sort of legal maneuvering. Rev. Schaefer appealed the decision of the BOM
essentially on the grounds that he was punished twice for the same offense, first
a 30 day suspension, and then the removal of his credentials. He won that appeal, and then this week, that
appeal was upheld by the Judicial Council, the church’s highest “court.” The basis of their decision is not really a
cause for celebration or concern on either side. It really does hinge on a technicality and
does nothing at all to change church law.
The Judicial Council upheld Rev. Schaefer’s reinstatement on the grounds
that the original ruling (by the BOM) was poorly written. It did not clearly state that Rev. Schaefer
would lose his credential permanently after the 30 day suspension even though
it was apparent from the beginning that this was their intention.
And so, Rev. Schaefer will have his credentials returned to
him, he will receive his back pay, church law is unchanged, and everything is
the same as before.
Except it isn’t.
Rev. Schaefer might have won, but everyone else lost.
It is reasonably obvious that the Board of Ministry never
intended for the 30 day suspension to be the only punishment. The 30 day suspension was intended as an act
of grace, a second chance, a recognition that we do things for our children
that might be unwise or against the rules, and a chance for Rev. Schaefer to
walk away with his integrity (and his credentials) by admitting that he loved
his son enough to break the rules.
Perhaps it was poorly written, but now it appears that an act
of grace is being punished.
An act of grace is now responsible for undoing the entire
trial.
And so now, even though the poorly written decision was “technically”
responsible, grace will suffer.
In future trials (and I have no doubt that there will be
more) those who make similar rulings will remember the trials and the appeals
of Rev. Schaefer. They will want to
avoid being misinterpreted. They will
want to avoid mistakes. They will want
to avoid being overturned on a technicality.
There will be no recognition that sometimes people make
unwise decisions.
There will be no understanding or sympathy because we love
our children.
There will be no second chances.
We are watching the death of grace.
No matter which side you think is right,
...when we lose grace,
...we all lose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To receive email updates to the Crossfusion blog, click here.