Should pastors have the right to pick and choose their members?

Good News has issued a press release taking sides in the case of the Virginia pastor who was placed on involuntary leave of absence as the consequence of his refusal to allow an openly gay man to join his church in spite of his district superintendent's instructions to receive him.

The Rev. James V. Heidinger II, president of Good News, said the involuntary leave voted by the Virginia Conference's executive clergy session "screams with injustice." He calls the Rev. Edward Johnson "a faithful pastor who was seeking to enforce the policies of our Book of Discipline..."

Given my understanding of sexual orientation (see here, here, and here), I obviously strongly disagree with the idea of excluding anyone from church membership because of her or his sexual orientation.

I think our Discipline could not be any clearer about people being welcome into membership regardless of their sexual orientation. Paragraph 4 of the Book of Discipline says, "The United Methodist Church is a part of the church universal, which is one Body in Christ. Therefore all persons shall be eligible to attend its worship services, to participate in its programs, and, when they take the appropriate vows, to be admitted into its membership in any local church in the connection."

Also, in the statement on "Human Sexuality" appearing in "The Nurturing Community," a section of the church's Social Principles, Paragraph 161G, the Discipline says: "We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn their lesbian and gay members and friends. We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and with all persons."

So I disagree with the basic assumption behind the press release issued by Good News. What part of the Discipline does Good News think the pastor was enforcing by denying a gay man membership?

But, independently of this, I am surprised by the position Good News has taken because of what it seems to say about the role of pastors. As a pastor I have always felt it was my responsibility to make reasonably sure that potential members understand, so far as possible, the church's membership questions. If they then are willing to answer them appropriately, I have not assumed that it is my responsibility to judge the sincerity of their answers. I think this would be presumptuous on my part.

Over the years I have doubted the motivation of one or two people who chose to join a church where I was pastor at the time. Once had to do with an insurance salesperson who I suspected was at least partly motivated by greed. I think he saw the congregation as a prospect list. I spoke earnestly to his membership class about what it means to commit ourselves to Christ through church membership, but I did not deny him membership. Why not? Well, I may have been wrong to define his ambition to sell insurance to church members as being driven by selfish motives. I may be wrong that greed, as I define it, is a sin. Then, too, I am not so self-confident about the single-mindedness of my own motivations that I can presume to judge others on this.

Shane Raynor at Wesley Blog has an interesting reaction to this question of judging someone's qualifications for church membership. He suggests that if we are going to accept anyone who presents himself or herself for membership unconditionally we ought to do away with the concept of membership all together. But, he adds, if we are going to continue having members and ask them to say vows, we should make sure the vows are taken seriously.

Doing away with a category of participants called "members" is an interesting idea. My churches have always included people who were not officially members but who were active in the congregation's worship, programs, and mission. Some of these were folk I considered to be the best of members, even though they officially weren't. There were always others who were officially members but who did not participate in church ministries the way they said they would when they joined. What church does not experience this? So why bother distinguishing between members and non-members?

Although I would not consider it an essential characteristic of the church, I think asking people to commit to participation is helpful, and I think membership is an okay way to articulate our commitment. Some churches are beginning to ask people to sign on as partners rather than members, but I don't think this changes the basis principle of inviting people to make a commitment to the congregation.

According to Shane's thinking, if we ask somebody to make a commitment, then someone needs to judge whether that person's commitment is sincere and serious before we accept him or her into membership or partnership or whatever we want to call it. This is where I disagree. I am not sure any of us are qualified to make this kind of judgment about someone else.

And even if I did agree that we ought to judge people's sincerity and honesty, then I do not think it should be the decision of any one person, not even the pastor (maybe especially not the pastor). If we are going to judge sincerity before we receive members, we need a jury to do it. We all have our own peculiar biases and subjective definitions of things like sin. No one should take on such a task unilaterally.

So then we would need a convoluted structure for membership screening and testing and maybe even complaint procedures and trials to determine whether membership promises are being kept adequately. Yuck.

Jesus' parable of the wheat and the weeds in Matthew 13:24-30 seems instructive. We just aren't smart enough to go pulling up what we think are weeds without risking that we will uproot the good wheat as well.

Comments

[revwilly]

Revwilly said...
Let's say a homosexual couple came to my church, wanted to become members but had not been baptized. Do you think I as a pastor who believes homosexual sex is a sin should baptized them? Let me answer that. How could I when I have to ask them if they repent of their sins and they say they have and I believe they haven't?

