Online Archives

NEWS AROUND THE NATION/WORLD

BY LINDA GREEN
UNITED METHODIST NEWS SERVICE

ERIK ALSGAARD/UMCONNECTION

Beth Stroud and her counsel, the Rev. Jim Hallam, listen on April 29 as the Northeastern Jurisdiction Committee on Appeals overturned an earlier decision that removed her ministerial credentials on the grounds that she was a 'self-avowed practicing homosexual,' citing legal errors.

The recent decision by an appeals committee to reinstate the clergy credentials of a lesbian pastor does not affect the denomination's proscriptions against the practice of homosexuality, church officials say.

But it may raise questions about the establishment of United Methodist Church doctrine.

The executive committee of the United Methodist Council of Bishops said the ruling does not change church law.

'The decision of the Northeastern Jurisdiction Committee on Appeals does not in any way reverse the standards in our Book of Discipline. In fact, the appeal process is an important part of our Book of Discipline,' the committee said in a May 1 statement.

Irene Elizabeth 'Beth' Stroud had appealed a Dec. 2 church trial court's decision finding her guilty of violating church law by being a practicing lesbian and revoked her clergy credentials. At the hearing, at the Sheraton International Hotel near Baltimore-Washington International Airport, a committee on appeals from the Northeastern Jurisdiction reversed part of the decision on April 29.

The appeals court upheld part of the trial court's finding but overturned the verdict in an 8-1 vote, citing legal errors. The Eastern Pennsylvania Annual Conference, which conducted Stroud's trial, has 30 days to appeal the committee's decision to the Judicial Council, the denomination's top court.

While the appeals committee reversed the trial court's verdict and penalty, its written ruling said, 'The evidence in support of the charge was overwhelming and would be sustained in the absence of legal error.'

The committee noted two legal errors. It first cited a ruling by the Judicial Council regarding the rights of ordained elders to an appointment or ministry in the church.

Second, the committee wrote that 'legal error was committed by trying and convicting (Stroud) on the basis of Paragraph 304.3 because that provision constitutes a ?new standard or rule of doctrine' which has not been declared by the General Conference to be ?not contrary' to the present standards, in violation of the First Restrictive Rule and Paragraph 102 of the Discipline.'

The First Restrictive Rule, found in the church's constitution, states that the General Conference shall not establish any new standards or rules of doctrine contrary to the church's existing standards of doctrine.

Retired Bishop Jack Tuell, a former practicing attorney, said that church law 'still stands,' although the Judicial Council would have to make a decision on the First Restrictive Rule and the Discipline if an appeal is filed.

'This jurisdictional committee on appeals has determined that the legislation under which she (Stroud) is being tried is unconstitutional,' Tuell said.

'While the Discipline says the decision of the committee is final, subject to appeal of the Judicial Council, it is not clear whether this decision in the interim, before a hearing by the Judicial Council, changes the whole law of the church or rather simply applies to this case.'

The committee's decision was based on church law, not facts of the case, he added.

James Allen, the church's general counsel, said the appeals committee concluded that the presiding officer of the Eastern Pennsylvania trial had the power and authority to rule on questions of church law, including constitutional challenges, and that it 'was error to preclude appellant from presenting legal argument on those points.'

Comparing the church's legal process to that of a civil court, Allen said in a civil process, such a ruling would ordinarily have resulted in a 'remand' of the matter back to the trial court, with instructions to the judge to rule on those matters. In this case, rather than remand the matter for a new trial, the appellate court simply 'reversed' and set aside the verdict.

'I think that is problematic, and the question of remand to the trial court will have to be considered by the Judicial Council ... in addition to the appeal of the reversal,' Allen said. 'I think there are grounds for the Judicial Council to also remand, in addition to the possibilities that it might either reverse or affirm the jurisdictional court of appeals.'

Allen says the appeal committee's decision 'is binding only on the verdict out of the trial on appeal.' The decision by the committee 'has no effect whatsoever on general church law, except as it has been applied to the specific facts and questions presented by the trial of Rev. Stroud,' he said.

Bishop Marcus Matthews, who leads the Eastern Pennsylvania Conference, said the conference would appeal the committee's decision.

The case is expected to go to the Judicial Council, the council will either affirm or reverse the decision by the Court of Appeals as outlined in paragraph 2609.8 and paragraph 2715.1 of the Book of Discipline, Allen said. 'Only a decision by the Judicial Council can affect church law,' he said.