Pastor’s amazing response after being suspended for not renouncing his gay children

November 20, 2013

On Monday, the United Methodist Church convicted Rev. Frank Schaefer on two counts against the Church for officiating his son’s same-sex wedding, in which he has responded to.  Liz Cheney, here’s some advice for you on how to love your relatives for who they are because 3 of Schaefer’s 4 children are gay. You’re welcome Liz!

By Tuesday, the impaneled jury determined his sentence.













Think Progress reports:

Schaefer is suspended for 30 days, and if it at the end of that time he has not renounced his support for marriage equality, he will be defrocked.

Schaefer, however, was unapologetic, refusing the invitation to “repent of your actions”:

SCHAEFER: [The Church] needs to stop judging people based on their sexual orientation. We have to stop the hate speech. We have to stop treating them as second-class Christians. [...]
I will never be silent again. This is what I have to do. [...]

I have to minister to those who hurt and that’s what I’m doing.
Three of Schaefer’s four children identify as gay.
After his sentence was announced, his supporters began overturning chairs in the courtroom, a reference to the biblical story of Jesus and the moneychangers.

Schaefer’s critics framed his actions as “breaking the rules” and “rebuking” the Church.

Rev. Frank Schaefer was told he would lose his credentials if he doesn’t follow church law, but in his response, he says he cannot remain silent over his support of the LGBT community. Schaefer explains that he will not refuse ministry to anybody.

If a gay couple in the next 30 days wants to get married and if they quality, he said he would officiate their wedding.



Tags: ,

  • nytw

    So are you liberals going to get out your little white gloves and start slapping each other on the cheek.

  • leecappella

    Yes, there is a godly standard and it is summed up in the utterance, love thy neighbor as thyself. That is the Law. That is the godly standard that Jesus gave humanity to live by. Homosexuality does not break that Law. It only breaks that Law in contexts of harmful mistreatment of one’s fellow man, such as the case in the Sodom and Gomorrah story, for example.

  • Anomaly 100

    Because that’s your God, not everyone else’s God. In my Bible, poverty is mentioned over 2,000 times and homosexuality about 5 – most of those 5 times it’s in reference to not sleeping with an angel and not raping. But you feel free to concentrate on those 5 times, and I’ll concentrate on the 2,000 times poverty is mentioned. My God is a loving deity. He does not discriminate and he made us each unique for a reason.

    You have a nice night.

    • Matthew Williamson

      My God is a loving God as well. He demonstrated that by sending his only son to die on a cross for yours and my sins. When the woman was caught in adultery and brought before Jesus for condemnation he did not condemn her. He pointed out the faults in others and told her that he did not condemn her but he didn’t stop there. He said “go and sin no more”. He recognized that what she had done was sin. He didn’t stone her for it but recognized what she had done was wrong and told her to stop doing it. He would do and tell the homosexual the same thing. How many times something is or is not mentioned in the Bible does not determine it’s truthfulness. Jesus didn’t do a whole lot for poverty while on the earth, not in the physical sense, but he did everything in the spiritual sense. I’m not mad at your post or at you. Just making comments.

      • Anomaly 100

        Jesus never said that being gay is a sin so I really don’t get your point. It’s not listed in the 10 Commandments either.

        • PT

          Read the post: He said Romans 1:21-29.

          • Anomaly 100

            Matthew did not quote a verse.

            • PT

              YES he did. Romans1:21-29

              In the post before you said Jesus never said being gay was wrong. Re-read it.

              • Anomaly 100

                Read the verse. You’re wrong, and so is your friend.

                • Carla Akins

                  bwhaaa. great minds and all that…..

                  • Anomaly 100

                    But poverty is mentioned 2,000 times and we don’t hear a peep from Republicans.

                    • Carla Akins

                      Sure we do – just not anything relating to helping the poor. Just that damn boot strap line.

                    • Anomaly 100

                      Great minds again. I was going to add, aside from picking themselves up by their bootstraps. I don’t have any straps on my boots, for the record. Who sells these boots and how can poor people afford them?

                    • Carla Akins

                      Exactly. I have a couple pairs of boots, none have straps but I can see how they’d be handy but not for picking myself up with. How does that work exactly, am I supposed to be able to lift my own body weight? If so, how long to I have to be able to hold myself up? All of this assumes we can find a place to buy (cheap) said boots, and why is there no TBFDC (temporary boots for dependent children) or SSB (supplemental security boots) for those qualifying for assistance?

                    • Anomaly 100

                      Once we pick ourselves up, won’t gravity bring us back down? Come on!

                    • Carla Akins

                      damn you, science!

                    • Anomaly 100

                      It does explain why some repubs don’t believe in that gravity bullshit.

                    • PT

                      Look nowhere in this passage is it saying that exchanging natural relations is ok with God.

