I was reading the blog of the Rev. Dean Snyder, my former boss and pastor of Foundry UMC in Washington, DC. I've yet to really dive into the discussions of recent Judicial Council rulings (Stroud and Johnson). I enjoyed reading on his blog today about the Baltimore-Washington Conference caling for a special session of the General Conference to discuss the Johnson ruling. Then I read the comments on the blog. Here is one that was most disturbing from a UM clergyperson:
"It is true that I would not allow a homosexual person who I knew was sexually active become a member of my church. Neither would I let a sexually active single heterosexual person become a member of my church or couples living together or those living in adulterous relationships, or those practicing any sin without a sense of remorse and the desire to repent and change. My congregation supports me in this. So it's not about purging gay people. It's about purging sin. And the trouble with sin is that it looks like people which makes it hard to deal with. We are a church called to spread scriptural holiness across the land. If we tolerate sin that is shoved in our face we are anything but a holiness movement."
Wow! The Holy Spirit is begging and pleading and groaning for a revival of the United Methodist Church. I just know it when I read things like most of these conversations on UM blogs.
The Book of Discipline language . . . it's tricky. Yes, pastors should be able to walk potential members through the process and help determine their readiness to join. Pastors must help us take membership in the church seriously. But can we really deny membership according to our interpretations of a hierarchy of sins in a church where each of us are beautiful letdowns before the throne of God? We must revisit this in a prayerful, faithful special session of General Conference.
BUT if we don't, my friend Jennifer and I decided that we need a pastor to now kick President Bush out of the UMC for the authorization of killing thousands of people. I mean, since it's faithful to the Discipline and all . . .
11 comments:
And I'm willing to take on that pastoral role if need be. :)
By the way, I answered your question back at my blog.
How bizarre... I thought we learned that all sins were the same back in Sunday School.
I'm so glad the Lord does the final picking and choosing.
Great post! I do think we need to address sin and discipline those who are unrepentant. However, we can't pick and choose which sins we discipline. I think certain sins have varying degrees of consequence, but all sin is a spiritual problem that needs to be dealt with. If we don't hold each other accountable, how are we conforming ourselves to Christ's example? We must address ALL sin... Even gossip, failing to tithe, lying... But it comes down to the heart. What is the heart of the person who is caught up in whatever sin we may be talking about? If we aren't going to help that person walk away from their sin, but instead condemn them or ignore their sin, then have we done what Christ would would want us to do?
Sorry to get rambly. Thanks for visiting my blog! :D
Yeah, me too. They better start with kicking me out, since I continue to sin even when I know better. In fact, once they kick out all the sinners, I wonder who would be left?
I was going to type exactly what Mary did. I think you each have good points.
I think to compare gay and lesbian people to criminals is a bit of a stretch, mary. Are you suggesting that the BTK killer might not have been a serial killer if his pastor had really talked about sin? The guy is a sociopath. He does not dwell in any kind of moral reality. His life was a cover for his crimes, a complete fraud.
Gay and lesbian people who are out and seeking church membership are living authentic lives. I'm not Methodist and therefore not answerable to the Book of Discipline, but in my understanding of a faithful walk with Christ, we can't begin until we stop pretending to be something we are not.
I know there are far too many young anorexics, Mare, who are a part of web rings of pride for their disease. They are not ready to let it go. They are clinging to what they believe. Is that healthy or good? Absolutely not, as you point out! They are spiraling in a sick disease, as you well know. I would be terribly disappointed, however, for any church to deny them membership because of where they are. How do we limit where they could be through Christ as they continue in fellowship and ministry with the believers? Christ asks us to come . . . there is room enough for all of us. Christ asks us to come and be cleaned. We are not asked to be clean before we come. And I think that goes for the dirty sins we have and the dirty sins we don't even recognize. For all of those things, we are welcomed before God. Aren't we? Yes, even the child molester (though the comparison b/w that and homosexuality is one that is problematic). That's the major point here. The name of the sin aside--the bottom line is that if you were still in the phase of your illness when you were unwilling to accept that you were harming your temple, should you be denied membership to a church? Absolutely not! Wasn't it through those with whom you could be where you are and still be held accountable that you were able to change? Not through judgment and being ignored . . .
I hear you, Mare. I don't think we're asking the right questions.
So this is the question we're asking when we think of this issue: Is homosexuality a sin?
We answer emphatically, "Yes!" And so . . .?
We answer emphatically, "No!" And so . . .?
When did the end result change for either answer?
The better question: who gets to come? Who gets to experience the fullness of Jesus Christ?
I know no other answer except that we all do. Child molesters, liars, lovers, heterosexuals, gossipers, tax collectors, homosexuals, children, tithers, impoverished, prostitutes, widow/ers, rich all get to sit on the same holy pews with our filth.
When did the church believe our job was to transform souls? Our job is to love incessantly and pray for God's transformation of souls--ours and the world. I'm starting to question our mission as a UMC to "make disciples." God transforms, God makes disciples. We are faithful followers praying that we can be used in the process, aren't we?
I have been thinking this over and my final thought is this: To heck with church membership. LOL! Either it needs to be dramitically revamped or done away with.
er
we are baptised INTO a church. to allow a baptised member to come to service but deny membership, is to deny fellowship with Christ through each other - and that is why IMHO membership should not be denied.
As we become members we promise to try our best to live lives worthy of Christ, and members are to help each other. It starts from the basis of being equal - sinners in need of Christ, and not by having a badge of worthiness which enables us to become members because our sins are not X, Y or Z or worse still because our sins are expertly buried. (sigh)
membership is not the same as baptism, and our salvation is not in question if it is denied - but my point is why would we deny membership at all? To do so is to miss the point of the book of Galatians where Paul teaches that keeping the law is not what frees us, but faith in Jesus Christ.
I say we admit all, and we work together on our Christlikeness.
If the pastor is going to deny membership on the basis of sins, then he /she would also have to start revoking memberships too. What's more his /her life had better be spotless because he/she will be held accountable for their judgement over others.
This is a BAD decision for UMC. No question and ironically it's not even a gay /straight issue at all.
I agree, Lorna. This is not an issue of sexuality, and I wish we could get passed that to really respond in the way of Christ.
I sigh with you . . .
Post a Comment