3:14 PM

[Dean Snyder]

Well, revwilly, let's say someone comes to me to get baptized and, in the course of conversation, tells me his greatest goal in life is to make a million dollars by the time he is 40, and he is willing to do whatever it takes. If I suggest to him that this sounds like the sin of greed, and he says he believes this is an honorable and worthy goal in life, and that he does not consider it a sin, what should I do?

If his conscience is not bothered and he does not consider it a sin, do I define his sin for him? Isn't that something each of us has to do for our own self? Who of us can be so confident of our superiority so as to define the sin of another, and therefore determine whether he or she has repented of it? This seems to me a very dangerous responsibility to take on oneself.

When the Clintons attended my church (before my time here), some folk criticized the pastors for allowing President Clinton to receive communion during the Monica upset. One of the pastors who was here at the time said to me: "Could you imagine us trying to decide whom in this congregation of 1,400 people is in an adequate state of grace to receive communion?"

It is our job to teach; not to judge who is a sinner and who isn't and whether they have repented or not.

Here's another question I am curious about: What sins other than those having to do with sexuality would you presume to judge whether someone has repented or not? Gossip? Gluttony? Pride?

What would you do if someone told you "I just like to repeat a juicy story." Or someone said they repented of their gluttony but it seemed to you they have not really done so?

This is an interesting and important discussion. I appreciate you weighing in. My site has moved to www.untiedmethodist.com, so I am going to try to move this exchange over there, if I can. Thanks.
Dean

[Jonathon Norman]

Rev Willy,
so what do you when you have a member of your congregation- born in the church, family are life long members, and the congregation has surrounded this person since birth- in essence they are a FAMILY member of this particular congregation. In fact they were baptized by the most beloved pastor of the church when he or she was just a baby.

Now it's been 19 years, this young adult has been very active in the life of the church- ushers from week to week, counts members on Sunday mornings, volunteers in the office once a week during the Summer, has gone to Summer camps as a youth every year and had a conversion experience as a pre-teen.

This young person has recently come to terms with the fact that he or she is gay.

Heres my question- does the pastor have the right to ask this member to leave the congregation strictly because this person is gay and feels that he/she cannot be anthing other than gay?

If yes, what are the implications to the wider church community that have nurtured, discipled and help raise this child?

If yes, in the eyes of this young person- what does this say about the nature of God and the way God's grace and love is played out incarnationally through the life of the church?

just curious,
jonathon

[Revwilly]

Wow, I have two of you to who have must respond! Dean, with your man who wants to be a millionaire there is a deeper issue than greed, it would seem to me that mammon would be first in his life and not Christ. We would have a conversation of about that but if he did not back away I would not baptize him.

As to who should judge, certainly not I but God and God has given us his Word to inform us of his judgements of which he expects those called to ordained ministry in particular to hold up. Seems also that greed and sexual immorality are even closely linked and indentifiable sins if we are to believe Ephesians 5:3.

Jonathan,
Your question comes from a different angle, but it is something I've dealt with in my church. We have had that very thing happen and we loved the person but he knew we did not approve of his behavior. We did not allow him to have leadership in anything because we have certain standards for all leaders. But he knew he was welcomed to be a part of us. Eventually he left the church, not because of what we did or said but because, in his words he lived in a different world than we. He still stops by from time to time to chat and he knows we love him. His family does not approve of his behavior, but they still love him.

In the community in which we live our stand is on homosexual behavior is well known. And even though people don't always agree with us they respect us because we are compassionate and loving, but not necessarily approving of all things people choose to do.

[Dean Snyder]

Rev. Willy
What if your interpretation of Scripture is wrong? Some of us clergy have been wrong in the past about some things. There was a time slaves were excommunicated for not being obedient to their masters. Scripture seemed clear about this. God's word informed us of God's judgement about slaves who were not obedient to their masters. Those working for freedom were judged to be unrepentent.

Don't you think each of us is called to examine our own hearts in light of Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience rather than a clergyperson sitting in judgment of others?
Dean

[Revwilly]

Dean,
I guess you and I have different understandings of "judgement". God alone is the judge, but again God has made his standards known to us and I believe expects us to hold one another accountable. I meet regularly with an accountability partner who has a list of the sins to which I am easily tempted. I have to answer his questions about those areas regularly. So yes, I examine my own heart but if I see another Christian sinning in some way I have an obligation to graciously point it out and help bear that persons burden.

