Court Decisions
United Methodists "jurors" have more options available than simply "not guilty" or "revoking credentials.
A United Methodist Insight Exclusive
There have been a lot of articles lately in our denomination's media about church trials. Over all, they have been straightforward and helpful by providing objective information to help our church understand what is happening.
I'm sure the reporters do not intend it but let me suggest that they give the impression that a trial court ("jury') has two options, deciding between "not guilty" or "revocation of clergy credentials."
It's a common characteristic of most people's thinking and expression to put things in black and white terms. We do it without thinking, both as writers and also as readers. Hence, without intending it, it seems there are only those two options for trial courts.
According to the United Methodist Book of Discipline, the trial court has many options beyond revoking credentials (see Paragraph 2711.3 of the 2012 Book of Discipline and also see there the phrase "or fix a lesser penalty"). In a guilty finding, it has a range of punishments it may choose besides termination:
a. it can impose suspension for an amount of time that has an end;
b. it can have a letter of reprimand put into the respondent's (accused's) personnel file;
c. it can ask for community service (as happened in the Rev. Amy DeLong case where she was required to develop an action plan for her annual conference);
d. it can order remedial education or therapy;
e. it can retire a pastor early, which removes the pastor from appointment but removes no other rights;
f. it can locate a pastor which removes him/her from appointment as if s/he were withdrawn from ministry but allows the pastor to retain credentials and have to belong to and report to a charge conference of a local church;
g. or possibly provide other alternatives as listed in past Disciplines when a pastor faced punishment for other kinds of complaints.
One new option was introduced recently in the Schaefer case: ordering termination of conference membership if after a suspension of thirty days he did not renounce future events that violate the Discipline. I am not sure a trial court has the authority to punish a future act or lack of action. The case is headed for the Northeastern Jurisdictional Appellate Committee. If they rule against Rev. Schaefer, the appeal would then go to the Judicial Council, perhaps for their November docket. In light of past Judicial Council decisions, there is legal precedent to not allow such an option.
In short, trial courts have many options, not just revoking of credentials. This is a good thing because if bishops started enforcing church law about re-baptizing (see Paragraph 341.7), I'm sure there are many who would be glad a trial court had more than just "not guilty" and "revoking of credentials."
The Rev. Jerry Eckert, a retired clergy member of the Wisconsin Annual Conference, is a public spokesman for Associates in Advocacy, a volunteer group that serves as advocates for clergy who face complaints in the United Methodist judicial process.
Correction: An earlier version stated that the Rev. Frank Schaefer had appealed the Eastern Pennsylvania trial court decision to the Judicial Council. The case has been appealed to the Northeastern Jurisdiction first.