Methodist Pastor Has 30 Days To Renounce His Gay Children Or Be Defrocked

On Monday, the United Methodist Church convicted Rev. Frank Schaefer on two counts against the Church for officiating his son’s same-sex wedding. On Tuesday, the impaneled jury determined his sentence: Schaefer is suspended for 30 days, and if it at the end of that time he has not renounced his support for marriage equality, he will be defrocked.


Schaefer, however, was unapologetic, refusing the invitation to “repent of your actions”:


SCHAEFER: ([The Church] needs to stop judging people based on their sexual orientation. We have to stop the hate speech. We have to stop treating them as second-class Christians.

I will never be silent again. This is what I have to do.

I have to minister to those who hurt and that’s what I’m doing.)

Three of Schaefer’s four children identify as gay.


continue to source article at thinkprogress.org

Sounds like a good father to me.

Watch Rev. Schaefer’s remarks from after the sentencing, committing himself to being an “outspoken advocate” for the LGBT community. He also added that if a same-sex couple asked him to marry them in the next 30 days, he would do it:
youtu.be...

My sister in-law is a lesbian and she has been shunned by her grandparents at the behest of their church so I have seen how good people have been hurt and families have been torn apart by religious dogma. She didn’t ask to be gay but she can’t change who she is. To tell a father to choose like that is just wrong.

Ah, I see. Let's not be misleading with the headline. The United Methodist Church is pretty liberal, but they see marriage as between a man and a woman, not any two people.

He is not being called on to denounce his children. He is being disciplined for going against the church's beliefs by having married them in defiance of church doctrine.

ketsuko
Ah, I see. Let's not be misleading with the headline. The United Methodist Church is pretty liberal, but they see marriage as between a man and a woman, not any two people.

He is not being called on to denounce his children. He is being disciplined for going against the church's beliefs by having married them in defiance of church doctrine.

Agreed... whoheheartedly. This headline was really misleading. I read the first few news reports about this a couple of days ago, and came in here thinking I'd missed something.

You can agree or disagree with the Church's stance on gay marriage, that's your prerogative - but in the eyes of the church, this man has done the wrong thing, and has therefore been asked to make a choice - either to repent, or to leave. This is both according to the Biblical standard, and appropriate, in terms of church discipline. You do the wrong thing, the church can and should hold you (as a minister, that is) accountable.

If you want to make this an issue about gay rights, well, that's another topic in many respects - but the church has acted appropriately according to its own moral standard.

I think it's time for a new denomination entirely. One whose dogma comes from a chronological interpretation of scriptural law, start to finish, with the newer stuff overriding the older stuff here and there. One where Christ's teachings supercede things like the Mosaic Law (Leviticus). "Love everyone as you love yourself" shall be the whole of the law (to coin a couple of phrases), and this church would abide by it, allowing gay marriage and married priests and drinking and dancing and loud music and anything sexual that doesn't create a victim. A church that's truly guided by nothing more than love and respect for all, without some seminary-brainwashed, pusillanimous, egomaniacal human trying to be the one person everyone listens to, the only one whose opinions matter. A church without any leaders other than the Trinity. Free-form anyone-can-talk style learning centers, like open mic night at a beatnick dive, where anyone can share anything they feel "called" to share. A church where everyone can get ordained as a minister, why not. Anyone can perform marriages then. "The Yahushuans" perhaps... we could be called "Yahoos" for short, ha-ha. And services would be on Saturday, the actual last day of the week (just ask any computer programmer.) Or is that too anarchistic, not rigid enough, for some believers' tastes? An idea whose time has come, y'think, or would it not attract non-denominational, anti-organized-religion believers who are tired of churches trying to regulate aspects of morality they have no business regulating?

reply to post by Thought Provoker


Well isn’t the church supposed to be doing that already? Taking things chronologically. I wrote this thread New Bible Book Is 'Awkward' on Purpose and one poster said that the old testament does not apply to Christians. Actually I was told this.

@grimpachi.
The examples used are not applicaple to modern christians. That was for the israelites/hebrews alone. And the way the pages of that book look it appears it is cherry picked and out of context. I t needs explanation and clarification.

The new testament tells christians what to do in it. Christ came AFTER the commandments right? Now going with that fact that the NT was specifically for all after the death of Jesus your comparison does not hold up.

the OT is specifically for the hebrews/jews. there is no room for interpretation in this. the hebrews were Abrahams people correct? Jesus did not dismiss the commmandments of course,BUT he condensed them into 3-4 so it would be easier to follow and keep them for christians/gentiles who were not hebrew and directly related to Abraham. Of course you will ignore this and try to troll me again,but this is your last reply though so it does not matter.

What does the new testament say about homosexuals? What does the new testament say about marriage? I can never keep track of those things.

Until someone can sort out what 'One flesh' means to a registrar, there will be this conflict...full stop.

The biblical view doesn't help much since it needs both compliance to goverment, and to the fairly clear idea of a 'One flesh' bond between a man and a woman.

