From the beginning, Methodists have been an opinionated people. John Wesley had passionate opinions which he spread with fervor. Spirited debate has characterized our denominational history and, as long as debate is conducted respectfully within the priority of grace and Christian love, the differences of opinion enrich and bless us.
And, to tell the truth, some of our most passionate opinions don't matter much in the grand scheme of things. The exact wording of a name of a group in the connection is not going to have eternal consequences. But there are some subjects that go straight to the heart of faith and whether or not our practices are aligned with Jesus.
We are at a crossroads of conscience place now with proposed constitutional amendment 1. While other amendments deal with the organization of our denomination, amendment 1 deals with the integrity of Christian practice. The amendment doesn't state a new position. The United Methodist Church has always had evangelical fervor that Christ died for the sins of the whole world and calls ALL to repentance, faith and Christian practice. We are -- and always have been--a John 3:16 denomination. Traditionally, we not only welcome all -- we have a burning passion to reach out to all. The open altar is one of the strongest distinguishing Christlike characteristics of our faith.
The clarity of amendment 1 is, in my opinion, a no-brainer. Anyone who professes faith in Christ and takes vows to support the church is welcome. Our history, our theology and our commitment to Scripture makes this, in my opinion, makes amendment 1 a simple restatement of a profound and central teaching of Methodism.
But, as I said, Methodists are an opinionated group. And, while I thought that this amendment couldn't possibly be controversial, U-Tube and media has reminded me that people can argue anything. The opposition/hesitancy about the amendment does not openly oppose inclusivity. But the appeal is being made to the perogative of the local pastor to determine readiness for membership.
I take clergy leadership seriously. But I unequivocally, unapologetically say that there is no pastoral perogative for a pastor to turn away anyone who Christ would welcome. Pastors NEVER have the perogative to do the opposite of what Jesus would have done. And John 3:16 is clear -- God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that WHOSOEVER believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. Now, friends, that familiar verse won't do much good if we can repeat it but not live it. What part of "whosoever" do we not understand?
How could anyone defend the perogative of a pastor to say "sorry, you can't join a United Methodist church" to someone for whom Christ died and gave eternal life?
Does that mean that pastors are to ignore the sins of anyone coming forward? Absolutely not! That's where pastoral leadership has perogative and responsibility. But no pastor requires perfection from anyone who comes forward -- never has. Watching over one another in love and accountability has been another hallmark of Methodism. If the model of Christ means anything, pastors have no authority to lead in moving on to perfection if they withhold the accepting grace of Christ and refuse to allow people to make a commitment of faith to Christ and the church.
We must never compromise the inclusive invitation of Jesus Christ. We must never fail to embody God's invitation to all. Anything less than full welcome distorts the church into a club and tempts pastors to the Pharisees. A Christ-centered church and Christ-centered pastors have arms and hearts open to whoever professes Christ and seeks to serve Him through the church.
Spirited debate is fine as long as it doesn't cloud our thinking or redefine gospel priorities. There is no more basic affirmation than Christ's welcome to all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment