Power Abuse Causes Tears and Trauma in New Jersey United Methodism and Beyond

Rev. Beth Caulfield is an ordained Elder in the Global Methodist Church. She also spent eight years as a United Methodist clergy. She is the President of the Greater New Jersey Chapter of the Wesleyan Covenant Association, a member of its Global Council and one of the 16 members of the Next Steps Working Group that put together the first draft of the Book of Doctrines and Disciplines for the new denomination. She and her family live in suburban Philadelphia in Gloucester County, NJ. This article recalling Bishop John Schol and power abuse, and responding to his recent claims, concludes a three-part series.

We previously posted Part 1 and then Part 2.

UM Voices is a forum for different voices within the United Methodist Church on pressing issues of denominational and/or social concern. UM Voices contributors represent only themselves and not IRD/UMAction.

In late May of this year, I published my memoir entitled People Throw Rocks At Things That Shine: A Clergy Whistleblower’s Journey. The memoir celebrates my ministry experience but also details power abuses and a toxic culture within the United Methodist Church, especially within the Greater New Jersey Annual Conference under the leadership of Bishop John Schol. My prayer is my public chronicle helps the Church’s light shine brighter by enlightening the uninformed, emboldening the righteous, and rectifying injustice against clergy and other ministry leaders. Within those aims is also the desire to give voice for those who still need healing.

Shortly after the memoir’s publication, I was interviewed by Cynthia Astle, editor of United Methodist Insight. Her article was published in conjunction with a second detailing responses from Schol and members of his staff. I have taken some time to reflect and pray on Bishop Schol’s and his team’s remarks before offering my reply. To be most clear, my answer has been given over a three-part article. This is Part Three.

Power abuse leaves trails of tears, disintegrates trust, and damages ministry. Since I began publishing and publicly discussing the injustices to myself and others in New Jersey five months ago, I have been contacted by countless United Methodists who tell of post-traumatic stress symptoms from their own power-abuse victimhood. Some are wounded from the very events I describe, some have had other unjust experiences with the very leaders I mention, and still more have stories from around the United Methodist world that bear similarities to details I chronicle. They tell of deep sadness, anger, continued triggering of devastating memories, shame, shaken self-esteem, regrets, and damaged faith to themselves and to their families. Some have recovered, some have not. They are United Methodist leaders, both clergy and laity. They are male and female. They come from across the United Methodist theological and ethnic spectrums. Some have left the UMC like me, others have not. Some have left ministry altogether because of their mistreatment.

Bishop Schol and his team’s comments to United Methodist Insight re-open my own wounds as their comments portray my ministry in a poor light. They do so by communicating half-truths and inaccuracies. Specifically, Schol states that, “in the three congregations I appointed her to, there was conflict and requests for an appointment change from the congregation’s leadership and district superintendent,” and “Beth was turned down by the board of ordained ministry for ordination as I recall on a couple of occasions, and as a result, she left The United Methodist Church. I am not privileged to know the circumstances of those decisions.”

First, an important correction. Schol has appointed me to four churches and to an extension ministry as part of his staff over the course of my United Methodist tenure. After publicly recognizing the ministry fruits at my first church appointment (captured in this flattering February 2014 video of his) he then brought me onto his staff where, as records included in my memoir verify, he continued to laud my work through public, private and financial recognition. His comments in the article conveniently neglect these important details and thereby twist and degrade the record of my ministry.

Schol also disregards these significant elements of our history together:

1. I was a member of his staff whose ministry fruits were receiving public attention the first time I went before the board of ordained ministry in March 2016. I faced jealousies by clergy and confusion by some laity regarding the nature of my conference staff ministry as it related to elder orders. It is not uncommon for candidates serving on bishop’s staffs to be turned down because of these reasons. It happens across the denomination.  The day after I received notice, the bishop phoned me personally, at home, on his 60th birthday, March 17, 2016, to console me and encourage me to go before the Board again the next year.
2. During my time on his staff, I developed a close friendship and working relationship with the Rev. Dr. Jisun Kwak, who had been a 2016 episcopal candidate. A significant portion of my memoir chronicles how Schol led a political assassination of her candidacy and ministry. I and supporters of her became targeted by him as well.
3. On December 15, 2016, I was personally threatened by Bishop Schol. He intimidatingly got into my face and sternly told me that my connection with the Rev. Dr. Kwak was a problem between him and I. After that meeting, he very noticeably avoided any eye contact or other interaction with me.
4. In early March 2017, I went before the board of ordained ministry to be examined for full elder orders. At the examination retreat, Schol’s cabinet members were not only present, but also actively involved in my interviews and important discussions about me. The dean of Schol’s cabinet commandeered my theology interview and twisted my remarks. She used a bullying tone and demeanor. I still get nauseous and teary when I think of that interview. As I detail in the book, others who witnesses that interview had similar evaluations of how I was treated. That was not the only time I experienced district superintendents leading candidacy interviews for the board.

