Aside from electing JoAnn Lyon as General Superintendent, the major decision of the conference was in favor of modifying some rules on church membership. My denomination has wrestled with this issue for years and, although I believe once again it has made the right decision, this is an issue that begs for further clarity and refinement.
The issue, in my opinion, is the recognition that there is a difference between the particulars of Wesleyan identity and the particulars of Christian identity. On the one hand, it is perfectly appropriate for the Wesleyan Church to have a distinct identity with distinct beliefs and distinct practices. We believe in victory over sin. We don't drink alcohol. The universal church needs parts of the body to emphasize various pieces of the Christian puzzle more than others.
But there are also Christians who attend our churches who have, for example, a different definition of sin and a different understanding of Christian theology. And there are people who are every bit as holy as any Wesleyan who has ever lived, who drink alcohol in moderation and do so in full obedience to every word of the Bible on the subject.
The search for wisdom these last years is to recognize fully that we must affirm without reservation the equal spirituality of those in the last paragraph to us without negating the importance of our distinct voice among Chrisendom.
The resolution was to require "covenant" membership of ministers, board members, trustees, delegates, nominating committee members, lay leaders, Sunday School superintendents, etc. At the same time, community members can vote on all issues presented to the local church except votes on the reception of covenant members.
A key amendment--a compromise that helped the resolution pass--was the removal of a requirement for all local churches to recognize community membership and community members from other churches. It remains the prerogative of local churches to decide whether they will use the category or not.
Drinking was clearly the focal issue here. Can we have people in our congregations who drink voting on all church matters except the reception of covenant members? For churches with community membership, the answer is now yes.
P.S. Student membership is back (formerly called junior membership in days of yore)!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
So now the question - will employees of Wesleyan parachurch organizations be held to the covenant membership standards or the community membership standards? I wonder if this came up in the special sessions on memorial 116?
I wasn't in the room at the time, but I do believe that Dr. Spittal of Southern Wesleyan did bring up the fact that such decisions would have implications for the colleges...
Heck, I would settle for abstinence in daily life, if we could at least partake of the Eucharist properly.
Thanks for your post. Saw this:
"The search for wisdom these last years is to recognize fully that we must affirm without reservation the equal spirituality of those in the last paragraph to us without negating the importance of our distinct voice among Chrisendom."
Just what I was thinking!!
Ha! You've corrupted my subconscience :-)
While I don't consider this a "major" decision (the major one to me was the original establishment of "Community membership" not this extension of voting rights) I do admit it is widely considered significant. So last year community members could vote on a new building, the budget setting the pastor's salary (or even establishing a salary at all for a youth pastor etc) and every other issue in the church, they now can vote on people too... like the pastor or board members (even though they cannot themselves be board members).
While it changes things "significantly" for the community members who had to quit voting when people issues came up, and it rescues pastors from the embarrassing steps of telling their Com members they can;t vote on this thing, I do not believe it will make major differences in the elections (we'll see if I'm right).
As to avoiding embarrassment, the pastor will still have to say "Sorry, you can vote on the board members, but you can;t be one" so there is not a great escape here from an awkward situation either.
BUT everyone believes this is a "major change"--conservative and progressive alike, so I suspect believing is reality..and your title is right ;-)
You've failed to allude to what, to me, is the most crucial change in the new community member trade-offs. For the first time, community members must fully embrace the Wesleyan Articles of Faith! How can this be viewed as anything but a positive?
Keith, I'm sure you're right about it not being as major in reality as so many of us are thinking. I think what is making everyone think it is so major is the fact that everyone was debating the question of whether people in our churches might drink alcohol and still be considered members of a sort in good standing.
Kerry, I had not noticed this part of the trade off. It actually undermines my spin on the resolution, which was that we would recognize in our communities that we are only a part of the church, to fully recognize in our fellowship Christians of integrity who nevertheless did not share our specific convictions.
It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out in years to come, with some pushing to make the Wesleyan specifics generic in themselves. I was thinking we had (perhaps without realizing it) passed a measure with a profound ecclesiology.
Kerry is right in the significant restrictiveness of requiring Community Members to embrace the Articles of Religion... which are not behavioral in nature but beliefs. This brings the interesting result that a Community member can use alcohol but will be required to embrace entire sanctification before becoming a Community member.
(Actually this is not really a stumbling block--it is far easier for modern folk to embrace beliefs than behaviors...as we know from faculty who apply to teach at IWU who formally taught at Calvin College --they are easily able to embrace the strong Calvinism last year and embrace entire Sanctification this year..."because as I read this I said, yes, this is what I've always believed." then two years later thy are able to embrace a full Lutheran position when another job comes open. Modern folk have a very elastic belief system...so actually I do not think it will be hard for drinking community members to "embrace" all our doctrines with their mind--just so long as they do not have to change lifestyle issues.
A larger question is will we move gradually to doctrinal requirements for membership rather than lifestyle issues? Or will we merely toss out own lifestyle issues and enact new ones when out students take over the denomination?
Keith, you bring up reasons why I just consider this a work in progress. The church will identify unintended consequences in this move that it will address in 4 years. Who knows, maybe it will even reverse itself.
Some of the objections from the floor mentioned some of the "clearly out" behaviors this resolution lets in. For example, a person could be a thief and be allowed to be a community member, as long as they affirmed the articles.
My hope--not necessarily expectation--is that we can adopt the model I'm suggesting and plan to post on perhaps later today or tomorrow. Our Wesleyan commitments are not and should not be the bottom line commitments to be a Christian. Similarly, a person should be included within our local fellowship if they are a Christian of integrity of any stripe.
An undeveloped "self" is at issue. We "identify" with Christ in different ways. The understanding we have at a particular time is dependent on our ability to "take responsibility" for ourselves (instead of passing "blame", "guilt" onto someone else, "our Savior"). This means that a person's journey involves a transformation of understanding in self, God, and "other". So, how do we make "rules" that "fit" everyone's understanding?
I agree that the Church should not allow a lifestyle that our government condemns, especially, because our government's laws are the minimum in protecting another's "right". Christians should certainly be keeping the laws of their own country.
unless there is a "higher value", such as the slave issue or women's rights...etc...
Post a Comment