Why Foundry Church loves Frank Schaefer

Pastor Frank Schaefer and the Foundry choir

We had scheduled Pastor Frank Schaefer to preach here at Foundry Church on Jan. 26, 2014, but when I heard that his ministerial credentials had been taken away from him in a 20-minute meeting of the Board of Ordained Ministry of his conference last Thursday, Dec. 19, I immediately called him and invited him to preach at Foundry the very next Sunday, Dec. 22. (Watch the service
here.)

I can only imagine what it must feel like to be defrocked. In fact, Frank admitted that even though he had tried to prepare himself, it was a harsh blow when it actually happened. I wanted Frank to be in a friendly, supportive place after the shock he must have experienced.

Foundry Church reflects the neighborhood in which we are located. On a normal Sunday a fourth to a third of our congregation are openly LGBTQ people. The Sunday Frank spoke, the percentage was probably higher.

In case there were people in the congregation who didn't know the story, I was trying to explain what had happened to Frank. Frank was put on trial for conducting his son's same-sex wedding, yes. But if he had promised never to do another wedding, he would not have lost his credentials. Yet, promising never to do another same-sex wedding would have been like admitting he was wrong to do his son's wedding, wouldn't it? 

The way I finally explained it was to say that Frank was defrocked for refusing to repent of doing his son's same-sex wedding.

As soon as I'd spoken those words, applause began in the congregation. It grew and grew. Soon everyone was on their feet and the applause would not stop. It would not stop.

The admiration and love for Frank in the Foundry sanctuary was like the Day of Pentecost. I know no other adequate comparison.

After the service I began to get some idea of why the congregation responded the way it did.

One person who had experienced a gender transition years ago told about his family never speaking to him again. Never ever.

Another person told of being cut off by family after coming out.

I got an email from someone who had finally found a partner after many years. He has spent every Christmas of his life with his family. His family told him that he had to choose between them and his partner. Either come to Christmas alone or do not come home, they said.

Another shared the pain of family members refusing to come to their weddings. Another told of parents refusing to invite them to their churches when they are visiting home because someone might figure out they are gay and the parents would be embarrassed.

The stories of rejection are heartbreaking. 

Many families love their LGBTQ family members. I do not mean to suggest the majority of families are rejecting. Thank God for PFLAG!

Nonetheless, members of the LGBTQ community have experienced enough familial rejection that at Foundry Church last Sunday their admiration and love for a father who chose his gay son over obedience to some of the rules of the church was overwhelming. The love of those of us who are straight but have LGBTQ friends and know the pain of their stories was overwhelming  

Foundry Church loves Frank Schaefer because he prioritized the covenant of family over other covenants.

You see, once you have done the wedding for your gay son, all gay people become your sons and daughters.You can not promise to turn them away, not even to save your ordination.

If we had the mind and heart of Christ, we would know that all LGBTQ people are part of our family.

Our United Methodist Book of Discipline says: "We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends." (BOD ¶161.F) Yet, other statements and prohibitions in the Book of Discipline feed and legitimize this very rejection and condemnation.

I know those with positions of authority and responsibility within the United Methodist Church are struggling to know how to lead these days. A bishop I highly respect --Bishop Ken Carter of Florida-- has written recently about how difficult it is to lead both continuity and change. His thoughtfulness is profound.

But finally he casts the position he is in as a bishop in terms of this quote from one of my teachers Rabbi Ed Friedman: “Those who wish to disrupt leadership will always frame the problem in terms of liberty and order, while those in positions of leadership will always see the problem as one of order and chaos.” (A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix)

A district superintendent I also highly respect --the Rev. Sky McCracken-- begins with Bishop Carter's point and goes even further. He says:

People like the Book of Discipline and our covenant... when it suits their needs. When we disagree with it, we don't like it. Yet the nature of covenant is not to be selective, but to be faithful to it. Even when we disagree with it. Should we disagree, we fight to change it. Sometimes we win those fights. Sometimes we lose. That's when our trust in God is tested. When we decide to pick and choose, the covenant falls apart. There is no glue left.

