In a comment at WesleyBlog, Karen Booth says:
A young woman in one of my confirmation classes was engaged in the practice of Wicca. (There are some UMCs - Trinity in Austin, for example - where this would not be a problem.)
According to Kammerer and crew, she should have been accepted into membership, even though she didn't even believe the basics of the faith.
Precisely. If we don't draw the line at homosexuality, then where? If the gay/straight issue is too unimportant to you, fine. Where do you want the line to be? This is the question that I've been asking, but so far, the Methodist Left* is only dodging it (at least in this comment thread).
So step up the plate and take a swing. Do we keep Wiccans out? What is our standard of doctrinal allegiance? Please be specific.
*Yeah, I know. Labels. Whatever.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
34 comments:
My understanding of Wiccan is that it is a pagan religion that worships nature in that they believe all things (trees, rocks, etc) contain some spirit form. There is no one divine god, if I recall. Some say they are witches, though a recent article in an Arkansas newspaper seemed to deny this.
I think the fundamentals of our faith are at the core of membership. This is not to say that, like homosexuals, they cannot worship with us. To be a member, however, does require some foundation of faith. Monotheism springs to mind.
Yea, I know ... labels.
To be a member, however, does require some foundation of faith. Monotheism springs to mind.
Bigot!
"What is our standard of doctrinal allegiance?"
Let's start with small steps. How about beginning with THE APOSTLES CREED.
This begins with some essentials that are foundational to all Christians everywhere.
That's a good start.
Oh.
Well then we're back to square one.
Leave it to Karen to frame the issue so keenly. She is exactly right.
Joel, true but not really. We have Articles of Religion and a Confession of Faith. Pastors are asked if they understand these confessions, if they find them consistent with Holy Scripture and if they will "preach and maintain" them. Our baptismal liturgy asks those about to be baptized to confess the Apostles' Creed, a sign that we are part of the church catholic both diachronically and synchronically. And when we get to that place in the baptism liturgy the entire congregation says it and remembers their own convenant.
oops, not convent, but covenant.
Joel, I wonder what it means to say,
the United Methodist Church is a non-creedal church and the Book of Discipline would specifically prohibit using the Apostle's Creed as a test of faith for membership. We use creeds as affirmations only...
If the United Methodist Church is, in fact, non-creedal, that seems to suggest we have no common belief that holds us together. If that's the case, what does it mean to be a United Methodist?
I'd venture the statement, "the United Methodist Church is a non-creedal church," isn't intended to mean what it means in a straightforward sense. Expanding on Jonathon's comment, perhaps someone who believes this can answer the following question:
If the United Methodist Church is a non-creedal church, what are the Articles of Religion and the Confession of Faith, and if not a creed, why are they protected by a restrictive rule?
First, Hate to disagree Joel, but Jonathon is correct...The United Methodist Church is a creedal church. Not one particular creed such as nicene, apostles, etc...but the creedal standards as laid out in our "Articles of Religion" Paragraph 103 BOD. And they are protected by the first restrictive rule so these articles are not going anywhere soon.
Secondly, For the rest of you these articles of religion say NOTHING about homosexuality. It is not in there so it is not protected by the first restrictive rule.
Thirdly, Karen is comparing apples and oranges. Homosexuality last time I checked is not a religion, cult, or even sect. Wiccan I think is.
The question she is really trying to raise is can you be homosexual and a Christian?
Pax,
Stephen
Joel, I probably am not as conservative as you think (possibly more so than you... who knows).
We use all the different creeds in our worship service too, and my favorite one is teh united church of candada's statement of faith.
but i was basically saying that as far as looking for a foundation from which all christians might find agreement- the apostles' creed is a good place to start.
i hear ya bro,
jonathon
We're non-creedal in regards to membership? Really?
In the Hymnal, all of our services for Baptismal Covenant - even the short forms - contain the Apostle's Creed, recited as answers to the questions about basic Christian faith. Not only are they to be answered by those undergoing baptism, but by the whole gathered congregation.
I suppose we could just skip that part or say it with our fingers crossed. But it's there.
And BTW, the Evangelical United Brethren Church had always considered itself a "confessional" church. It's Confession of Faith is found in the Book of Discipline along with Wesley's Articles of Religion.
Joel,
The difference between beer and sexual sin is that the Bible never bans moderate drinking.
So the pastor (who we might call a fundamentalist) who would ban you for having a beer is guilty of adding to the Scripture when they shouldn't.
In that sense, that pastor has removed authority from the Scripture and given it to themselves- which is exactly what the liberal does when they ignore the Bible's expectations on Christians and sex. The only difference is that the fundamentalists sins by addition and the liberal by subtraction. But both are monkeying with God's word and both are wrong.
As I've said before, fundamentalism and liberalism have more in common with one-another than either does with orthodoxy.
So thank you for making my point- a Christian disciple should be bound to follow the expectations of the Bible- nothing more and nothing less.
Yours truly,
The Nabob of Negativity.
Joel,
Obviously, my little joke at the end didn't lighten the mood as I had hoped it would.