Could I be wrong about some things? Has the church been wrong about some things in the past? Have you? THe answer to those questions is yes. We must be very careful! That is why the book of James warns people not to aspire to being teachers because we will be held to a higher standard. Understanding that I take great care in confronting sin in anyone's life.

Again, I am no one's judge, but I am people's pastor and I have a responsibility to call them to repent of sins I see in their lives and help them to overcome for their sake and the worlds. Not to do so would be unloving and to fail them. They can always disagree with me, but I will always love them.

[Joel Thomas]

Some of the worst of sinning, corporate sin, would almost always get left off the membership litmus test.

I grew up believing, and hold to that view today, that our involvement in Vietnam was immoral and thus a sin. Should I refuse membership to someone who supported the war and hasn't changed their mind?

[Revwilly]

Joel,
If you could make the case from the Scripture that supporting a war is a known and willful sin I believe you could.

[Dean Snyder]

Rev. Willy
I think we should, in all humility, tell folk that we think (if we do) that something in their life may be a sin and that it may be interfering in their relationship with God. But then we should say that we know we may be wrong. Then we should say that we believe in the priesthood of all believers. We should say, “If you are confident that this thing does not interfere with your relationship with God, let's proceed with baptism, membership, etc.”

Frankly, I find it amazing that you feel like you are the one to decide. Help me understand why you would presume to do this.
Dean

[Joel Thomas]

Rev. Willy,

You are in effect claiming that you are certain that you have a more repentant heart than a practicing homosexual in a committed monogamous relationship who after careful study of Scripture doesn't believe that his or her behavior is sinful. I don't believe that you can possibly know that.

Personally, I don't believe that excluding practicing homosexuals from church leadership is warranted under our Book of Discipline unless their behavior is promiscuous or by clear evidence self-destructive in and after the same manner applied to heterosexuals. The Book of Discipline was clearly written to exclude practicing homosexuals from ordained ministry. Nowhere in the Discipline does it say that they are disqualified from lay leadership positions. Considering that General Conference has gone out of its way to bar practicing homosexuals from ordained positions, it would seem to me that if it intended to bar them also from lay leadership positions it would have done so.

Further, the position of barring practicing gays often leads to hypocrisy. Gays who don't bring their partners to church and don't talk about their orientation are often allowed leadership positions while those who are more open and honest are barred.

At that point, the church must then ask every single person of marrying age whether they are celibate and/or their sexual orientation.

[Joel Thomas]

Legislation was introduced at the 1988 General Conference barring gays and lesbians from leadership positions in the church. The legislation was defeated.

[Dean Snyder]

John the Methodist (locustsandhoney.blogspot.com) asked me a question about this post on my old blog that I missed because it got caught in my spam-catcher. Here's his question and my response:
Dean, hypothetically, if a practicing homosexual member of the church repeatedly refuses to cease his sinful conduct, should he not be subject to church discipline?
John:
Church discipline is mostly invitational, I think. I am part of a small group that helps me to be accountable, for example. I think we should encourage this kind of self-selected accountability as a norm for all members. We should try to help our members see why they should want this accountability.

But I don't think we benefit from targeting people on the membership roles for discipline (except for our three-year long disciplinary process for clearing the roles of inactive and/or nonexistent members--if you don't show up or give or respond to a letter for three years running, your name can be removed from the rolls). The only exception to this is if members are disrupting worship or the administration of the church. Then a group of mature church leaders need to sit down with the person and compassionately but firmly help him or her restrain her or his conduct. We should not be poking into people's sexual lives, business practices, consumption habits, the way they treat their neigbhors, the way they vote, except by invitation. (Another exception to this is, of course, child abuse which must be reported to the secular authorities.)

And if you still insist on having someone hold members accountable for their sexuality, poltics, business ethics, the way they treat their neighbors,the quality of their marriage, the management of their financial resources, etc., it should not be the pastor but a jury or committee of peers.

Also, consider this: sexual orientation may be the one area that we as a denomination have explicitly said should not be used as a basis to limit people's membership or involvement in the church. Paragraph 161G of the Discipline says: "We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn their lesbian and gay members and friends. We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and with all persons." Kicking them out of church or refusing to accept them as members sounds like rejection to me.

I am not saying this makes sense – to accept gay members but not clergy. It doesn't make any sense to me at all. But this is what our General Conference has voted as our policy. I think in our heart of heart we know that sexual orientation is innate and given and that caring loving romantic relationships for gay folk must be same-sex. In our heart of hearts we do not want to condemn folk for having what we all want, but we don't want them openly in our pulpits where everybody could see them and be reminded they are part of God's good creation because we are closet Docetists. If we are going to start kicking out members, maybe we should start with the Docetists among us.

