It's pretty straightforward:
(hat tip) The UMC considers homosexual conduct to be sinful. It also requires repentance of sin for membership (not attendance, mind you, but membership). A practicing homosexual wants to join the church, but refuses to repent of his sin. So the pastor denies him membership. He can still attend the church and worship, but he can't join as a member.
His District Superintendent removes him from office and the church court case begins. It is resolved when church law is upheld.
This really isn't that hard.
Dissenting voices can be found here. Meanwhile, Jeff the Baptist wonders why on earth we are even having this debate. That's a very good question.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
You would have to express how that violates Biblical principles.
Hmm. I see your point. That could have been worded better. Perhaps with some sort of built-in appellate option.
Just off the top of my head: perhaps a 3/4 vote of SPRC could overturn such a pastoral decision. What do you think?
To me this is a much harder decision than the Beth Stroud issue. Hers is one that blatantly goes against what the Discipline now states. So to me that decision was a no-brainer.
But in this case there are a couple problems that I just cannot seem to get past.
(1) One pastor can say that you cannot join this church because you are a practicicing homosexual / drug addict / pimp etc. The person goes to another UMC and the pastor says "You're more than welcome to come on in". So now we are getting yet one more step away from connectionalism and to the decision of the individual church or pastor.
(2) The second is that I can see a pastor not allowing membership to a practicing homosexual while knowing that someone in his/her church is having an affair or is going through a divorce etc. And are we now to ask if singles are celibate when they enter? Married couples if they've ever had an affair? All of these are sinful.
My problem is that some sins will get you blackballed and others probably won't.
Does anyone agree, or am I on an island all by myself here?
The BOD states, "We affirm that God's grace is available to all, and we will seek to live together in Christian community. We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends. We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and with all persons."
This statement presupposes that we may have lesbian and gay members and "friends" (unclear as to what that means- maybe partners?) as members of our church. Is the next step to go on a witch hunt and weed them out?
But if we do, then we are going against our own doctrine by not being in ministry with them and by rejecting them.
It seems this statement in our discipline:
1. Affirms that gays and lesbians are to be a part of the community that we call church
2. not to be rejected
3. to be a part of the ministry
The question is, does this statement allow for us consider them second class citizens within the church unable to have membership status. How is that really being a part of the community?
Where, then, do we draw the line? What if an applicant for membership literally worships false gods, bowing down before idols? What if the person is a polygamist? What if the person openly uses drugs while at church?
Or are all of these okay?
i'm just stating what the bod says my friend.
as far as worshiping false idols- come'on we live in america- we all have our idols.
I mean literally.
So where, Jonathon? Where would you draw the line?
John,
Is that a fair question?
Sounds like you may be asking Jonathon to make some pretty divine decisions.
Andy B.
Hooray for the Methodist Church for actually enforcing their BOD on these issues.
Recently the pastors of my church dissuaded a couple from joining because they were living together and the man was not yet divorced. Since this was approached pastorally, and not as a legal matter, the couple agreed not to ask to join until the man was divorced and they were married. They still attend.
I cite this to show that pastors do apply the "chaste in singleness, faithfulness in marriage" rules of the PCUSA Book of Order to heterosexual couples as well as homosexual couples.
By the way, if this had become contested, I'm not sure we would have the same result as the Methodists because under our Book of Order the only test for membership is that you accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior and you want to join the church. Behavioral standards are applied only to ordained church officers--i.e. pastors, elders and deacons.
It is important to focus on behavior and not sexual orientation. We all have sinful desires--the issue is whether or not we choose to act on them.
Quotidian, you're right on target: We are all tempted but God equips us to resist temptation.
Andy, you're dodging the issue.
john i think i'd have to draw the line with gavin richardson. i cant let that guy in the doors of my church. he's a rabbit hata.