He adds:

In a covenant community, our personal opinions are trumped by the covenant community we choose to live in. Until we choose to be autonomous congregations (or conferences, or jurisdictions), we have to agree to a covenant and honor it. If we want personal liberty to rule, we need to quit being a connectional and covenant church ...

With all sincere due respect, I believe Bishop Carter and DS McCracken misunderstand. This is not about liberty. This is not about a desire to disrupt leadership. This is not about pastors and local congregations casually breaking rules because we want to be free of our obligation to the Book of Discipline or the covenant and order of the United Methodist Church. . 

In a covenant community, our personal opinions are trumped by the covenant community we choose to live in. Until we choose to be autonomous congregations (or conferences, or jurisdictions), we have to agree to a covenant and honor it. If we want personal liberty to rule, we need to quit being a connectional and covenant church - See more at: http://um-insight.net/blogs/sky-mccracken/covenant-and-order-vs.-liberty-and-chaos/page-3.html#sthash.EnRkOlLa.dpufWith all sincere respect, here is where I believe Bishop Carter and DS McCracken get it wrong. What Frank Schaefer did was not about liberty. Foundry Church's ministry is not about liberty. You misapply what Friedman taught here. 

This is about honoring the most fundamental of covenants that transcends all others. This is about the covenant to respect and honor one another as human beings created in the image of God. This is about the covenant between brothers and sisters of the family of God.

This is about what we do when we are asked by rules in a book to look our son or daughter in the eyes and say: "I will not do your wedding because my denominational covenant does not allow me to honor you and your partner's profound love and commitment for one another."

Rabbi Friedman knew that there is a difference between a leader and a manager. It is true that a leader needs to manage but it is also true that a leader is called to lead and not merely manage. A manager merely enforces rules. A leader leads in creating structures and institutions that are faithful to their deepest truths.

This condemnation of and discrimination against LGBTQ people within the Book of Discipline is not United Methodism's deepest truth. 

I believe Rabbi Friedman would tell pastors and local churches to stay focused on who they are and their deepest values, to stay in communication with those who disagree, not to get reactive when they are accused of being disruptive or unfaithful or told to get out, and to keep a sense of humor.

Foundry Church loves Frank Schaefer. He chose his son over one or two of the many rules in the Book of Discipline. In choosing his son he chose all LGBTQ people.

Frank has not become reactive but has stayed in love with the United Methodist Church that took away his ordination, and he has kept a sense of humor.

This is leadership.

Please don't accuse it of being merely an expression of a desire for liberty or an attempt to disrupt leadership. This is an expression of deep faithfulness to the most transcendent covenant.


  

People like the Book of Discipline and our covenant... when it suits their needs. When we disagree with it, we don't like it. Yet the nature of covenant is not to be selective, but to be faithful to it. Even when we disagree with it. Should we disagree, we fight to change it. Sometimes we win those fights. Sometimes we lose. That's when our trust in God is tested. When we decide to pick and choose, the covenant falls apart. There is no glue left. - See more at: http://um-insight.net/blogs/sky-mccracken/covenant-and-order-vs.-liberty-and-chaos/#sthash.8VOLVgyg.dpuf

People like the Book of Discipline and our covenant... when it suits their needs. When we disagree with it, we don't like it. Yet the nature of covenant is not to be selective, but to be faithful to it. Even when we disagree with it. Should we disagree, we fight to change it. Sometimes we win those fights. Sometimes we lose. That's when our trust in God is tested. When we decide to pick and choose, the covenant falls apart. There is no glue left. - See more at: http://um-insight.net/blogs/sky-mccracken/covenant-and-order-vs.-liberty-and-chaos/#sthash.8VOLVgyg.dpuf

Tired of spin: The defrocking of Frank Schaefer

Pastor Frank Schaefer

The jury sentence imposed on Pastor Frank Schaefer was craftily composed.

The jury was not going to punish Pastor Frank. Whatever consequence he suffered would be his own choice.

In effect, the jury's sentence said: We aren't going to punish you; you have to decide if you are going to punish yourself. We aren't going to do anything bad to you; you have to decide if you are going to do something bad to yourself.  