[Revwilly]

Perhaps you can answer this question for me. How could I with integriy and in good conscience baptize a person to says he/she is a homosexual living in a committed relationship, when I believe such a practice to be sinful?

Dean: I know you would want me to say I could be wrong about my belief and then go ahead and do it, but I can't do that. It would be a violation of my conscience. I will not do that.

Also..in reponse to your statement :, “If you are confident that this thing does not interfere with your relationship with God, let's proceed with baptism, membership, etc.” I am in ministry with a couple living in adultery and they insist it does not infere with their relationship with God. Dean, it's possible for people to be deluted by sin and believing whatever makes them feel good. How far and with what issues should we take your above statement?

[John]

Dean, in regards to your comment here, wouldn't your stance contradict 1 Corinthians 5:9-13? Or Matthew 18:15-17?

And a related question: is there anything for which you would forbid membership, or expel someone from the church?

A few hypothetical senarios:
1. a Sunday school teacher who refused to cease teaching Calvinist sotierology
2. a pedophile who has molested young childen in the church
3. a thief who repeatedly takes property of the church
4. a person requesting membership who denies the divinity of Christ
5. a person requesting membership who denies the existence of God

[Dean Snyder]

Willy,
You and I are not disagreeing about whether sin exists in the church. (Although I must say that you seem to be quite focused on sexual relationships you consider sinful. I do not share your assumption that loving committed gay relationships are sinful and, in general, I sort of agree with C.S. Lewis who said in The Great Divorce that sins of the flesh are relatively minor matters for God to deal with compared with sins of the spirit. Why are you only focusing on sexuality? Have you ever approached people to question their membership because they are gossips, or think more highly of themselves than they ought, or covet, or do not honor their parents? If you think it is your job to police your congregation’s sins, you’d better be as wise as God in discerning your congregation’s hearts and spirits and behavior.).

I certainly would not argue with you about the existence of sin in the church. What we are disagreeing about here, I think, is the appropriate role of the pastor. You personally can believe anything is sinful if you can justify your belief based on Scripture, reason, tradition, and experience. You can teach it and preach it over and over. But each of us –each believer-- is a priest. We have our own direct relationship with God. Christ is our mediator, not the pastor. We determine whether we can answer “yes” to the membership questions. If we can, it is not the pastor’s job to refuse to accept our answer. We are not answering the questions to the pastor. As a pastor, you can disagree with someone but you must accept their answer because you can neither look into their heart of God’s heart.

John:

I Cor. 5 -- Yes, the Apostle Paul was quite upset about the Corinthian who was living with his father’s wife. This would surely deeply offend Paul’s Jewish sensibilities and come close to incest in Paul’s mind. Yes, Paul wanted this person shunned. I cannot imagine a situation today in which I believe shunning would be redemptive. There may be one but I can’t think of one.

I think Paul actually came close to apologizing for the extremity of his instructions expressed in I Cor. 5 in II Cor. 1:23 – 2:11. He did not exactly apologize but he came as close as Paul seemed able to. Paul was not Jesus.

Your other reference is more interesting. Matt. 18: 15-17. If we are going to start denying membership or excommunicating people, this is closer to the process we should follow. It is actually quite close to the process laid out in the Book of Discipline. Paragraph 2702 says a professing member of a church may be charged with a) immortality, b) crime, c) disobedience to the Order and Discipline of the UMC; d) dissemination of doctrines contrary to the established doctrines of the UMC; e) sexual abuse, f) sexual misconduct, g) child abuse, h) harassment, including but not limited to racial and sexual harassment, i) racial or gender discrimination, j) relationships and/or behavior that undermine the ministry of persons serving within an appointment.

If a member is so charged, the superintendent and pastor are instructed to try to work it out pastorally (Paragraph 2705.4). If that is not possible, it goes to an investigations committee and then trial (Paragraph 2714).

I’ve never heard of this happening, but if we want to exit members, this is the process we have to follow. It is very consistent with Matt. 18. Pastors cannot exit members on their own authority alone. This would be an abuse of power.

What this discussion makes clear to me is that we need a comparable process to follow if someone, including a pastor, wants to challenge a person seeking membership, so pastors have an accountability system that keeps them from acting arbitrarily.