Do you mean hraka?
john, i believe that j-norm meant "hater" in gangsta that is someone who hates or has otherwise disgust with said object/person.
thanks for labeling me a dissenter. i like labels
John
Only God knows if a person is a legitimate believer or not. According to Matthew 7:21-23, many who call Jesus Lord will be surprised to find out that they are not considered part of the Kingdom. Only God can decide who is in and who is out. Now, before I get labeled an emergent, I do think that it is the pastors job to maintain some sort of legitimacy when it comes to church membership. If a person is actively practicing open and unrepentant sin as stated in the Bible, I am not going to make a mockery of the membership vows that ask the candidate if they "repent of their sin" and have them say they do in front of the church and admit them as members when I know darn well they will continue to practice it.
If we are going to admit whoever request membership and let God sort them out in the end, Fine, but we will have to do away with some of the language and professions we pastors use to bring new members into our church fellowships. I do not want the reception of new members become a dishonest practice in my church.
Jonathon,
For me the distinction is between an unrepentant practicing homosexual as opposed to someone who is homosexual in orientation but keeps a celebate life.
It would be wrong to keep the latter out of membership. But the former, yes, should be barred.
When I came to faith at fifteen, I was bisexual in my orientation, with a growing prefernce toward men.
Now, I didn't tell my pastor that because I was affraid of being kept away for my inward orientation when my outside behavior was in line with Scripture- I was a dateless virgin.
But when I began to attend the Church, I read the Scriptures and knew that I could not practice what I desired to practice if I was to take Jesus seriously.
And taking Jesus seriously has lead me into a heterosexual orientation, a faithful and healthy marriage, and far more peace inside myself than I've ever known.
And I'm very thankful that those who taught me the faith held high standards. I haven't always lived up to those standards, but knowing where the bar is has helped me become more and more faithful over the years- I learned first how to claim victory and then how to live it!
See, Jesus doesn't want converts, He wants disciples. And disciples have discipline- there are rules and standards to be a disciple.
The less the we hold ourselves to a high standard, the more corrupt and ineffectual we become as a denomination.
Now, the issue in our denomination is that we've let go of nearly every other standard but this one.
This decision needs to be a bottoming-out point and we need to begin to start calling all Methodists to be distinctivly Christian in our life styles once again.
If we only hold homosexuals and bisexuals to the high standard of the Gospel and not heterosexuals also, then we committ a grace error and really do become guilty of bigotry and we deserve to fade away as a denomination.
But if this decisions leads us into renewed vision of vital piety for all Methodists, then it will be a great victory and the very moment which leads to renewal.
I guess we'll have to wait and see what United Methodism is really saying through this decision. But I am praying my butt off that we'll pick door number 2.
What is inappropriate, Gavin? I thought that you were dissenting. If I've misinterpreted your intention, please tell me and I'll make a correction.
john wilkes,
thanks for your candid experiences that you have shared. i have much respect for you and the voice you bring to the discussion. i'm not sure i am where you are completely on the issue- in fact i know that i'm not, however i hear you and respect you immensely.
shalom,
jonathon
Joel,
My standard for membership is that when folks stand there and make those pledges, they mean it. I affirm that God allows grace for future failings (God's knows I've had many failings myself) but I would expect someone to stand their and MEAN WHAT THEY ARE SAYING WHEN THEY ARE SAYING IT!!!!! Is that really so unreasonable?
And who said that Dr. King would be kept out? What? Huh? Because I won't let someone lie to me, to my congregation, and God, I would keep MLK from joining? What?
You aren't making any sense!
But if that makes me a big, bad, bigot for thinking that vows should actually mean something, then go on and make me out to be the bad guy. I can live with that.
But at least I'm honest about my standards.
Look at how you start that second paragraph by saying you don't recognize my theology and that you reject Calvinism, but you end it by saying you welcome everyone, conservatives and liberals alike. So which is it? Do you reject some and refuse to recognize others or do you welcome all?
john, my first impression was not at all a positive one of the decisions, decision one i could agree with for (the time, i believe over time we will be apologizing for this one), decision two i feel is short sighted and as jonathon has mentioned, done in the wrong spirit, which i am in disagreement with. that said, i looked up dissent just to clarify if i was..
