Defrocking of Beth Stroud

You can find the story covered in the Washington Post, as well as Reuters and other news agencies. Beth Stroud was officially defrocked today by the highest judicial council in the Methodist Church.

I'm all for religious bodies being able to discriminate within their own set of ideological principles. I may think the interpretation of their scriptures is right or wrong, but ultimately one chooses to be a member of a religious group and abide by their rules.

So I, as an outsider, may criticize their beliefs, but it does not directly impact me. So why am I ranting? The United Methodist Church has, by its own statements, specifically one released in 1996 and re-released in 2004, come out against discrimination against LGBT persons.

They recently disciplined a pastor who would not admit a gay man as a member of his church. Yet they have an entirely different perspective when it comes to practicing non-discrimination in their church hierarchy. Against many conservative Christian interpretations of scripture, the UMC allows women as pastors. They have historically led social activism on behalf of racial and ethnic minorities. As a Protestant church formed by John Wesley, the UMC doesn't have a priesthood like the Catholic or Episcopal churches do.

And yet, on this one issue, pastors in the UMC are held to entirely different standards than the congregations they serve. I'm not a student of church history, having only read enough to get me through part of my MDiv. Nor am I a Methodist. So my understanding may not be entirely accurate. Still, based on what the UMC presents in its own documents, this decision seems to be clearly incongruent with the rest of their beliefs.

The practice of faith is not an excuse for inconsistency. It would seem, by the church's own admission, that they hold members such as Beth Stroud in very low esteem. From the document entitled "The Rights of All Persons" originally published by the United Methodist Church in 1996:

The rights and privileges a society bestows upon or withholds from those who comprise it indicate the relative esteem in which that society holds particular persons and groups of persons. We affirm all persons as equally valuable in the sight of God. We therefore work toward societies in which each person's value is recognized, maintained, and strengthened.

In the Judicial Council's Decision, the rationale for their decision to defrock Stroud was primarily in agreeing that she had not been deprived of due process. Secondarily, they mention the concerns of Stroud that the church's policies are discriminatory:

No provision of the Discipline bars a person with a same-sex orientation from the ordained ministry of The United Methodist Church. Rather ¶ 304.3 is directed towards those persons who practice that same-sex orientation by engaging in prohibited sexual activity. Likewise, persons who have a heterosexual orientation who practice that orientation in prohibited ways – by not practicing fidelity in marriage and celibacy in singleness as required by ¶ 304.2 – are subject to chargeable offenses. Regulation of practice does not violate the “status” provisions of the Constitution.

The UMC is distinguishing between orientation and practice. Like the Catholic Church, which is apparently going to exclude potential gay-oriented candidates to the priesthood who cannot demonstrate that they have been celibate for 3 years, the UMC wishes for their pastors to be either celibate or married to someone of the opposite sex. Engaging in same-sex sexual activity within a committed partnership is equated to being unfaithful to a spouse, or being promiscuous while single.

Interestingly, this distinction is the very reason that the pastor recently disciplined by the Methodist Church would not allow a gay man to become a member. Said Pastor Johnson's legal counsel:

Pastor Johnson was not drawing a line at a homosexual person, but at homosexual practice, which we think is an important distinction," he said in a telephone interview. "The first vow in taking membership in the United Methodist Church is to renounce the spiritual forces of wickedness and repent of your sins. The pastor felt that the person was not able to take that vow, because he did not honestly acknowledge that his practice was a sin.

In response to this argument, the district superintendent over Johnson said "The theme of our church for five years now has been 'Open Hearts. Open Minds. Open Doors.' The issue here is, 'Are we really open or not?'" According to the Washington Post article, the vote to remove Johnson was 581 to 20. At least at the district level, a majority of Methodists dismiss the argument distinguishing between homosexual orientation and practice, implicitly accepting same-sex relationships as a legitimate expression of human sexuality.

Sadly, though, the original ruling in Johnson's case has been reversed by the same Judicial Council that defrocked Stroud. It hasn't been in the news as widely as Stroud, but what follows is an excerpt from their decision:

...a pastor-in-charge cannot be ordered by the district superintendent or bishop to admit into membership a person deemed not ready or able to meet the requirements of the vows of church membership of The United Methodist Church. The appointed pastor in charge has the duty and responsibility to exercise responsible pastoral judgment in determining who may be received into the membership of a local church.