Yet this practice is contrary to their district superintendents’ roles as cabinet members. To protect the board’s discernment of candidates from undue influence, many if not most conferences do not have district superintendents participate in candidate interviews, and only a subset of DS’s are to be representatives of the bishop to the board. Yet in New Jersey, all of the bishop’s appointive cabinet participate in the interviews.

When it came time for the board to vote, I was not approved. I shortly thereafter heard from multiple sources that the vote for me had been a clear majority, close to the 2/3 vote requirement for passing, and that deliberations regarding me had taken more than half an hour. Typically, deliberations last less than ten minutes. A concerted effort to thwart my approval was led by the cabinet member who was present for the vote. That the required board confidentiality code was violated to share this information with me attests to the controversy surrounding the outcome. I later attempted to appeal the decision with the board, but was told in writing by the chair that, unlike other conferences, Greater New Jersey has no appeal process. In other words, no one on the board’s executive team was willing to allow me to defend myself against the heavy-handed moves against me by the bishop’s representatives.

5. I immediately engaged a therapist to help me cope with the injustices and resulting depression that I was experiencing.

6. Two weeks later, I was notified of a new appointment as an associate pastor to a large, traditional church. The process according to the Book of Discipline ¶426 requires consultation with both the pastor-parish relations committee and the pastor(s) being considered for new appointments. Yet my new church was blindsided when their long-term associate pastor received a phone call while on vacation telling him of his new appointment elsewhere. It was the associate pastor who then informed the senior pastor of the change. The staff-parish relations committee was then informed by the senior pastor.

This was a church that had recently challenged how he had intervened in the annual conference legislative process to help push the annual conference to pass a resolution in 2015 to petition General Conference regarding human sexuality. A question of retaliation from the bishop was raised within the church because of the sudden appointment change and how it was handled. A great resentment regarding the change resulted. Illustrating this point is that more than a month before my new appointment even began, I was informed by the senior pastor that twenty families had already left the church because of my imminent replacement of my predecessor. Therefore, without proper consultation the church’s, the senior pastor’s and my ministry were all undermined, before my ministry there could even start. Undermining the ministry of a pastor is a chargeable offense for bishops according to the United Methodist Church, Book of Discipline ¶ 2702.1(f).

7. Despite the hurt feelings regarding the wrongfully handled change, we engaged in some great ministry together. It is true that the church requested for my appointment to end, but there was much pain involved that led to that decision, including for me. I had begun seeing a therapist a second time during the appointment to deal with the trauma I was experiencing. I also engaged a spiritual director and coach for personal help.

8. The bishop’s assistant told United Methodist Insight that Bishop Schol offered me “paid leave to ease the anxiety of transition.” This is not true. When I agreed to an appointment change, I first requested another local church appointment. I was told there was not one available within an hour of my home. I then, in writing, requested a paid leave of absence to “take intentional time to study issues related to my experience as a female clergy… Perhaps at some point I could develop resources related to the common challenges we face. Perhaps I could work in some way with COSROW or other relevant entities.” Within five hours my request was denied. I was told my only option was a six-month, unpaid leave of absence, which I took. Because an immediate appointment change was agreed to, the local church carried my salary for six weeks after my departure, but that was it.

9. Subsequent appointments I received were also fraught with ready-made challenges and coincided with my rise as a Wesleyan Covenant Association leader. Bishop Schol has actively opposed the WCA, an organization during that time chartered to connect Spirit-filled, orthodox churches, clergy, and laity who hold to Wesleyan theology. In essence, rather than receiving appointments that better met my gifts, I was put in already known hardship situations. The experiences were detrimental to myself and my family.

I spent eight years enduring power abuse within the United Methodist Church and am still recovering from the resulting trauma. Wade Mullen states in his book Something’s Not Right: Decoding the Hidden Tactics of Abuse – And freeing Yourself from Its Power, that “a question every deceptive abuser despises [is] What is true?… Freedom from trauma, therefore, requires truth and empowerment” (p. 65). I am setting the record straight through my memoir and this rejoinder to Schol and his team’s comments to finalize my freedom and embolden others to do the same.