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.  

In the days and weeks surrounding the holidays I am always reminded of a theological truth known as Generational sin. The phrase itself sounds rather archaic when I am honest, medieval even. The notion that the sins of future generations trickle down to fall squarely on the shoulders of proceeding generations after them sounds more like pagan witchcraft, the stuff of fairy tales, than it does anything remotely theological, let alone Biblical. And yet we find it so clearly presented to us in the pages of scripture. In several passages God tells his people, in no uncertain terms, that God is a jealous God who will punish children for the sins of their fathers to the third and fourth generations. (Ex. 20:5, 34:7; Deut. 5:9; Num. 14:11). The book of Lamentations puts it more bluntly, “Our fathers sinned, and are no more; It is we who have borne their iniquities (Lam. 5:7). Beyond the fact that this sounds out of line with God’s just character, what sort of practical hope is there for those of us born into families full of sinners? What is the fate for those who grew up hearing stories about Grampa’s wandering eyes, or Grandmas alcoholism, or for those who suffered under the hand of a violent father or a manipulative mother? In short, what I am struggling to answer for myself, and my children is, when will the curse ever end? If the ingredients for generational sin hinge on the perfection of the previous generation, who will ever escape? I remember one of my final sessions of premarital counseling when the pastor excused my wife and asked me to stay behind. I assumed he had done so to simply relay to me (once again), the rather obvious fact that I was wholly unworthy of my future bride. But when my fiancé had exited, I realized that the pastor’s face was far more serious than I had seen it before. He was prone to sarcasm, but this day his expression was decidedly different. When he did finally begin to speak he backtracked through my sordid family tree, reiterating at every point the simple truth that by embarking on my own marital journey, I was also taking on a grand spiritual responsibility to break the generational sin that hung off my shoulders like a wet sweater. He looked across the desk and said “no matter what else you may ever be called to in your life, you are called first to break the sin cycles of your family.” That conversation was one that I continually point back to as one in which I had a distinct encounter with God. I am reticent to speak often about “hearing from God”, but there are just a handful of moments in my life that, on a deeply spiritual level, the Spirit of God spoke to me in a away every bit as real as an audible voice. This was one of those times. It wasn’t the first time I had ever thought about generational sin, but it was the first time I had ever contemplated the possibility that something could be done about them, that they even could be “broken” in some way. What I have learned in the years since that first conversation by raising three boys, marriage, and counseling countless others who share a similar story, is that generational sins are broken, not through penance but through repentance. What I mean is that there is a consequential reality to sin; children do pay a price for the sins of their parents, yet paying the price alone does not stop the cycle. In fact, what I believe the Bible is telling us is that if left unnamed, the sins of previous generations are destined to become our own struggles if we are not intentional about repenting of them. Repenting, literally “to turn around”, is the means by which the curse of generational sins is broken. So today I have learned to read the scriptures with new eyes and what I see them saying to us is that “the sins of the fathers will visit the coming generations…IF…future generations let them.” The process is not an easy one, but perhaps more simple than we imagine. Rather than playing the role of the victim each of us needs to have the courage to peer back into our past and read our story with an eye to the struggles, addictions and failures of previous generations. Then three things need to happen. One, name them. Adultery, divorce, addiction, abuse, greed, violence, lawlessness- name it. Second, recognize that the same blood fills your veins. Their story is intimately connected to yours and the consequence of these sins has visited you in the form of a natural propensity to sin in the very same way. So, thirdly, you repent. You examine the contours of your current life and attempt to see the natural bent of your life towards the sins of the future generations and fight like mad to do things differently. It is not a process that is done alone. In fact, many of us can accomplish it without some degree of professional help, and no attempt will ever be permanent or completely transformational unless the Author of your story is also the one you are trusting to write the next chapter. Will future generations be cursing your name for the sins that have been passed down to them, or will they recognize you as the one through which the endless cycle of familial sin was finally broken?