Thinking About Amendment 1 After The Fact

If you are fail in life or in you exames it does not mean you can not move in the life.I fails 2 times   <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> <a href="http://www.ccnaexams.com ">ccna exam</a> .......Now I am the Manger of It company...... <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->

 

Jay, I very much like your post.  However, at one point you said that membership in the UMC is not about God's grace.  I agree and disagree in part.  Certainly the church's membership vows do not stop God from loving.  However, where baptism is concerned, we believe that as a sacrament, a sign-act, grace is actually imparted and one becomes sealed by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ.  This was our rationale that Baptized children are then Baptized Members.  We've been in the habit of viewing Baptized Members as children, previously preparatory members, (hence not members) and I think this view has carried over in our thinking where our theology has set out a different course.  God imparts grace in Baptism and God imparts membership in the Body of Christ.


The problem this creates for us is that The UMC has a poor ecclesiology (theology of the church).  Our history is that of a renewal movement in the Anglican Church.  As such, in the past, persons joining the movement (societies & bands) were taking on an additional discipline for accountability sake.  In this sense, it's completely understandable that if you've submitted to this accountability and then disregarded your covenant, you should be removed.  It also holds that there rightly could be requirements for membership, such as fleeing the wrath to come.  However, as a movement, the sacraments are available through the church of which you are a member independently of your membership or lack thereof in the movement.


The theology of a church is different than the theology of a movement.  A church must be open to sharing God's grace through the Sacraments.  Of course the open table takes care of everyone in Communion.  But, when we consider Baptism, since membership in the Body of Christ is given by the Holy Spirit, then the church has no right to stand in the way of accepting that person as a member of the church (or any church).  We cannot stand in the way of God.  In the example of an unbaptized adult who desires to join the church, the regular channel is by Baptism (Wesley's words).  How can the church deny the sign-act of prevenient grace to anyone, since God gives it freely?  Likewise, how could the church extend the Sacrament of Baptism to someone (member of the Body of Christ) and not accept them into the membership of the church?


So, the root issue seems to be our United Methodist ecclesiology.  Are we a church or a movement?  How can we satisfy the important aspects of each?  Perhaps the movement can come to exist within the church as it once did within the Anglican Church.  This would be helpful to discipleship.  If not, maintaining a church with the membership requirements of a movement would require us to abandon our Wesleyian theology of Baptism and open Table.  To me, this is unacceptable.


Perhaps the way forward is a "both/and" solution where membership is open to all who profess their faith in the vow of Baptism and require that anyone serving in lay or clergy leadership be covenanted members of a discipleship society (possibly for a period of time before eligibility).  This would encourage the use of societies, the growth of discipleship, and give a hedge between a member with views/behaviors (racism, polygamy, unrepentant adultry, domestic violence, and the like) that are incompatible with Christian teaching and those of disciplined covenant and leadership authority.  In order for this to work the guidelines for entrance into the disiplined covenant societies would have to be stated clearly without discretion to decide on sins at a local or individual level.  Therefore, grace and membership are available to all, yet the model for faithful living is set forth in the perfecting work of the Holy Spirit accomplished in discipleship and holy living.


I'm still thinking all this through, but this kind of change and development of our ecclesiology looks like a better way to address this concern theologically, rather than through largely partisan legislation.


And, for the record, I support the full inclusion of LGBT persons in the life of the church.  At this time, this approach would not further full inclusion.

The issue not addresssed in any of the comments here is what come next after full inclusion regarding membership. The impetus of the amendment, so it seems to me, was full inclusion in membership and all that follows membership, specifically inclusion into the ministry of all persons (Steve West, I think you are mistaken). Though being a theologically conservative member of the church to which the sponsor of Amendment I is appointed, I support everyone's right to inclusion as members, as I would find it un-Christian to say that my sins allow me to be a member yet someone else's sins ought to exclude their membership. After the membership threshhold is crossed, though, comes the hard part. Methodist standards need to be upheld to the best of one's ability, most assuredly by the laity but especially by the clergy. I think that any type of ministry should hold itself to higher standards, that not just anyone can or should become a minister. Too many times, attaining an office, whether in church or in the secular world, is only a vehicle for imposing one's agenda on the hoi polloi/am ha'aretz/ignorant proletariat. Paul was set apart for his mission, and mentioned often that his own human will was subservient to God's Will. A good lesson to be learned for us all.

Good post.  I emphatically agree with you that the conversation that did not happen was the important one: what does membership in the Church mean?  (Although, whether we live in a post-modern, post-colonial, premodern, modern or whatever world seems to me to have little to do with the question, since the Church is eternal and transcends all ages, epochs, and cultures of this world - the nature of the new covenant is unchanging and eternal, just as surely as Christ is Risen forever).

I think both conservatives and liberals debated amendment 1 primarily in terms of the intricacies of Discipline and church law (I certainly thought of it primarily this way until a conversation I had at Conference).  Perhaps what would be more helpful is a more thorough thinking through of the New Covenant itself - what sort of covenant is it, what are the membership stipulations and expectations for it, and so on. 

Unfortunately, this is where being as doctrinally "streamlined" as the UMC is can have its disadvantages because I believe we will discover that there are numerous theologies floating around, and each one would have different practical consequences for Church discipline.  So unless one group is able to persuade the other groups of the logic and correctness of their Bible interpretation (unlikely, as few seem to be willing to listen at all to "the other side") then we are left with only the shallow debate about legal wording. 

Jay, even though we obviously don't see eye-to-eye on many important issues facing our church, I really appreciated this thoughtful post. 

