A Matter of Fairness and Prudence
Decision Reversed in the Stroud Appeal

Kathryn Johnson, Executive Director
Methodist Federation for Social Action
May 2005

There was an audible gasp in the room on the morning of April 29, 2005 when the Northeast Jurisdictional Committee on Appeals announced its decision overturning both the verdict and the penalty in the case of the Rev. Beth Stroud.

Across the church many people were elated with the decision, others furious. However they felt about the decision, most people were confused.

Just six months prior, on December 2, 2004, a jury in the Eastern Pennsylvania Conference had rendered a guilty verdict in response to the charge that Beth, a “self-avowed practicing homosexual,” was engaging in practices “incompatible with Christian teaching.” By a vote of 7 to 6, the jury had removed her clergy credentials. It was this verdict and penalty that were overturned by a vote of 8 to 1 by the Appeals Committee.

Even for someone who had followed the case closely, having attended both the original trial and the appeal, it took some time to sort out what the committee had done.

The decision by the Jurisdictional Appeals Committee was not made quickly or lightly. While their deliberations took place behind closed doors, the portions of the proceedings that were public, along with a carefully worded, comprehensive fourteen-page written decision, indicate that the committee took their task seriously and worked diligently.

The clearly written decision begins with a digest of the case stating that both “the verdict and the penalty (from the original trial) are reversed and set aside.” This decision was based on two grounds which, in the judgment of the Committee on Appeals, constituted legal error sufficient to “vitiate the verdict.”

The first ground for reversing the verdict is based on Judicial Council Decision No. 702. In Decision No. 702, the Judicial Council ruled that a clergy person cannot be denied an appointment unless all of their rights as a person in full conference membership are honored. The Judicial Council ruled in Decision No. 702, also dealing with a person who had been open about her sexual orientation, that she could not be denied an appointment because neither the General Conference nor the Annual Conference had clearly defined the terms “status” and “self-avowed practicing homosexual.” The Judicial Council made clear in that decision that these terms must be defined before a person is denied an appointment. Since neither the General Conference nor the Eastern Pennsylvania Conference has defined those terms, the Appeals Committee ruled that the verdict/penalty which denies Beth an appointment is an error in law.

The second ground for reversing the verdict is the contention that the provision in the UM Book of Discipline stating that “homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching,” in essence constitutes a “new standard or doctrine.” According to the First Restrictive Rule in the Discipline, in order for new doctrine to be adopted in the United Methodist Church, one of two things must happen. Either General Conference must declare that the new doctrine is “not contrary to the present standards” of doctrine or the new doctrine must be adopted by General Conference by a 2/3 vote and then ratified by a 3/4 vote of the members in each annual conference.

Since neither of these things has happened, the first Restrictive Rule of the Discipline has been violated in the case of Beth Stroud according to the Committee on Appeals, thus constituting an error in church law sufficient to overturn the original verdict and penalty.

The Committee on Appeals did not initiate these arguments. Indeed, their task was very limited. They were only to look at the record of the original trial, including testimony that had been given orally and testimony that had been entered into the record. Based on the original trial, Beth’s counsel had submitted a number of arguments as to why the trial had not been fair. It was these documents and these arguments that the Committee on Appeals used in reaching their decision.

The document summarizing the decision by the Committee on Appeals includes the charge given to the Committee in paragraph 2715.7 of the 2000 Discipline. The Appeals Committee is charged to “determine two questions only: (a) Does the weight of the evidence sustain the charge or charges? (b) Were there such errors of Church law as to vitiate the verdict and/or the penalty?”

On the first of these questions, the Committee ruled that “there is no question that the weight of the evidence sustained the charge.”

On the second question regarding errors in Church law, Beth’s counsel advanced a number of legal arguments, nine by my count. The Committee on Appeals reviewed and responded to each of these.

They disagreed with Beth’s counsel on seven points, in some cases granting validity to the argument but determining that it did not result in errors of law sufficient to vitiate the verdict or penalty. In the two instances mentioned above, the Committee agreed with Beth’s counsel: Judicial Council Decision No. 702 instructing General Conference or Annual Conferences to define terms, and the contention that new doctrine has been added to the Discipline without proper process being followed.

What does this all mean for Beth? Practically it means that her clergy credentials have been restored. She is a clergy member in good standing of the Eastern Pennsylvania Conference and is eligible for appointment. The Eastern Pennsylvania Conference has already indicated, however, that they will appeal this case to the Judicial Council. It is anyone’s guess as to what will happen at that point. The Judicial Council could uphold the decision of the Committee on Appeals or they could overturn the decision meaning that Beth would once again lose her clergy credentials.

At the press conference during the first day of the hearing before the Committee on Appeals, Beth said that even if the Committee ruled in her favor she will not return to exercising the functions of an ordained clergy person until the matter is fully resolved. She understands her ordination as a “sacred trust,” she said, “not something that can be put on and taken off like a suit of clothes.” True to her word, when Bishop Marcus Matthews returned Beth’s clergy credentials after the trial and offered to appoint her, she declined.

