The
Church Chooses Legalism
A
Response to the Trial of the Rev. Irene Elizabeth Stroud
by Kathryn J. Johnson, Executive Director
Methodist Federation for Social Action
December
2, 2004
In the eyes
of the world it is not so much the Rev. Irene Elizabeth (Beth) Stroud
who has been on trial this week as it has been
the United Methodist Church. And we, the church, have been
found guilty of choosing legalism over the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
As the trial unfolded over two days, everyone agreed, defense
and prosecution alike, that Beth Stroud is a woman of deep integrity,
a gifted pastor, clearly called to ordained ministry.
In his opening statement the prosecutor described her as
a good person and a good pastor. Witnesses, including the Bishop who
brought charges against her, described her as grace-filled, kind, loving
and compassionate.
Witnesses for the defense including Bishop John Schol
who had served with her as a colleague described Beth as a person
of great integrity, a profound preacher, a pastor who
had
a special gift for offering
God’s grace to her parishioners through the sacraments.
Repeatedly the prosecution interrupted proceedings to
say that they were in total agreement as to Beth’s character and call
to ministry. There was no one, no one, who said Beth’s ministry
has been anything other than exceptional.
What is it then that was at issue? The entire case against
Beth Stroud was held together by the thin thread of legalism. Within
the 721 pages that constitute the United Methodist Book of Discipline Beth was charged with violating one provision. She readily admits having
done so and not one person has come forward to suggest that it has diminished
her ministry one iota. She herself says that being honest about her God-given
sexual orientation has enabled her to be more effective in ministry.
The prosecution based its case on the contention that Beth
has violated the covenant she entered into upon ordination, a covenant
articulated in the United Methodist Book of Discipline. By in large there
is overwhelming agreement across the church as to the meaning of this
covenant. Throughout the course of this trial everyone agreed, that with
one exception, Beth has not only honored this covenant but has served
as a spirit-filled role model for parishioners, colleagues and Bishops
in living out this covenant.
What is it then that she is accused of violating? It
is the prohibition against being both ordained and a “practicing” homosexual.
This is arguably the provision in the Discipline around
which there is the broadest disagreement. Clearly the church is
not of one mind on issues
related to homosexuality.
The jury was given clear instructions as to what they were
to consider. They were to limit their deliberations to this one provision
and to look no further. The jury evidently accepted these limits.
Had the jurors been willing to take a step back and look
at the larger context, I trust that they, and everyone else involved
in this trial, would agree that the covenant articulated in the
UM Book of Discipline rests within a larger covenant, a covenant entered into
prior to any promise to live within the confines of the Discipline. This
covenant consists of our relationship with God as revealed to us in Jesus
Christ whom we come to know through Holy Scripture.
Had the jury embraced the fullness of the covenant that binds
us together they would have encountered a contradiction that they would
have been forced to resolve.
Scripture would have aided them in coming to that resolution.
There are several places in Scripture that speak a clear word about where
we should stand when confronted with the choice between narrow legalism
and manifestations of the Holy Spirit at work. One of these is found
in the 15th Chapter of Acts where we find the early church debating whether
persons who have not been circumcised can be saved. Even in the face
of clear evidence that the Gentiles encountered by Paul and Barnabas
in Phoenicia and Samaria were being saved through the grace of God, some
within the sect of the Pharisees objected saying that one must be circumcised
in order to be a part of the church. Peter stands up and challenges the
Pharisees saying that these Gentiles clearly have the Holy Spirit in
them, given to them by God. There is no distinction between the Jews
and the Gentiles in the sense that all have been saved by the Grace of
God.
It is a sad commentary on the United Methodist Church that
we have yet to learn this lesson.
Everyone present at the trial - prosecution and defense,
parishioners, friends and family – agree that the Holy Spirit
is present and working powerfully in Beth Stroud. No verdict
by a trial court can take that away.
We fear for the heart and soul of the church, however. How
long will we survive if we continue to choose law over love and punishment
over grace?
Methodist Federation for Social Action
212 East Capitol Street, NE
Washington, DC 20003
202-546-8806
mfsa@mfsaweb.org
www.mfsaweb.org