I'm sure it helped the jury members feel better about themselves. You could almost see them washing their hands. 


This spin is articulated in a comment on the Good News Movement's webpage:

The Eastern Pennsylvania Annual Conference must have affirmation that they rendered the correct verdict; as Good News affirms that rendering. They did so with compassion and a time for renewal and deliberation for Rev. Schaefer. His outcome is now at his own discretion and he will own that decision.

The verdict was so well spun that it is hard to believe a professional was not involved in spinning it.

Today the Board of Ordained Ministry of the Eastern Pennsylvania Conference of the United Methodist Church took away Pastor Frank's ordination. The board defrocked him. They terminated his ministry.

Comment found here

But that is not how the board spun it. 

The jury's sentence said that Pastor Frank had 30-days to agree to follow the United Methodist Book of Discipline "in its entirety" or to surrender his credentials. 

Many people urged Pastor Frank to say he would follow the Book of Discipline in its entirety. After all, as  Rev. Andy Bryan has pointed out, to follow some provisions of the Book of Discipline you have to ignore others. Or you need to read them as though consistency does not matter.

To his credit, Pastor Frank refused to go this route. He said plainly that he would not follow rules in the Book of Discipline that discriminate against LGBTQ persons. 

He also said that he would not voluntarily surrender his credentials as the jury's sentence instructed him to do. Three United Methodist bishops contacted him, he said, and urged him not to voluntarily surrender his credentials.

This morning in a meeting with the Board of Ordained Ministry when he refused to surrender his ordination credentials, the board "deemed them surrendered."

United Methodist News Service, the official news service of the United Methodist Church, reported the following statement by Bishop Peggy Johnson of the Philadelphia Episcopal Area:

Johnson said when asked to surrender his credentials, Schaefer refused to do so. The board then deemed his credentials surrendered, she said.

The board did not take away Pastor Frank's credentials. The board did not invalidate Pastor Frank's ordination.The board did not defrock Pastor Frank. The board did not terminate his ministry.

The board didn't do anything to Pastor Frank. The board just "deemed his credentials surrendered."

This is well-done spin. The board did not harm Pastor Frank. The board just deemed that he had done something he did not do. The board deemed, I guess, that he had mystically surrendered his credentials.

It is like someone taking money from your wallet and then deeming that you had given the money to them. 

Pastor Frank has been clear, direct, upfront and self-differentiated. He will not discriminate against LGBT people in his ministry. He will not voluntarily surrender his credentials.

The jury and the Board of Ordained Ministry have done what they have done. They have decided to take away his credentials, to negate his ordination, to end his service as a United Methodist pastor.

Only they have not been willing to say so directly and clearly.

They have tried to spin it.

When I did communications for a living, I used to say that the best spin is the God's honest truth.

I still believe it.

I have a lot of respect for Pastor Frank's honesty and clarity.

The jury and the board ... not so much. 

The Eastern Pennsylvania Annual Conference must have affirmation that they rendered the correct verdict; as Good News affirms that rendering. They did so with compassion and a time for renewal and deliberation for Rev. Schaefer. His outcome is now at his own discretion and he will own that decision. - See more at: http://goodnewsmag.org/2013/11/good-news-response-to-schaefer-trial-verdict/#comment-3115

Pastor Frank Schaefer to preach at Foundry Church

Pastor Frank Schaefer will preach at Foundry on Sunday, Jan. 26, 2014 at 9:30 amnd 11 a.m. with a Q and A session to follow. Everyone is invited!

An interview with Rev. Dr. Cheryl Anderson, author of "Ancient Laws and Contemporary Controversies"

Cheryl B. Anderson teaches Old Testament at Garrett

Q. Dr. Anderson, we are looking forward to you being our special speaker at Foundry for Dr. Martin Luther King Sunday, Jan. 19. Could you summarize for us how literal interpretations of the Bible help legitimize the oppression of women, the poor, racial/ethnic groups, LGBTQ people, and those of other faiths in our world today? 