In the meantime, Beth continues as a lay pastor at the First UMC of Germantown where she has worked for several years.

Why not join another denomination? Beth’s answer to this question is often spoken through tears. She loves the United Methodist Church she will tell you. It’s the church in which she grew up, was nurtured and was called to ministry. When Beth went through the ordination process she was not in a relationship. As a celibate person at the time, Beth was not in violation of any disciplinary restrictions. It was not until after her ordination that Beth fell in love. Beth responded to that love, and entered into a covenant relationship with a woman.

Some reports of Beth’s actions would have the reader believe she made a calculated decision to challenge the policy of the church in relation to sexual orientation, that it wasn’t her response to a call to ordained ministry but a political agenda that drove her actions. Listening to Beth tell her story, and listening to colleagues and parishioners, it is clear how very far off the mark such allegations are. Beth grew up in the church, responded to a call to ordained ministry and proceeded with integrity through the ordination process. At some point in her life journey she discovered a same-gender sexual orientation. And after ordination she fell in love with a woman with whom she wishes to spend the rest of her life. The reason this has become an issue for Beth and for the church is that she wasn’t willing to keep her identity and her love a secret. Revealing the fullness of who she is was an act of integrity. Not an act of defiance.

Indeed, the integrity, patience and love with which Beth has proceeded along this journey is a gift to the church of immense value. Beth holds before us one of the most important human rights issues of our time. She embodies this issue. Faced with a woman of great integrity and clear manifestations of the gifts and graces for ordained ministry, the church is faced with the dilemma of asking her to choose between responding to God’s call to ministry and God’s gift in her life of a woman she loves and with whom she wants to live in covenant relationship.

Throughout the hearing before the Committee on Appeals, the counsel for the church said over and over again that the church should be able to determine the standards for a person who will enter the clergy. That’s exactly what the church did. As Beth traveled the path through seminary, ordination and the pastorate, her ministry was affirmed again and again. No one at the original trial or the appeals hearing intimated anything other than the fact that Beth is a remarkable person and an exemplary pastor. The church, through the Board of Ordained Ministry in her home Annual Conference, did decide that Beth Stroud has the gifts and graces for ordained ministry. How odd that the church would remove an effective pastor simply because of the gender of the person with whom she has fallen in love.

I began this article by talking about the confusion experienced by many as they hear the results of various trials and hearings. Indeed, I have found the misinformation printed about the appeals hearing in Beth’s case simply amazing. My hunch is that most of the misinformation is simply a result of the complexity of the workings of the United Methodist Church’s decision-making and judicial processes. A few articles would fall into the category of an intentional twisting of the facts. Notable in this category are the things that have been written by the Institute on Religion and Democracy. I would encourage everyone interested in this case to read the decision of the Appeals Committee (www.umns.org) and then the article written about that decision by John Lomperis (www.ird-renew.org).

It will be clear to the reader that the IRD article contains several factual errors and statements of future church action that no one can know with any certainty.

Many articles assert that the statement that “homosexuality is not compatible with Christian teaching” is not a new standard. Some would argue that all of Christian tradition supports this stance. While serious scholars and theologians could counter this point, it is true that our own Discipline has contained this standard for thirty years. This misses the point, however, when seeking to understand the ruling of the Committee on Appeals.

In addition to the fact that the General Conference has never declared the statement contrary to our doctrine, it was only recently (last May) defined by the Judicial Council as the law of the church—a “declaration” that meets the standard identified in 2702.1b for “practices declared by the UMC to be incompatible with Christian teaching.” The first restrictive rule was inserted in the Constitution in 1808 to make the addition of new doctrine cumbersome enough that great intentionality was required by the church. When the Confession of Faith of the EUB Church was added to the doctrinal standards in 1968, a vote of the General Conference that these new standards were congruent with the present and existing standards was required of the General Conference even though there were several completely new items added.

The ruling of the Committee on Appeals will be reviewed by the Judicial Council and there is little doubt that the entire matter will be before the church at General Conference 2008. The process of discerning God’s will and manifesting that will in our actions and laws as a church has been long and difficult in the arena of human sexuality. This should come as no surprise, however. The passion with which these matters are discussed and the care with which decisions are made, reflects the seriousness with which the church takes this precious gift from God.

The gift of sexuality is something to be celebrated. Those who would use that gift to harm or degrade another must be held accountable and called to repent. It is my firm conviction, and the stance of the Methodist Federation for Social Action which I direct, that one’s sexual orientation is God-given and to be celebrated. We believe that it is the role of the church to call all persons, whether homosexual or heterosexual, to use this gift in loving ways which honor the beloved.

To declare this gift as manifest in homosexual persons “incompatible with Christian teaching” does great harm and the church must be called to repent. The actions of the Committee on Appeals in the case of Beth Stroud were narrowly focused on matters of law. It was not their task to rule on larger questions related to sexual orientation and they did not do so.

It is my belief, however, that the witness of Beth Stroud, and the fact that the actions of the Appeals Committee keep her case before us as a church, provide the church with the opportunity to repent and embrace God’s grace moving through history