It is a belief system, and it's the Adam and Eve thing, the rib and all that entails. But it also entails where Jesus is bibically quoted, when it says Jesus spoke about a husband singularly.
The minister is going against the church as far as a 'One flesh' union is concerned, which is a 'marriage' between a man and a woman. Any sanctifying from God for a same sex 'marriage' is beyond the church's remit.
He could bless the same sex union in some way however.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Christ reiterated that marriage is between a man and a woman which is likely why even some of the more liberal denominations still hold marriage to be that way.

As far as homosexuality, I don't think that Christ addressed it directly, but he did not give the greenlight to sexual immorality. So, if you think homosexuality is sexual immorality which is open to interpretation (and some denominations do given that sex outside the marriage bond is supposed to be immoral), then, yes, homosexuality is immoral, but that interpretation puts it on the same plain of sin as sex out of wedlock, and how many of us are completely free of that? Likely very few.

As far as shunning gays, I don't think any church should. Church should be open to all comers. Christ ministered to all including those that society of that day would have considered untouchable sinners and beyond help or hope of redemption. Those who followed Him were sincere in their desire to attain forgiveness and salvation.

Grimpachi
reply to post by Thought Provoker

 

Well isn’t the church supposed to be doing that already? Taking things chronologically.

Yes. It is supposed to be doing that already. That's my point: organized religions are ignoring scripture in favor of man's interpretations thereof. That's why they all have services on Sunday instead of Saturday: it's a deliberate middle-finger to God. Satan runs the churches now; the bigger it is, the more likely that is. Any church that says "Homosexuals are all going to hell" and also has nothing against face-shaving or shrimp-eating or divorce is NOT really a real "ekklesia" type actual church, it's just a members-only handbasket to hell. They're using the Bible as a weapon, an excuse to hate people and convince others to hate as well. There is NOTHING less Christian.

There is one commandment from Christ that encompasses all the commandments from God: "Love everyone." Do not judge, do not condemn, do not force beliefs, simply... LOVE. And I have never seen a megachurch that does that. I know of no denomination that does that. We need one, badly.

It is true that the Old Testament laws do not apply to Christians. Only Christ's one commandment does. Well, two: love everyone, and believe he's God's son sent to rescue us. That's where all Christianity should begin and end. No additional "Live your life THIS way or else!!" garbage. Love everyone, believe in Christ, and just be yourself otherwise. Show me ONE church that does that; anyone? Anyone?

reply to post by Thought Provoker


Beliefs and Principles in Unitarian Universalism

Ours is a big faith, one that embraces a diversity of background and belief. Here your conscience, your experience, and your identity matter. We affirm seven principles, the first of which is a deep recognition of each person’s inherent dignity and worth. We put our faith into action through social and environmental justice work in our communities and the wider world.

Our congregations are places where we gather to nurture spirits and change lives. We strive to welcome deeply people of all ages and classes, sexual orientations, gender identities/expressions, races/ethnicities, and abilities. There is no formal conversion process, so becoming a Unitarian Universalist is simply a matter of deciding that these are the people you want to grow with. Membership is voluntary and does not require renouncing other religious affiliations or practices – in fact, we celebrate the religious or philosophical identity you bring.

Not denying ministry to anyone is an admirable trait...

The subject is a little too advanced for the children in public, and the under 18 classroom where it is being dragged into.


it is true it may not restrict it in the bible, but law is defined federally...

113-49. (Congress.)
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

but there are more with beliefs who restrict it, government aside.

reply to post by wildtimes

The bit you quoted makes them sound great, but they are definitely not Christian if everything written about them in their Wikipedia article is true. (Do you dispute any of it?)

The theology of individual Unitarian Universalists ranges wildly, including Humanism, Atheism, Agnosticism, Pantheism, Deism, Christianity, Judaism, Neopaganism, Buddhism, and many more...

This core doctrine (of Universalism) asserts that through Christ every single human soul shall be saved...

Unitarianism... may refer to any belief about the nature of Jesus Christ that affirms God as a singular entity and rejects the doctrine of the Trinity...

Current concepts about deity, however, are diverse among UUs. While some are still Monotheistic, often from a Judeo-Christian perspective, many profess Atheism or Agnosticism. UUs see no contradiction in open Atheists and Agnostics being members of their community because of the rich Unitarian legacy of free inquiry and reason in matters of faith. Still other UUs subscribe to Deism, Pantheism, or Polytheism. Many UUs reject the idea of deities and instead speak of the "spirit of life" that binds all life on earth....

So. The two original components of UU taught "Everyone will be saved no matter what they do," and "There's no such thing as the Holy Trinity," and now that they've been combined, even atheists, pure humanists, and Gaia worshippers are seen as saved? It's a church that teaches that no belief in anything and no conversion to anything is required for salvation? Did I get that right?

No, thank you. It's just another corruption engineered by Freemasons (they engineer a lot more than buildings, you know) to destroy souls. No true Christian would ever feel right belonging to such a place.

Show thread with listening information