If ceasing to converse is your wish, fine. But it isn't mine.
It seems to me that you cannot seperate ideological disagreement from personal hatred.
I find that to be a shame because whether we like it or not, so long as we both belong to Christ, then we are brothers and brothers should never just stop communicating.
Even a church split is less of a defeat of Christian love than when we cannot even speak to one another.
I hope you reconsider.
John - you raise a good question about where to draw the line. It is a hard question to answer because of such divergent starting points. If you don't think 'homosexuality' is a sin, than it is difficult to say that not letting gays and lesbians become members is the same as not letting practicing wiccans become memebers. It's hard to even argue that way, because of disagreement on the sinfulness to begin with.
I guess, though, if I had to talk about drawing lines, I would want to know, like you do, what is the standard of consistency? If a person who is rich refuses to sell their possessions before becoming a member, should i refuse their membership? If they refuse to tithe? Maybe?! On the one hand, I think approaching things on a case-by-case basis is a good idea - no two situations are alike. But on the other hand, it worries me that indeed, there isn't a clear line here of what can and can't knock one out of membership eligibility for the church.
So, I guess when I see the Methodist Left not giving a direct answer, it is because that's the very problem with this decision - this decision has said there is no line to be drawn except by each individual pastor.
I've always been somewhat confused as to why people say the United Methodist Church isn't a creedal church. Joel isn't the first one I've heard say that. And I was taught at Candler that the UMC wasn't a creedal church.
But in practice we very much are a creedal church. Sure we don't sign a confession to become a church member in the way that other denominational traditions perhaps do.
But remember, we require as part of the candidacy process that you take three classes: Methodist history, polity, and theology. And every minister prior to ordination is required to "uphold the standards and practices of the discipline" which includes a theological statement.
But consider this hypothetical: What if John the Methodist (who is on his way to ordination) said to the Board of Ordained Ministry (remembering especially that he is in the Florida Annual Conference) that he doesn't believe in the practice of infant baptism. He only believes in "believer's baptism by immersion". Do you think they would ordain him?
And if not, why? Because the United Methodist Church has as both its doctrinal identity and its congregational practice decided that it believes in infant baptism (by the way, I do too, else I wouldn't be an elder in the UMC).
True, they may defer him, counsel him, send him to get additional education in Methodist theology, polity, and history classes. But if chose to maintain his position, I don't know a Board of Ordained Ministry that would recommend him to be ordained in the United Methdodist Church.
Is this hypothetical John the Methodist evil? Sinful? Of course not. But he is inappropriate to serve in ministry in the United Methodist church. The UMC has decided (rightly I believe, but others say wrongly) that to be a practicing homosexual is inappropriate for ministry in the United Methodist Church.
It is well within the rights of the church to make those decisions. Remember ordination is the result of two calls: the call of the individual into ordained/vocational ministry and the call of the church to respond/recognize that call. The church may not feel due to temperment, conduct, gifts, etc. to recognize that call. Its the church 's job to decide that issue. But if the individual call is rejected for ordained ministry it doesn't mean that person has heard God wrong. It just means that the person needs to pursue another avenue of service, possibly as a lay person but perhaps in another ministry setting.
When the church exercises that right to decide who to ordain, it is simply exercising its right. Boards of Ordained Ministry turn down people every year for one reason or another. (Sometimes they are wrong, but more often they are right). But that doesn't mean the United Methodist Church is "closed" to those people does it?
I should say that when I was at Candler the Florida Conference was pretty notorious about how discriminating they were to prospective candidates for ordination. That is, they didn't just let anybody in even while they were retiring more elders than they were ordaining.
i have to admit that i am growing weary of both conservative fundies and liberal fundies. it's all a game of rhetoric. goodnight folks.
Wiccan is a different belief system. Sexual orientation is not. It is comparing apples and oranges.
As for applying biblical principles to our sexual behavior and relationships, then women are going to lose a whole lot.
Stonings are going to be back in style and widows are going to have to start marrying their husband's brothers.
Hallelujah that the Messiah, Jesus, already took care of all of that.
John,
I do not think it is not dodging the question to raise questions about the question itself. I.E. Before asking "Where should the line be drawn" should we not ask "Who gets to draw the line"?
This Judicial Council decision answers "Who" by saying "The local pastor." I happen to disagree with this answer.
Further, I am a little disturbed with all of this emphasis being placed on the membership. Haven't we pretty much outgrown church membership as a meaningful category? I mean, discipleship trumps membership, doesn't it?
Artful Dodger,
Andy B.
Yes. I hear you, Joel. I guess I am thinking more in general. What is to keep me as a pastor from giving non-members more of a voice? Why is "membership" the prerequisite for having power in a church structure?
Maybe I am coming closer to drawing my line! Maybe something in the "faithful discipleship" area.
Honing in,
Andy B.
Andy-
Discipleship means living a life striving for holiness. Giving into homosexual impulses is sinful. So true discipleship entails abandoning, not celebrating sin.