                      Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

                      26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

                      This passage doesn’t simply limit the term natural relations to prostitution!! ?? Just how on earth do you read that into this passage?? Mathew used this passage to highlight the fact that the bible speaks very very clearly about the subject of homosexuality. God does not single out gay people, as if he is somehow maliciously targeting a minority group. God perfect standard demands every aspect of our lives come under his Lordship. THAT IS THE GOSPEL. We die to our self and are raised in Christ. When a person is baptised this is what it symbolises. We obey God, AND ALSO help the poor, we do not neglect either

                    • Anomaly 100

                      If you followed Jesus’ teachings you would try to reduce poverty. Your verse, is manipulated by you and your party.

                      No matter how many capitals you use, it’s still not going to make sense. I only follow the new testament.

                      The old testament:

                      Unmarried women were not allowed to leave the home of their father without permission.

                      Married women were not allowed to leave the home of their husband, without permission.

                      They were normally restricted to roles of little or no authority.

                      They could not testify in court.

                      They could not appear in public venues.

                      They were not allowed to talk to strangers.

                      They had to be doubly veiled when they left their homes.

              • Carla Akins

                You’re wrong. The verse is about idolatry and prostitution.

      • SurvivorGirl

        There is no way that Jesus would have asked someone to go and sin no more in the way that you’ve stated. He wasn’t telling her to go and clean up her act but to enter into relationship with Him. Do you continue to sin? Do I? Yes, of course. What He conveyed when He interacted with this woman was that in and through Him, her relationship with sin is utterly changed, as in, she is dead to it (eternally speaking). He was offering her LIFE to the fullest (Kingdom life), not a morality program (which is death). Per the OT/Old Covenant way, she deserved to be stoned to death. Per the New Covenant/Jesus’ way, she was deserving of new life in Him. Most of the fault-finding he called out in others had to do with the harsh judgments and burdens that the Pharisees were putting on people.

        • Matthew Williamson

          There really isn’t any reason to debate this any further unless your willing to admit that homosexuality is sin. Read Romans 1:21-29. It is clear, and just because the word “homosexuality” is not used doesn’t mean that it is not what is being clearly referenced to. You are right that even after accepting Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior we do commit sins. The difference is not that I am “Sinless” but I do “sin less”. Romans 6:1-2 says “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?

          2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?” Yes, we are dead to sin in Christ but Paul makes it clear that we should not use that as excuse to continue in sin. Jesus very well knew that that woman would commit more sins in her life just like he knows you and I will. Despite your disagreement with me though He was telling her to go and no longer commit the sin of adultery. I am a preacher of grace and not law but that doesn’t mean that grace gives us the freedom to continue in willful disobedience to God and His word.

          • leecappella

            Matthew, I think your view of what Paul is saying in Romans chapter one is not in alignment with Paul’s intention to those he was addressing. Meaning, what you read in that chapter, seemingly, comes from a 21st century mindset that results in the assumption that Romans chapter one is talking about the very same homosexuality that you are familiar with in the 21st century. You may feel that any form of homosexuality is being addressed in Romans chapter one, but the context of the verses in question confirms that Paul is referencing specified homosexual acts that were associated with pagan idolatrous religious practices that were done in service to man made images (ie. idols). Such homosexual religious rituals were considered works or Jobs (ie. things people did for religious reasons out service and devotion to their god(s). Since the letters in Romans were written to an audience that already understood the details of what went on in pagan temples and they already knew the difference between the Jobs of the Torah and the Justices of the Torah and the division of the two, they knew what Paul meant when he said that those involved in the pagan homosexual sex rituals received within themselves the penalty for doing such things. In other words, the participants paid the penalty, in some way, within their own person for engaging in pagan religious rituals involving homosexuality. Their penalty was not a death penalty. What they did was not worthy of death.

