We have reported earlier on how former United Methodist pastor Frank Schaefer was defrocked late last year for his refusal to honor the denomination’s prohibition of by blessing same-sex unions. This alignment with clear biblical and historic Christian teaching is designed to prevent United Methodist ministers from causing great pastoral harm by enabling and encouraging self-destructive sin.
It is worth remembering how throughout his costly, drawn-out saga, Mr. Schaefer had opportunities to resolve the issue in a more amicable way, but instead chose to insist kept insisting on the path that would inflict more pain on the church. It is also worth remembering reports of how Schaefer drove out at least half of the members of his former congregation and provoked the painful rupturing of longstanding friendships in the church. Yet, oddly, this track record has in no way dampened the enthusiasm with which “progressive” United Methodists leaders and caucuses have celebrated Schaefer as the sort of shepherd our churches supposedly need.
Now Schaefer is insisting on continuing to further drain as much United Methodist resources away from life-changing Christian ministry as possible. He is appealing to the Northeastern Jurisdiction Committee on Appeals in apparent hopes that they will effectively abuse their authority to nullify church law. Schaefer tried and failed to persuade the jury of his Eastern Pennsylvania clergy peers to do this. According to ¶2716.4 of the UMC’s governing Discipline, the costs for this committee hearing Schaefer’s case on June 20 must be imposed on the Eastern Pennsylvania Annual Conference and the Northeastern Jurisdiction.
As the United Methodist News Service (UMNS) reports:
Appeals in The United Methodist Church are not automatically heard. An appeal has to be made within 30 days and be within the jurisdiction of the appeals committee.
Under church law, the appeals committee can consider only two questions:
Does the weight of evidence sustain the charges?
Were there errors of church law “as to vitiate the verdict and/or the penalty?”
The appeals committee, by majority vote, has the authority to sustain the findings, reverse the penalty in whole or in part or remand the case to a new trial. It does not hear witnesses.
An appeal of the committee’s decision could go on to the Judicial Council, the denomination’s top court.
According to a provision in ¶2716.1 apparently intended to protect the process from conflicts of interest, the four committee members from Schaefer’s former episcopal area must recuse themselves from the case.
However, the committee president, Ms. Jen Ihlo of the Baltimore-Washington Conference, is a lesbian activist who has urged loosening the UMC’s biblical standards for sexual self-control and has been heavily involved in the Reconciling Ministries Network (RMN), even co-founding its regional chapter in her annual conference.
Given how RMN has so strongly pushed church leaders to abuse such positions by refusing to honor our denomination’s rules, and how Ihlo has presented sexual liberalization as a cause in which she is deeply personally invested, will she also recuse herself from the case to ensure trust in the integrity of the process?
According to UMNS, Ihlo “said the appeals committee will perform its work in accordance with the Book of Discipline, the denomination’s law book.”
Several years ago, it was this same committee, hearing another case from the same Eastern Pennsylvania Annual Conference, which overturned the conviction of homosexually active minister Beth Stroud. Such a trust-breaking refusal to uphold the church law they were tasked with upholding was rather predictable given how the appeals committee was then chaired by the Rev. Scot Campbell, a notable “reconciling” activist, who apparently had no qualms about using his position to impose his personal views over the church’s standards. (That appeals committee decision was ultimately reversed by the Judicial Council, so that Stroud’s defrocking remained in place.)
Can Ms. Ihlo be trusted to operate with a greater level of integrity?
Comment by cleareyedtruthmeister on March 21, 2014 at 9:39 am
Kangaroo court? Even the kangaroos are blushing. What a farce.
Comment by Donnie on March 21, 2014 at 9:59 am
It would be so much easier to completely disbar them once they’ve performed a gay “wedding.” They’re immediately fired, any future benefits they have are null and void and sue them for any benefits they’ve already received. This will take care of the problem immediately.
Comment by Holly Boardman on March 22, 2014 at 9:18 am
“Disbar”? Why use such legal jargon? Wouldn’t “excommunicate” be better?
Oh wait…we have an “open table”. I am seriously inclined to rethink this part of our theology. Early Methodists required people to have a ticket to indicate that they were active in their Methodist small group in order to receive Holy Communion. John Wesley denied to serve Sophy Hopky communion after she married (another) man without the bans being properly issued. We have this wonderful tradition we could turn to if we wanted to.
Comment by Xnihilo on March 21, 2014 at 10:45 am
I don’t get it. I’m not a Methodist,but all the pro-homosexuality types have to do is swing by the closest high church Episcopalian joint and sign up. Back to the mother ship and evangelicals, providing they’re homosexual-friendly, are so, so welcome. Just ask Gene Robinson.
Comment by John Smith on March 24, 2014 at 6:11 am
The LGBTQ lobby is not seeking spiritual services, advice or help for itself. It has, after all, already reached a state of enlightened perfection. Their goal is to help everybody else arrive at the same place as them. As they gain power and influence they start to more closely reflect the inquisition than a lobbying group.
Comment by Pudentiana on March 21, 2014 at 5:44 pm
As the initial trial of Frank was filled with rainbow groupies, this one should have traditionalist draped in white by the dozens.
Comment by Jeffrey on March 22, 2014 at 10:39 am
is this the same Jen Ihlo that is a attorney for the dept. of justice?
Comment by Fr Ken on March 22, 2014 at 2:31 pm
Unless you want the wheels to come off the apple cart, and trust me, they’re getting wobbly, look for successful examples where this type of attack has been pushed back. Defrocking this man and then allowing him to remain and agitate is not the answer. EX COMMUNICATE HIM. If others persist with these attacks, EXCOMMUNICATE THEM. It works, is biblical, PASTORAL, and the people cry out for resolute action. If not, let the zombies over the fence, and invite them to bite you (gotta be welcoming don’t you know) After all, it worked in the Episcopal Church, the canary in the post-Christian coal mine.
Comment by Bob on March 22, 2014 at 2:32 pm
Sounds like the fox guarding the hen
house to me.
Comment by Jeff Allen on March 22, 2014 at 5:36 pm
It makes no sense. I get a visit yesterday from the Assistant D.S. because I tell the truth (on BarbWire.com) about homosexuality and the militant activist who are destroying the freedoms of religion, speech, assembly, press, conscience, parental rights…not to mention ripping apart every denomination that they can.
I’m told that they don’t like the tone of my message. I bet when Jesus turned over the tables, pulled out the whip, and set the animals scurrying throughout the Temple, nobody felt all warm and fuzzy either.
But if I were to break my vows to the UM Church, violate the Bible, and preach lies…everything is just peachy!
Comment by franklin thompson on March 30, 2014 at 10:21 pm
seriously, as a life-long eub/methodist (i’m 85) i believe that the united methodist church absolutely should not put up with any deviation from church law. our beloved church is full of hypocrisy as evidenced by those in high authority, namely some of our bishops.