At least the church is being consistent at the highest levels of church government. My question is, when will the entire church unite behind this conclusion, split, or have the theological debate necessary to move the discussion from technicalities of church law to the spirit of Christian faith?

Comments

[Alan]

If only people would follow the law of love as closely as they love the law.

[NancyP]

Too bad about both rulings.

As for the pastor refusing membership, clearly the whole membership ought to take a hike to some other congregation - on the basis of "church shouldn't be a museum of saints, but a hospital for sinners". Heck, if W. can be a Methodist, ANYONE should be let in. Some guy schtupping another guy didn't start a war on false pretenses, after all.

I hope Stroud eventually migrates to UCC or MCC.

[ck]

Nancy,
Yes, I agree about the museum/hospital analogy--but what is at issue is whether homosexual activity is a sin to be repented of. If someone wants to obtain membership at a church and is openly, say, stealing lottery tickets each week, then it's legitimate for the pastor to say, "This is a time for you to repent openly." Likewise with adultery.

The parallel breaks down if same-sex relations are not sinful.

1) If the relationship is outside a committed partnership, then equal repentence should be sought for heterosexual non-celibacy outside of marriage. This is not the case, I would argue.
2) If the relationship is inside a committed partnership, then repentance shouldn't be a question--any more than it would be for heterosexual married couples.

As far as Stroud migrating--she's got a job as a lay pastor at the church, they are very supportive of her, and I think she'll want to fight this one from the inside. They haven't excommunicated her, after all--and this is the denomination she said feels like her home.

[Brian]

Closed minds.
Closed hearts.
Closed doors.

[John G]

The Methodist court was being consistent with the current laws of the UMC. Beth Stroud and friends were trying to finese their way through them and create loopholes.

The true path for change is to work on the ground, as Beth will be doing now. Leaving the UMC completely would waste a great opportunity to advocate for change. Leaving a particularly bigoted congregation, however, makes a lot of sense.

[NancyP]

Another fine example of my not communicating clearly. I don't think that the potential member is a sinner because of a committed relationship to a same-sex partner - only that by definition everyone has some sins of commission or omission, and will continue to commit sins of one sort or another until the day they die, even if they manage to get rid of the big sins. So, what's the big deal about admitting sinners to church? It doesn't mean the pastor can't advise the person to change. (And it doesn't mean that the person won't take a hike to some other church if what the pastor says doesn't ring true to their own understanding).

[ck]

Nancy--Gotcha. Sorry I misunderstood. I think that the theological reason for not admitting "unrepentant sinners" to a church is that their lack of repentance is evidence that they are unregenerate, and not truly Christians.

As I said, I'm not up on my Methodist theology, so I don't know exactly how they fence the table and define regenerate Christians--but that is the supposed reason.

You're right, however, about the double standard. I doubt (though I may be wrong) that a divorced heterosexual who is not trying to reunite with their spouse would be considered unrepentant--yet the strict reading of Christ's words on divorce is that it is only allowable for adultery, and even then, not the first option.

Thanks for clarifying, NancyP!

[Jessica]

Thats to bad I hope she turn out .ok. after al this is iver.

[Donna Rowe]

Here's a what-if question for anyone familiar with current Methodist theology.

If a lesbian minister in a state which permits civil union married her partner, if said minister committed herself to her partner in heart, soul and body, and THEN engaged in sexual activity with her partner, as heterosexual married couples do, would she be living in sin?

What I'm hearing is that a gay sexual orientation isn't a sin in the same sense that a desire to lie, cheat or steal isn't a sin. As long as you don't do it, then it isn't a sin.

If they do what straight people do, and it is considered a sin if they do it but not if a straight married couple does it, then how is that acceptance of GBLT people? Reverend Beth Stroud and Chris Paige do not have the same right to have their loving, *committed* relationship respected as holy as heterosexual couples do.

Of course, the UMC has the same right as any church to set down moral principles for its congregants, but please don't pretend that gays are truly accepted in the Methodist Church, because they're not.

P.S. I spent most of my youth and young adulthood thinking of myself as United Methodist, although I never officially joined, because that is the denomination in which I was raised. I'm not slamming the denomination. I have very warm feelings for the Methodists; it was a wonderful church in which to be raised. I'm just disappointed, is all.