Dr. Anderson: Basically, literal interpretations reflect the perspectives and realities of a small percentage of the human population—certain privileged white heterosexual men who define what is Christian. As a result, they can focus on doctrines and policies that harm all of these other groups but it doesn’t matter because their position is “the” Christian one. Basically, the harm that results to these other groups can be ignored. 

Q. Why do so many people interpret Scripture based on what you call “textual agency” --the idea that the Bible speaks without needing interpretation-- when such an understanding contributes to their own oppression if they are, for example, women or LGBTQ? What is the attraction?  

Dr. Anderson: Good question. The attraction is that it’s our tradition, it’s what we know. We’ve been told that these readings of Scripture are the only way to read Scripture—and we believe it. We need to learn that any living faith tradition changes over time and it’s consistent with our Christian tradition to change to meet the needs of believers today—especially those that don’t fit the traditional norm based on relatively few privileged white heterosexual men.  

Q. You portray both Jesus and the Apostle Paul as progressives. Why? 

 Dr. Anderson: Both Jesus and Paul rejected or changed some of the traditional religious practices of their day. Unfortunately, as Christians, we tend to think that Jesus and Paul were Christians and that they were rejecting aspects of Judaism. So we mistakenly see this conflict as one of different faiths—Christianity versus Judaism. However, that’s not the case. Both Jesus and Paul were Jews. Their conflict with the Pharisees of their day was a conflict within one faith—Judaism—and the issue was whether to follow the letter (Pharisees) or the spirit of the law (Jesus and Paul). The same is true today where Christians disagree over whether to follow the letter of particular passages (conservatives) versus those who want to emphasize the spirit of those and other passages (progressives).  

Q. Even though you wrote your book with many academic references, you wrote it to be accessible to ordinary Christians in the pews. You advise us to just skip the footnotes unless we really want to pursue something further. What kind of reception has your book and teaching received from the people in the pews?  

Dr. Anderson: When people in the pews understand the concepts in the book, they really like it. Very often I hear that the book helps those of us who are progressive to see the Bible as an ally rather than an enemy. The book, however, explains information that biblical scholars like me often take for granted—for example, that the Bible reflects the perspectives of different writers at different points of time. For those who think that, when Moses came down from Mount Sinai, he didn’t just have the Ten Commandments—but the whole Bible—that kind of information can be a shock. I would hope that readers would see that God’s word to us is always formed to meet the needs in our time and place. We don’t have to be frozen in the past.  

Q. You’ve taught the material in your book in Africa. What kinds of groups have you taught there and how did they respond? 

Dr. Ansderson: I have spent more time in South Africa than any other country in Africa. I’ve spent time with and learning from faculty colleagues who are working on the responses of churches to the HIV and AIDS pandemic. When I work with material from the book in universities and churches, it’s to show that Jesus and Paul changed religious practices to meet the needs of the excluded. In a context where there is stigma and discrimination for those who are HIV positive, that message is welcomed. We need to change traditional church practices to meet the needs of those who are excluded today, such as those who are HIV positive.  

Q. You entered seminary and ordained ministry when you were a member of Foundry. Can you tell us something about your spiritual journey in those days and your sense of call?  

Dr. Anderson: I was a practicing attorney with the federal government then and I knew something was missing. Joining a church filled a void. It’s where I found a loving community and a deeper sense of purpose. Foundry was a perfect fit for me—a church with commitments around both spirituality and social justice. My call into the ordained ministry developed from those commitments I’d seen in The United Methodist Church, in general, and Foundry, in particular. My desire all along has been to share those commitments in broader circles. Over the years, I’ve been extremely proud to be a daughter of Foundry, an example of what Foundry represents. 

***

Read more about Dr. Anderson and her work on biblical studies and the church's response to HIV-AIDS at her website  http://www.cherylbanderson.com/. Find out more about Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary where she teaches at  http://www.garrett.edu/. 

Dr. Anderson will preach at Foundry on Martin Luther King Sunday, January 19, 2014 at 9:30 and 11 a.m. as part of a preaching series "Daughters and Son of Foundry" continuing through June, 2014. 

