Touch points
Liz Selzer shares a liberating
approach to relational evangelism.
Amazing love William C. Goold celebrates the
300th birthday of Charles Wesley.
Modern day circuit rider Tina S. Pugel tells about
Wesley Putnam's road to ministry.
Church must support returning soldiers Kathy L. Gilbert reports on
army chaplains' call to the church.
Pastoral leadership and church membership Gregory D. Stover explains why
membership standards matter.
How to become a General Conference delegate Joe Kilpatrick outlines
election strategies for delegate hopefuls.
Aaron Neville's road to redemption Steve Beard profiles a music legend's return to faith.
COLUMNS
Editorial The continuing debate about
membership
Next GenerationThe dangers of transparency
RENEW Women's NetworkRetain the label-before
it's lost
The Great Commission Obscurity and fame
From the HeartMen without eyes
Culture in View The Reaping
News Analysis Has our United Methodist ad campaign ignited any church growth?
United Methodists continue in heated conversation about the meaning of membership. One senses that our confusion reflects decades of inattention to, even neglect of, Scripture and the doctrines of our faith.
The controversy began when the Rev. Ed Johnson postponed receiving an acknowledged practicing homosexual into membership at South Hill (Virginia) UM Church in 2005. Johnson was subsequently charged and eventually removed from his pulpit. Four months later, the Judicial Council—the church’s highest court—ruled in Decision 1032 that the pastor of the church has the authority to discern one’s readiness for membership and ordered Johnson reinstated to his pulpit. At the next annual conference (2006) Bishop Charlene Kammerer (Richmond Area) moved him to another appointment, to the deep chagrin of the South Hill congregation.
On March 11 of this year, South Hill’s new pastor, the Rev. Barry Burkholder, accepted the man into membership, believing that he was “ready to receive the vows of membership.” Former pastor Johnson had postponed membership because the man was unrepentant and would not commit to a lifestyle that rejected homosexual practice.
Seldom has an issue brought to United Methodism the flood of heated conversation. Everyone has weighed in, from bishops on down.
One of the oft-heard arguments is that membership in the Methodist tradition has always been just a matter of one’s “willingness to affirm membership vows.” The Judicial Council disagreed, however, saying the pastor has the authority to discern one’s readiness for membership.
As a part of the ongoing conversation, a Consultation on Judicial Council Decision 1032 was held in February of this year, sponsored by the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry (the major presentations can be read by going to the board’s website: www.gbhem.orgasp/ resourceLibrary.asp). Particularly helpful were papers by Dr. William J. Abraham, Dr. Les Longden, and the Rev. Greg Stover (see related article on p. 36).
Longden, professor of Evangelism and Discipleship at the University of Dubuque Theological Seminary, said that the view taken that membership in the Methodist tradition requires just a “willingness to affirm membership vows” was wrong, for several reasons.
First, it was not true of the Methodist Societies before they became a church, says Longden. Members were actually “on trial” for a period of months. Second, mere “willingness” was not the standard when the societies in the United
States became a distinct church. A period of “probationary membership” was required from the beginning of the Methodist Episcopal Church and “six months” probation “remained a standard in American Methodism in the North throughout the nineteenth century,” Longden said, citing Frederick A. Norwood’s Church Membership in the Methodist Tradition. Third, the claim that mere “willingness” is enough for membership is contradicted by two more contemporary arguments. One is that the relaxing of membership vows in the twentieth century was an example of the secularization and loss of Methodist tradition rather than its authentic tradition. And second, a more recent witness to the seriousness of membership vows is the list of “chargeable offenses” for lay members of local churches, as well as provisions for their trial, found in our Discipline, Par. 2702.3. Though seldom used, Longden admits, “this paragraph remains as witness to a tradition of membership that is far more rigorous in its expectations than a mere rite of welcoming.”
James V. Heidinger II Longden also notes that the controversy over Decision 1032 reflects what biblical scholar Karl Donfried describes as the struggle of “two contrasting theologies…at work in much of mainline Protestantism: a theology of acceptance versus a theology of redemption.”
The “theology of acceptance” has reduced the mystery of God “to one who simply wants us to love one another with an emphasis on the affirmation of the other, especially those who have been marginalized by society.” A “theology of redemption,” by contrast, “recognizes the power of sin, acknowledges that evil can only be overcome through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and accentuates the call to discipleship…as a call to holiness” (Donfried, Who Owns the Bible? Toward the Recovery of a Christian Hermeneutic, p. 7. Donfried cites Philip Turner, “An Unworkable Theology,” First Things, June/July, 2005, p. 11).
Longden correctly notes that this whole controversy provides us with the opportunity to test whether the principle of “inclusiveness” (see Discipline, Article IV) is rightly normed and informed by a “theology of redemption” or is in competition with it.
For sure, the theologies contrasted above reflect more than just nuances of difference. They refer to, essentially, two different gospels.
Click here to send your response plus the title of this article to us at Good News.