TLS, if you want to talk about going back to Wesley, you'll need to acknowledge the distinction between membership in the Church of England (universal in his societal context) and membership in the Methodist societies, with the latter being no easy matter.  The early Methodists on both sides of the Atlantic exercised rigorous communal discipline, with individuals frequently expelled or put on probation - for their own benefit - as consequence of moral transgressions. 

Mark Youngman, your bringing up baptism raises an important question that I asked on my own blog.  To quote:

If "all persons," period, are eligible to receive the sacramentS," and this is placed in a separate sentence from anything about "taking vows declaring the Christian faith," would this not mean that "all persons" demanding adult baptism shall be entitled to this sacrament, regardless of whether or not they profess Christian faith (as long as they don't seek membership)?

Jay, even though we obviously don't see eye-to-eye on many important issues facing our church, I really appreciated this thoughtful post. 

TLS, if you want to talk about going back to Wesley, you'll need to acknowledge the distinction between membership in the Church of England (universal in his societal context) and membership in the Methodist societies, with the latter being no easy matter.  The early Methodists on both sides of the Atlantic exercised rigorous communal discipline, with individuals frequently expelled or put on probation - for their own benefit - as consequence of moral transgressions. 

Mark Youngman, your bringing up baptism raises an important question that I asked on my own blog.  To quote:

If "all persons," period, are eligible to receive the sacramentS," and this is placed in a separate sentence from anything about "taking vows declaring the Christian faith," would this not mean that "all persons" demanding adult baptism shall be entitled to this sacrament, regardless of whether or not they profess Christian faith (as long as they don't seek membership)?

Though I tend to be theologically moderate and do not support everything that gay rights activists push for, I did speak in favor of Amendment 1 on the floor of conference. Here is what I said and I wonder what others might think of it:

I speak in favor of Amendment 1. It affirms the availability of the ministry of the church to all people. My rationale is that either all people are eligible to receive the means of grace, or they or not. Either all people are eligible to take vows of membership, or they are not.

Most discomfort about this amendment is about homosexuality and fear about what this amendment could be used for. But this is not about ordination and it is not about marriage. There is no direct relevance to the Disciplinary standards of our church. This amendment is about who is eligible to receive “means of grace.”

Rhetoric against this amendment represents fear in two areas. First is the idea that it could be used to force pastors to receive members who are unwilling to take seriously their vows. To those anxious about this, I remind you that it is the pastor’s responsibility to discern readiness for taking the vows of membership. A second area of fear is that it could be somehow used to trump Disciplinary standards concerning homosexuality. To those anxious about this, I say that I honestly do not see how.

 

The real question before us is whether this is TRUE or not. The key term is “eligible.” This is not about the “right” to be a member but about the eligibility of each person to receive the gifts of grace the church offers.

 

So I ask you, are all people eligible to receive the means of grace, or not? Are all people eligible to receive the sacraments or not? Are all people (saint and sinner in each of us) eligible to take vows of membership or not? Are all people eligible to become Christians or not? Are all people welcome at the table, or not? Thank you.

 

Whether we are supporting a conservative viewpoint or liberal viewpoint we must be very careful to not use the short comings of someone else's position to justify our own position.  This notion that we let liars and divorcees into church therefore we must also admit practicing homosexuals is a flawed argument from the outset.  We will never be justified in our actions because of the sinfulness of others.  When we judge ourselves by ourselves it is unwise.  

"For we are not bold to class or compare ourselves with some of those who commend themselves; but when they measure themselves by themselves and compare themselves with themselves, they are without understanding."(2 Corinthians 10:12 NASB)

Actually, for Wesley membership was a matter of God's grace as the covenant community of the Church was for Wesley a means of grace. By denying people entry into the community of faith, we are excluding them from participation in the means of grace.

To push back just a bit and ask a question that I didn't hear addressed in our conference deliberations (not directly, anyway): one aspect that we didn't take into account was the reality that the taking of membership vows would still be necessary for professing membership under the amended formulation. Obviously the vows are still quite open-ended, but when a person faces the proposition of promising to be loyal to Christ through the UMC, I find that that should prompt serious pastoral conversations over what that means for open racists or sexists--or, for those more conservative pastors, what it means for openly gay prospective members. (Or, in the most baffling example lifted up this week in our conference, for non-Christians who want to join our churches and teach our Sunday School classes.) The benefit of Amendment 1 in my mind is that it would set a clearer standard of expectation for our pastors in having conversations with prospective professing members, but it would in no way remove the role of those pastoral conversations around the meaning of the membership vows.

You say: And, as David Lowes Watson shared at our annual conference, why are homosexuals excluded and not divorcees, given that Jesus talked much more about divorce than homosexuality?

Yes, but divorcees are likely to feel that their divorce was an unfortunate event, maybe even a sin, and they are trying to move forward with their lives. Many divorcees actually believe in marriage as a life-long commitment. They are not suggesting that traditional standards of Christian sexual morality be discarded or radically altered. However, the homosexuality debate raises questions about the standard itself and how or whether biblical pronouncements inform current moral choices. Something is being advocated (same-gender sex) that has traditionally been considered a sin.

You & David Lowes Watson seem quite confused.

It is similar for liars. Many people have lied. Not many advocate lying (in general) as a good thing. Liars can be members. We'll all in recovery. I'm not so sure about a person who advocates lying — if there is such.

You say: Being “open to all” is great in theory, but it also raises issues as well. Should openly racist and sexist persons be allowed to be a part of a covenant community which lifts up diversity and openness as a key value? And if so, how then do we deal with what we claim to be their sin?

Just so. That's the problem.

And, by the way, I don't claim to know the answers, either.

 

What I fail to understand is the way in which the whole discussion seems to have leapfrogged baptism as a precursor to membership. IF there is someone from whom we would withhold the sacrament of baptism, then that same person would not be "eligible" for membership in the UMC.