UMC trials: 8 things bishops control

Hand-carved UMC bishop's crozier

1. The resident bishop selects the counsel for the church. (BOD ¶2704.2.a) A counsel for the church needs only to be a clergyperson in full connection and does not need to be a male clergyperson with anti-inclusive conservative viewpoints. (BOD ¶2713.4) Some bishops argue that no one else will take the assignment. I find this hard to believe. When a bishop has invited me to her or his office, looked me in the eye and asked me to do something for the sake of the good of the church, I have never said no. I am not unusual. If mainstream clergy are turning down a bishop's request, I would question how serious the bishop is about asking. Because the bishop selects the counsel for the church, the bishop should be held accountable for any bigoted or offensive statements the counsel makes during the trial or to the public while filling this role.

2. The resident bishop picks the presiding officer. (BOD ¶2713.2)  The presiding officer must be a bishop but does not need to be a white, male, retired bishop from one of the more conservative jurisdictions of the denomination. He or she does not even need to be a retired bishop and could be a younger bishop more attuned to a younger demographic. The presiding officer makes a lot of crucial decisions about who will be and will not be allowed to testify and what topics can be discussed during the trial. The presiding bishop determines the questions to ask to remove people from the jury. Because the resident bishop selects the presiding officer, he or she should be held responsible for the decisions the presiding officer makes.    

 3. The resident bishop selects the district superintendents who select the jury pool. (BOD ¶2713.3.a) The bishop can ask the cabinet to select people who are mainstream and thoughtful. Clergy who are rigid or fundamentalist do not need to be included in the pool.

4. Even before the trial, at the conclusion of the supervisory response, the resident bishop determines, with the consent of the cabinet, whether or not to dismiss the complaint. (BOD ¶363.1.e) At the very least, any complaint based on a personal grudge or vendetta should be dismissed. The same expectations the United Methodist Church has of civil authority should apply, at a minimum, to church authority: "We reject all misuse of these mechanisms, including their use for the purpose of revenge or for persecution or intimidating those whose race, appearance, lifestyle, economic condition, or beliefs differs from those in authority." (BOD ¶164.H) In fact, the Book of Discipline does not specify the reasons needed for the bishop to dismiss the complaint. [BOD ¶363.1.e(1)] The only requirement is that the bishop have the consent of the cabinet and give the reasons for her or his decision in writing. The complainant having no personal involvement in the activity being complained about or not personally being harmed by it may be adequate reason to dismiss a complaint. 

5. Even before the trial, the resident bishop has the option of including "persons with qualifications and experience in assessment, intervention, or healing" in the supervisory response process in order to avoid a trial. (BOD ¶363.1.b) The bishop has the unilateral authority to choose who these persons will be. Nothing in the Book of Discipline prevents the bishop from informing a complainant that her or his requirements to reach a just resolution are unreasonable. If a complainant refuses to sign "a written statement of resolution"(BOD ¶363.1.c), nothing prevents the bishop from dismissing the complaint with the consent of the cabinet. (BOD ¶363.1.e)

6. Even before a complaint is filed, the resident bishop can shape the continuing education of clergy in the conference. (BOD ¶414 3,5) The bishop can promote education and learning about restorative rather than retributive justice as advocated in the Book of Disciple. (BOD ¶164.H) According to ¶164.H, "Through God's transforming power, restorative justice seeks to repair the damage, right the wrong, and bring healing to all involved, including the victim, the offender, the families, and the community." The bishop can make sure that her or his conference is educated about the principles of restorative justice long before a complaint is filed or a trial is held.

7. Bishops can help advocate for and work for changes in the Book of Discipline so that pastors are not tried for being in full ministry with LGBTQ persons. In fact, this would seem to be part of the mandate given bishops by the Book of Discipline to "interpret the faith evangelically and prophetically"  (BOD ¶414.3) and to lead through "a prophetic commitment to the transformation of the Church and the world. (BOD ¶403.1.d)

8. Finally, bishops can stop saying there is nothing bishops can do.