This week Frank Schaefer, a Methodist pastor from Pennsylvania, was defrocked by the United Methodist
church. Defrocked is simply an awkward term for fired. The denomination resorted
to the bold move after Schaeffer officiated the wedding of his gay son in 2007.
He was asked to resign, he refused, and the Methodists fired him.
I assume in the coming weeks, perhaps days, there will be
many who suggest that the firing of Frank Schaefer is no different than the
firing of Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson. Indeed, there are similarities in
the cases. Both men stood publicly and boldly for their personal conviction on
a social issue that is as hotly debated as gun control and abortion. Both
stated views that were incompatible with the views of their employers, and both
paid a hefty price for their actions.
Because supporters on both sides of the argument are
insanely passionate about their position, people everywhere will be cheering one
decision while lamenting the other. Undoubtedly, there will be some sort of
boycott of something, and social media will explode with explicitly partisan
banter and rhetoric. In this regard, the cases are very much the same.
But in very important ways, these two cases are vastly
different. In the instance of Frank Schaefer, he swam upstream of an
institution with explicit confessions based on an authority outside of
themselves. Whether you happen to agree with the position of the Methodists or
not, their views on homosexuality are not their personal opinions; they believe
they are supported by an authority outside of themselves, the Bible. When Frank
was first ordained by the denomination years ago he stated that he supported
their views on homosexuality and that he affirmed their view on the authority
of scripture. Now, Frank Schafer’s convictions have changed, and he can no
longer, in good conscious, continue to bear the title Minister in the Methodist
Church.
Phil Robertson, on the other hand, apparently works for an
organization that also holds a particular view on homosexuality. I say
apparently, because I cannot find their views on human sexuality stated, either
verbally or written, anywhere. When the organization hired Phil we have no
record of him swearing allegiance to a particular view on homosexuality or
signing any documents declaring his loyalty to ensuring the values of A&E or
their public image in regards to what it considers a “sin.” Phil did not change
his stance.
Finally, the most important difference between these two
cases is that A&E does not point to an authority outside of themselves on
which they stake their views. It is simply, their opinion. Phil disagrees with
their opinion and points to a source of authority outside of himself to support
his views. Even if you disregard the authority of the Bible and want to suggest
that Phil’s views are still only his opinion then I am not sure how A&E has
come to such certainty about the correctness of their own view. It sounds like
two people holding two different opinions, and one person lost. A&E sounds
an awful lot like the biggest kid on a playground. Where Frank Schaefer has
changed his mind and turned away from historic doctrine and creeds, Phil Robertson
has continued to simply be the same Phil Robertson he has always been, the same
Phil A&E hired years ago and has made millions off of.
Frank Schaefer was fired because he knowingly rebelled
against the official, explicitly stated views of the institution he worked for.
He was warned before he officiated the wedding. He walked into this with eyes
wide open. We want to live in a world where institutions have convictions, and
unswerving values, whether we agree with them or not.
The firing of Phil Robertson, on the other hand, was
censorship. No one knew A&E had an opinion on human sexuality until we
found them reacting to the values of someone else that they disagreed with.
That is unfair and ambiguous leadership, and no one wants to live in a world
with organizations that function like that.
