In 1990, I fell in love. I met a beautiful man named Paul who shared my values, my heart and my soul. We quickly knew that we intended to spend the rest of our lives together. We were not looking for legal protection or rights, and the public conversation about same sex marriage and marriage equality really had not even begun. We just sought to solemnize our relationship into s spiritual marriage.
My parents had been on their own journey accepting my sexual orientation, and they had evolved to the point that they felt comfortable approaching the minister of their church that they had supported significantly for years. They asked him if he would perform a ceremony for us. He answered that even though he wanted to, that he supported what we were doing, he could not.
More specifically, that he was afraid to perform the ceremony.
The truth is, it was unlikely that our private ceremony would have been noticed, but he was worried that his church superiors might somehow catch wind of it, and that he would get in to trouble. He was, in truth, not my first choice to conduct the ceremony anyway, but his cowardice lowered him even further in my perception.
I was actually relieved to not be married by a man who was so weak in his own convictions. He dodged the bullet of being judged for doing something right and I dodged the bullet of not having a blessing said over my life that had no moral courage behind it.
One could not say the same thing of another minister, the reverend Frank Schaefer, a Methodist clergyman who has laid a very public stake in the ground while standing on his own heroic convictions. He too was asked to officiate at a same gender wedding: his son’s in 2007.
It was a private ceremony, not done defiantly in the faces of Schaefer’s Pennsylvania congregation. It was not meant as a protest of the Methodist Church policies. It would not have even been an issue had not a lone congregant, Jon Boger, pressed it.
Inexplicably, Mr. Boger somehow felt the baptisms of his children and the funerals of his grandparents had been adversely affected by Schaefer’s proceedings over his own son’s wedding. Since the events had no relation to each other in any way, I have trouble seeing this as a matter of religious tenet, but rather, as pure unadulterated prejudice, but then, I was not asked my opinion.
The decision on whether to go to trial on this issue, was under the auspices of Bishop Peggy Johnson. Bishop Johnson received a petition pleading her not to move forward, but replied that even though she “tried really, really hard”, she moved forward anyway.
Just in case a voice of reason might prevail where a petition of thousands did not, I am sending this open letter to Bishop Johnson, and any others of the Methodist hierarchy who are judging Reverend Schaefer.
Dear Bishop Johnson,
I am writing this to you from one who was raised loving God in the Methodist Church. I am writing to you as a father of two special needs boys who were adopted through foster care, each having been born to drug addicted birth parents. I am writing this to you from the vantage point of one who has had the privilege to officiate for and marry dedicated couples. I am writing this to you as a gay man.
One of the factors that has driven me in my personal spiritual quest is the embrace of Christ who stood for principles beyond the “rules” of man. While He respected rules, He was the first to confront them when they no longer were serving their intended use. He broke the “rule” to not work on the Sabbath when to do so meant that He would heal someone in need. He left us with two main principles that override all rules that do not support them: To love God above all else, and to love one’s neighbor as one’s self.
Certainly, Bishop Johnson, your own position in your church is the result of enlightened thinking that looked at a biblical “rule” and realized that it did not stand up to the scrutiny of holy principle. 1 Timothy is unequivocal in its “rule” that women be silent, and that they are forbidden to teach or lead men. This biblical statement is far clearer than any of the statements about gang rape, temple orgies, heterosexual divorce and prostitution that some choose to interpret as mandates against gay people.
Yet, clear minds and hearts of the Methodist church rejected this “rule” of the Bible and tradition. John Wesley in founding the Methodist Church stated, “It has long passed for a maxim with many that ‘women are only to be seen but not heard.” While it took some time from that pronouncement, the Methodist Church finally put the out dated rule to bed in lieu of principle in May 1956.
So now you are up against another “rule”. A father was looked into the eyes by the son he loves and asked to officiate and bless that son’s marriage. At face value, it is obvious that the Methodist court that judged the father in question did so completely blinded by “rule” and devoid of principle. For me, who has been on the life experience of all sides of this, as a father, as a son wanting to marry my life partner, and as one who held the space for those coming together in matrimony, I can tell you that the Method Church is acting as a sham and a travesty against all things loving, good and right.
The Massachusetts Supreme Court stated that “the decision whether and whom to marry is among life’s momentous acts of self-definition”. In that single quote, the justices summed up the heart of this issue.
In my experience, when a couple sought me out to be an officiate for their wedding, they were asking me to put words to their own self-definition as a couple. It was an honor, and a holy task that I have undertaken twice now. I strived to know them, their hopes, their dreams and describe the commitment of the path they were now taking together. There are 1500 rights and responsibilities that come with marriage, and those were never the subject of either of the ceremonies I wrote. I wrote the ceremonies of their love, hope and vision.
Even at their young age, when I have discussed marriage with my sons, I talk about my own vision of marriage with a hope to impart upon them the very best experience life has to offer. If one of my sons, a few years from now, were to ask me to officiate at his wedding, that would be a harmonic convergence of my vision for him with that of his own. There are few moments as a parent I can think of that would be as beautifully unifying and underscore the pure soul of a family, than that.
If that request came to me, I would move heaven and earth to make it happen. Nothing, nothing would keep me from showing up for my son and being part of that self defining moment for him, exactly as he asked me to.
This was what Reverend Frank Schaefer experienced as a parent, and all that you intend to set aside, all for the sake of an archaic “rule”. You are dead wrong in every way conceivable.
The Bible principles do not support your rule. Leaving aside you have no prohibition from two people of the same gender making a marriage commitment, you are ignoring its greatest examples of principles behind parental love. The father of the prodigal son, did not turn his back on either of his sons—the rule follower, or the rule breaker. The story of King Solomon is probably the most pertinent. Two mothers came to him claiming a single child as her own. The false mother had a still born, but the king did not know who was telling the truth.
He laid out a rule of fairness. The rule would have a baby severed in half to appease both the false and the true mother standing before him. The true mother rejected the ruling, and was self sacrificing for the sake of the love of her child. You have placed Reverend Schaefer in that same position, and he has followed the path of the real parent. He is willing to sacrifice his own career for the love of his son. He stated, “I couldn’t pass on the other side of the road like a Levite to preserve a rule. All I saw was love for my son.”
Reverend Schaefer is exhibiting the best of a father’s love. In terms of spiritual principle, his actions can easily be compared to the consecration of the Holy Father’s love, and its reflection, with His creations. God loves and has vision for us, and when we seek Him to solemnize our own vision aligned with His, we have holiness.
In the Solomon story, the King realized that the “rule” was a test, and it demonstrated who the true parent really was. It was also a test of the authority behind the rule. Was that authority one in which a child would be slaughtered, all for the sake of a “rule”, or was it one in which higher principle would prevail? For the real mother in that story, it was the latter. For you, as a deserving member of the clergy and qualified to serve, it was also the latter.
Now is your time to prove that those who used principle over “rule” on your behalf were right in doing so. History is watching.
Wedding Officiate, Methodist, Gay Man and a Dad