Unfortunately United Methodism is buzzing about an April 29 appeal committee verdict which overturned the December trial court conviction of Beth Stroud. Stroud had acknowledged being in a lesbian relationship with another woman.
We want to say, first of all, to those who are concerned about this appeals court action, that it is sure to be over-ruled by the Judicial Council when it next meets. That is our prediction. We believe this very questionable action will not stand.
Brief History of Stroud Case
The matter all began in 2003 when Stroud, an associate pastor at First United Methodist Church, Germantown, PA, announced to her bishop and congregation that she was living in a committed relationship with her partner, Chris Paige. After several unsuccessful attempts at resolving the matter, Bishop Peter Weaver, then bishop in Eastern Pennsylvania, filed a complaint against Stroud, which led to the trial.
On December 2, at the church trial, Beth Stroud was found guilty for being a practicing lesbian. The trial court ruled (by a 12-1 vote) she was in violation of church law which forbids the ordination and appointment of "self-avowed practicing homosexuals." In the penalty phase, the court voted 7-6 to remove her clergy credentials.
About the Appeal Committee Ruling
First, we are not surprised that Beth Stroud appealed the decision. She had that right to appeal. Her counsel at the trial had issues about our church law that he wanted to present but was not allowed, properly we believe, to do so by the presiding judge. These matters have now been brought as examples of "legal errors" in the trial itself.
The appeal committee did admit that "the evidence in support of the charge [against Stroud] was overwhelming and would be sustained in the absence of legal error." In other words, there was no doubt that Beth was in a same-sex relationship. She publicly admitted it. And that is expressly forbidden by United Methodist church law. Thus, the only hope to overturn the guilty verdict, which had been unpopular among some in the liberal Northeastern Jurisdiction, was to find some "legal error" in the trial.
Second, the two "legal errors" the appeals committee cited were such a stretch as to be almost funny. The first error claimed that "neither the General Conference nor the pertinent annual conference has defined the words, 'practicing homosexual' and 'status.'" That was claimed, notwithstanding the fact that the Discipline has had a definition for "self-avowed practicing homosexual" since 1996. That definition can be found as footnote 1 at the bottom of page 197 of the 2004 Discipline. The committee seems to have argued that what is defined is "self-avowed" and not "practicing homosexual." This is utterly non-persuasive.
The second claim of supposed error is an even greater stretch and almost amusing if it were not about such a serious matter. The committee claimed that by trying and convicting Stroud on the basis of Par. 304.3 ( the paragraph in the Discipline that prohibits the ordination and appointment of "self avowed, practicing homosexuals"), the trial court erred because that standard (first passed in 1984) constitutes a "new standard or rule of doctrine" and thus violates the First Restrictive Rule of the Discipline. (That claim is simply laughable!)
The First Restrictive Rule and UM Doctrinal Standards
The First Restrictive Rule is found in Par. 17 of the 2004 Discipline and says, "The General Conference shall not revoke, alter, or change our Articles of Religion or establish any new standards or rules of doctrine contrary to our present existing and established standards of doctrine."
So let's think carefully here. Paragraph 102, "Our Doctrinal History," states clearly on page 58 that our doctrinal standards are understood to include the Articles of Religion, the Confession of Faith (from the EUB tradition), and Wesley's Sermons and Notes. United Methodism has never understood the many specific requirements for ordained ministry to be a part of our doctrinal standards. Paragraph 304, "Qualifications for Ordination" includes many different requirements for ordained ministry. Again, these have never been, nor should they be, considered part of our "Doctrinal Standards" which are protected by the First Restrictive Rule. Again, such a claim is just laughable.
Growing Impatience with Judicial Activism
One thinks of the way we have dealt with issues nationally in the last 30-40 years. Issues that have not been voted on by duly elected legislators, at both the state and national level, have been advocated and passed by judges and courts. The judiciary has been doing legislation. We are seeing a similar pattern in the church, it appears. The United Methodist Church has never been clearer about its standards on issues related to human sexuality. However, those who cannot or will not affirm those standards continue to seek every means to further their agenda and challenge the church's standards. There is considerable indication that others across the church are losing patience with these attempts to do juridical end runs around church law.
Good News was not surprised with the Appeal Committee ruling. As we looked at the make-up on the committee, we noted that the Rev. William Scott Campbell was serving as its chairman. We felt this committee could well be a body that was not supportive of the church's standards. Campbell is pastor of Harvard-Epworth United Methodist Church in Cambridge, Massachusetts, a church which is listed on the Reconciling Ministries Network as a "Reconciling Congregation." Such congregations disagree with the church's standards on homosexuality and affirm full participation of gays and lesbians at every level of church life. Campbell also has been an outspoken critic of the church's standards on the sexuality issue. Having Campbell serving as chairman of the appeals committee will not leave United Methodists feeling confident about the ruling the committee made.
Bishops Make Statement
The Executive Committee of the Council of Bishops has issued a statement reminding the church that the reversal of the Stroud trial was based upon "some technicalities." They went on to assure the church that "The decision of the Northeastern Jurisdiction Committee on Appeals does not in any way reverse the standards in our Book of Discipline. In fact, the appeal process is an important part of our Book of Discipline." At the same time, I hope the members of the Council realize the kind of collateral damage that's done each time one of these "public" events happens. It is costing the United Methodist Church in terms of members, money, and morale. The media will always give major play to events such as the Appeals Committee overturning the trial court. But when (as we expect) the Judicial Council overrules that action and sustains the original guilty verdict of the trial court, the media will not give it nearly the same prominence. And once again, thousands of United Methodists will be left thinking their church cannot enforce its standards on this issue.
Finally, all of this reflects why it has been so strategic to have 1) clear standards on this issue; and 2) a solid Judicial Council in place to deal with these kinds of issues.
James V. Heidinger II
President and Publisher