To differ in opinion or feeling; disagree. To withhold assent or approval.
n.
Difference of opinion or feeling; disagreement. The refusal to conform to the authority or doctrine of an established church; nonconformity. Law. A justice's refusal to concur with the opinion of a majority, as on a higher court. Also called dissenting opinion
i won't claim nonconformity or dissenting opinion (i don't see any majority represented by a ruling of a few, although conservatives, like the liberals if this were turned the other way, would say that the majority won out, which is claiming people either side really doesn't have) but i will say that i do disagree with part of what went down yesterday. so maybe i am, but careful on broad brush stroke labeling. shalom -g
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Joel Thomas:
I hear what you're saying -- not all saints are yet perfect, fine. I agree (I know I'm not), but your comparison of MLK's sins and Wesley's isn't quite fair:
By the standards of his day, (and I hope ours) King's womanizing was clearly sinful. Should we exclude him from our church? No, but perhaps we should call him to account?
The fact that King may have rejected orthodox belief regarding the virgin-birth... that could get dicey -- Article II, par. 103.3 of the UMC Discipline states the United Methodist belief in the Virgin Birth... as such, I'd wonder why someone who didn't believe in it would want to be a United Methodist?
On the other hand, by the standards of his day, Wesley's marriage was definitely unloving, but not abnormal or (by all indications) anything but "faithful." Similarly, plagiarism hasn't always been the issue it is today -- and I fear might not be in the future if today's college students have their way with it. Wesley didn't find plagiarism a big deal in his context, nor do I in a sermon -- if I had to orally footnote every borrowed idea, I'd have the congregation pitching rotten-cabbage at me.
I want to agree that calling the Pope "the Anti-Christ" should be understood as a heinous sin, I really do, but the historian in me just can't get there... Wesley was far more charitable to Roman Catholics than many of his Protestant contemporaries.
I fear, Joel, you're setting-up a straw-man argument here. Would I deny King membership? Probably not -- as long as he was repentent of his womanizing when he presented himself for membership.
Would I deny membership to someone who explicitly told me they struggled to believe United Methodist doctrine, but that they wanted to join the church and let the community make them into a better Christian? Probably. Would I deny membership to someone whose cause was to convince others in the local church Jesus wasn't born of a virgin, or that he wasn't really God-enfleshed, or that the Trinity was a fanciful idea? Yeah, I'd deny membership to that person, definitely -- and I'd wonder about the commitment any pastor has to her/his vows to faithfully uphold the Discipline if they wouldn't.
I'll go there. I'll touch the third rail.
Dr. King did a mighty work for justice and I pray God's blesses him for it for all eternity. But if people who had authority over King in his denomination knew about his womanizing, they should have disciplined him and if necessary defrocked him.There. I said it.
Just like when Peter fell into sin Paul confronted him and lead him into repentance.
Holiness is not rated in a balance scale where so long as the "act of justice and mercy" side has more in it than the "unrepentant sins" side then you are OK. His triumph in one area of holiness does not negate his sin in another area. Only the blood of Jesus negates our sin, not our own good works.
Holiness is the unrelenting chase for Christian perfection in which we strive to always do what is right, where we say we are sorry when we are wrong, and where there are no excuses. We should strive for perfection and having nothing but grace to cover us and pick us back up when we fall.
Any minister who will not repent from sexual sin, no matter how wonderful they are at social justice, needs to get called into accountability.
If I ever stray into that sort of sin, I pray someone loves me enough to hold be accountable so that I won't languish in hypocrisy. Love is honest enough to say what we don't want to hear.
Holiness is hard-core. Jesus said we should take up our crosses and follow, not hop on the bus for joy-ride to heaven.
And I won't apologize for repeating the very words of Christ.
Post a Comment