Let's stop defining down deviancy.
Joel,
Please either tell us where in the Discipline that it says the UMC is non-creedal, or stop saying it.
in my doctrine and polity class in seminary, we were taught that the UMC and the discipline are non-doctrinal in a traditional sense, not non-creedal. *not* to say that there are no doctrines, but to say that the way we articulate our beliefs in the discipline is much different than other denominations, becuase we say: our doctrine is JW's sermons and notes, etc., instead of laying things out in a very specific way, other than the articles of religion and confession of faith. I don't know if that's where Joel is coming from or not, but it is how i heard it articulated.
sorry, but the comments here in the main havelost sight of the original question.
what was it again?
oh yeah
If we don't draw the line at homosexuality, then where? If the gay/straight issue is too unimportant to you, fine. Where do you want the line to be?
I draw the line in the answering of the five questions of membership
do you confirm the new Covenant as in your baptism (if not baptised - then we baptise them!)
do you confess Jesus Christ as saviour and do you want to follow Him
Do you profess the scriptures of N and OT
will you live a Christian life and remain a faithful member of Christ's holy church *
will you be loyal to the UMC and pray, attend , give and serve?
* This should be investiaged during the period before membership and it's clearly spelt out for us. You lot know the BoD much better than me - go check what it says :)
If someone says YES to all these, then I believe it's clear they should be accepted as a member. They should also be held accountable to their membership. Are they fulfilling their part of the bargin. Is the church too?
There is no clause which says ' have you renounced all sin in your life, including x, y and z
To push this onto the pastor to make the decision is lunacy. Taken to its logical or illogical extreme as the pastor moves onto his /her next congregation - the whole membership list should be revoked and started anew. What a mess!
wow, big john is almost reaching wesley blog status!
Thanks, Stephen. But I'm going to take a break from controversy-blogging. It brings in traffic, but I don't want to be an agent of division within the Body of Christ.
"Discipleship means living a life striving for holiness."
And holiness is the process that happens through participating in what JW called the means of grace-
prayer
meditation on the scripture
receiving the Lord's supper
fasting
Christian Conferencing (community)
healthy living
doing good
visiting the sick
visiting the imprisoned
feeding and clothing the needy
earning, saving and giving away all you can
seeking justice
wesley's idea of holiness had lots to do with a more catholic view holiness which is rooted in practice that leads to virtue.
I'm not sure when you say "holiness" you are using in the Wesleyan sense but more in the traditional "American Holiness Movement" way that say the traditional Nazarenes and pentecostals have.
That's interesting, Greg. It reminds me of Chris Morgan's statement that determinism -- the notion that people can't control themselves or resist temptation -- is a major philosophical error of modern times.
Joel, sorry if I came across as hostile. It just seemed to me with your reference to the official UMC website that you were coming off as sort of heavy-handed with the assertion that the UMC is not a creedal church. I am not a Confessing Mvmnt member, but I believe we are a creedal church. If you think I have an attitude problem, check out what one of my seminary professors from Duke (now at Garrett) has said about the UMC being a creedal church:
http://www.nicvoice.org/risking_methodism.htm
I think the above essay is correct, and that we are a creedal church. I too am an evangelical liberal, if you let me define those terms! I guess what I am trying to get across is this: don't write us 'credalists' off as all conservatives - because we're not. We're also socialists and pacifists!
Peace, Jonathan
Joel, you say that the Confessing Movement wants to change the Discipline to require you to sign a statement of faith. I have never read this in any of their literature. Could you please tell me where they have said this?
When you were ordained, you answered the following questions in the affirmative: Are you convinced that our doctrinal standards are at harmony with the Scriptures?... Will you teach the faith of the church and no other?.... Will you be loyal to the doctrine, discipline, and liturgy of the UMC? If you answered these questions in the affirmative (and if you didn't you wouldn't be ordained), then I am satisfied, and we don't need to argue over the definitions of terms such as "creedal"
If you use the liturgy in the UM Hymnal at baptisms (which includes the Apostles' Creed), then I am satisfied, and we don't need to argue over words.
If it weren't for the creeds, I wouldn't be a pacifist, and that's why the creeds are so dear to me -- that and the fact that the martyrs were willing to die for them. When the whole Roman Empire was united in its determination to kill Athanasius for his allegiance to "homouousious," he kept the faith - thanks be to God.
Joel, I'm getting sort of burned out on blogging right now, but I'll mention two books that relate to pacifism and the creeds. (by the way it's the Apostles' Creed, not the Apostle's Creed). One book is Loyalty to God: The Apostles' Creed in Life and Liturgy by Theodore Jennings. It examines the Apostles' Creed as a pledge of allegiance to the kingdom of God, which renounces the spiritual forces of wickedness (principalities and powers - like militarism). The other is the most important book on Christian pacifism, The Politics of Jesus by John Howard Yoder. He has a chapter dealing with the Nicene Creed and Niebuhr's false interpretation of the Trinity as modalism and how it leads to Niebuhr's rejection of pacifism.
Post a Comment