            However, when Paul goes from Romans 1:27 to verse 28, he ends his talk of idolatrous homosexual orgies in pagan temples and in verse 28, he begins speaking of things that are worthy of death. Remember, Paul stated that the homosexual sex rituals were not deserving of the death penalty. Instead, the appropriate penalty was received within the persons of those involved. Death was not the penalty to be paid because those involved were not guilty of breaking any commandments based on brotherly love. They were guilty of breaking commandments based on works or Jobs of the Torah. Commandments that Jesus said no longer were applicable. Because the works of the Torah were no longer necessary to keep, Paul could not and would not deem them worthy of death. Paul knew that the Jews he was addressing still believed that they had to keep the whole law of Moses, which included the the Jobs or works of the Torah. To the Jews, homosexuality as a violation of the law as they knew it. However, Paul’s intention was to present pagan homosexual idolatry as an example of a Job or work of the law that was no longer binding so that he could lead his message into what really mattered, which was the Justices of the law, which are all the commandments based on brotherly love and how you treat your neighbor. This is why the things listed in Romans 1:29-31 are worthy of death: because they violate the law of loving thy neighbor as thyself. Paul wanted the Jews to know that they boasted of things that no longer mattered in the law of Moses. Since no one is justified by any works of the law (Romans 3:20), boasting is excluded, per Paul and his message of Jesus’ Faith of loving and treating others in the same way we would want to be treated. Paul set up his letter to the Romans with the intent of taking something the Jews boasted of in their law, made them think he was for the death penalty, and then he used that example of works to let the Jews know that the only things worthy of death are the unloving, unkind, mistreatment of one’s fellow man. Paul said the Jews were guilty of such things, despite the fact that they boasted in keeping the Torah’s commandments based on works. His point was that because they kept the Jobs or the works, that was not going to justify them before God. Works do not exonerate. Only the commandments based on loving thy neighbor as thyself exonerate. The measure of godliness is held up next to the Law of Christ and if something breaks that Law, it is sin. IMHO.

      • leecappella

        Apparently, Anomaly 100′s God is a loving God, just as your God is a loving God. Both of you are, likely, referring to the same God, but because each of you have different experiences and perceptions of God, it sounds like you two are referring to two different deities when you probably aren’t. The same is applicable to me and everyone else.

        The woman caught in adultery was told to go and sin no more. What did that mean? She was human, so there is no way that she left there sinless and never to do anything wrong again. So to go and sin no more must have meant something else. Maybe, for her to learn from her mistake and never to commit that particular sin again? Nonetheless, yes, God is a loving God. Yes, God loves all of humanity so much so that even while we were sinners, Jesus died for the sins of us all. However, that does not mean that Jesus would consider a homosexuality a sin because adultery is considered a sin. I don’t think Jesus would tell a homosexual man to go and sin no more, with the reference of sin being on the homosexual man’s love for another homosexual man.

        Being the issuer of the Law, I think Jesus would see, just as Paul did, that a man loving another man is not a violation of the very Law that Jesus himself declared as the godly standard. Sure, some people will have issue with a man loving another man, intimately, but because other humans have an issue with something that is lawful within the guidelines of the Law’s commandments does not make it a sin to God. It only makes it a sin the individual that deems it a sin according to his or her personal beliefs. Romans chapter 14 talks about the relationship between the weak persons of faith and the strong persons of faith. It speaks of the stronger persons of faith who accept certain things that the weaker persons of faith do not accept. Eating meat offered to idols is an example. Observing certain days is another. Eventually, this chapter tells us that if something does not break the Law (not the Law of Moses, but the Law of Christ), then it is lawful. Jesus’ Law does not care what a person eats, but because the Law of Moses prohibited certain foods, including meat associated with idolatrous practices, some people would not eat meat that had been offered to idols, believing it was a sin. If something is not breaking the Law of loving and treating others in the way that we would want to be loved and treated, then it is only unclean to the person who thinks it is unclean. It’s not unclean in and of itself. Again, this is only applicable to things that do not break the Law that Jesus established in the utterance, love thy neighbor as thyself.

        Homosexuality is the very same thing. It does not break the only Law we should be living by. Therefore, it is lawful and within the guidelines of the Law itself. Some people of faith do not have an issue with it, while others do. But, it is only unclean to them because they deem it to be such. It’s not unclean to God because God’s Law does not find fault with it. In and of itself, homosexuality does not cause harmful mistreatment to one’s neighbor. Just as, in and of itself, heterosexuality does not cause harm and mistreatment to one’s neighbor. Happy is the man who does not condemn himself in the thing that he allows. If he does condemn himself, to him it is sin. This is in reference to only those things that the Law allows. If the Law does not allow something, there is no debate about it, as I see it. If it breaks the Law of loving others, then it is a sin to God. If it does not break the Law of loving others, it is up to the individual to decide for themselves if it is a sin, like eating meat offered to idols, observing (or not observing certain days), etc.

        You mentioned to Anomaly 100 that “how many times something is or is not mentioned in the Bible does not determine it’s truthfulness.” I agree. I would also like to add this: Just because something has been believed by Christians for centuries does not mean that it is what should be believed because it has been believed for so long. Today’s Christians believe in eternal (ie. unending) punishment. First century believers believed in temporary punishment. There are various reason why many people don’t agree on things. Knowledge is power. Not the only power, but power, nonetheless. I, too, am just making comments. I like to share:)

  • PT

    Quote God “Herself has no religion.”

    According to the Christian bible, God describes HIMSELF as a perfect heavenly Father.

    I think he’s very clear on that. It’s not to say he is sexist or biased, it’s just the way God chose to reveal himself to us. We can’t change the way He revealed his nature.

Related Posts