I may eat these words someday, but I can’t imagine going the way of bringing a complaint against a member unless his or her behavior were consistently interfering with the worship or administration of the church. I believe we do need to set limits on people who are disruptive of worship or meetings.

What would I do about:
1. a Sunday school teacher who refused to cease teaching Calvinist soteriology?
Ask my education committee to discontinue him or her as a teacher. I would not kick the teacher out of the church.
2. a pedophile who has molested young children in the church?
Report it to the police. Visit him in prison.
3. a thief who repeatedly takes property of the church?
Report it to the police.
4. a person requesting membership who denies the divinity of Christ If they could answer the following question “yes” I would receive them into membership gladly:“Do you confess Jesus Christ as your Savior,
put your whole trust in his grace,
and promise to serve him as your Lord,in union with the church which Christ has opened
to people of all ages, nations and races?”
5. a person requesting membership who denies the existence of God?
If they could answer the membership questions “yes” I would receive them. (I don’t see how they could.) Most of all, I would repent in sack clothes and ashes for the poor teaching we have done about God in the church that makes it hard for some people to believe. See J. B. Phillip’s old classic: Your God is Too Small.

[Rev. Dr. Frankie L Perdue -Active Member in VA in the United Methodist Church]

The tension of being a pastor is knowing what authority belongs to them and which is shared authority. I remember a nice young couple who came seeking to learn about and join the Church I was serving as An Associate Clergy. It was my job to take them through the interview process and during that process I asked the couple if they had plans on making a formal commitment to marriage (they were then living together) and could they tell me about how long it would be before this happens. Well the man says to me, "I ain't ever gonna marry and I ain't going to force my kids to go to church either." But I said, "Sir, don't you realize that taking these vows of membership means that you are intentionally going to move toward perfection and try to move away from sin? He said, "Nope, if it means I gotta marry her (pointing to his chosen partner) and drag the kids to church each Sunday then I guess we aren't joining. I let them know they were still welcomed to come but until there was a commitment by them to move toward marriage and bringing up the children in the Church I could not approve their request at this time. When the couple left the next thing I did was call the Sr. Minister and run the whole thing by him and I was nervous about how he might see it. But he just said, "You did the right thing. They are still welcome here but are not along in their spiritual journey where they can make the commitments to qualify for membership.

In like manner I experienced first hand what it was like to be pastor while news broke of one boy sexually molesting another boy. Both families were devistated and our scouting program hemmoraged greatly until parents were told that this charged pedefile was being taken out of scout leadership and was barred from scouting in any form. In the meantime I have one family that has been humiliated as their son was picked up at school (he was working as a teacher's aide) and taken in hand cuffs. The other family is furious and wants blood for what was done to their son. I have to ministry to both broken families without taking sides until the evidence came out. The Bishop and District Superintendant call me asking if the molestations were done inside the church (their concern was a law suit) and I said no. Both boys were raised up in the Church and did everything in it that young people do. My first concern was to minister to the hurting. Then to keep people from taking sides and splitting the church. Both lads are now professing homosexual and as much as I love those boys and their families, having gone through so much with them all, I could not in good conscience accept them into membership as there are standards a covenant to uphold that active homosexuality would deny in just the saying of them. I cannot make the membership covenant and ceremony a farse knowing full well that the Bible teaches against open lived out,homosexuality in defiance with the covenant of membership itself. God has set the standards and as his agent, it is my duty to enforce them. God sets the paramiters not myself or others but it would be quite unfaithful of me not to keep wisdom a close companion as these case by case inquiries into membership come.

Peace

[JMH]

When a person doesn't even profess repentance, regardless of whether we believe they have or not, we shouldn't even believe they are saved, as they have denied Christ as their Lord with their own mouth. Therefore they shouldn't be received into church membership. If we do, though our numbers might fictiously increase, the false security that we have given that wayward soul will render us with a guilty verdict, as unfaithful watchmen.

[Dean Snyder]

I have removed a comment that I made in response to Dr. Perdue's comment. My conscience has been bothering me about it. It was too harsh.

My hope here is to be in dialogue with those who disagree with me. While I don't want to hide or sugar-coat the disagreements and differences, I do want to be respectful of different opinions, assume everyone's good-will, and try to be friendly. After all, our common commitment to Jesus Christ yokes us together. We are brothers and sisters in Christ even when we disagree.

Thanks for your patience.
Dean

[John]

Dean-

I'm glad that there are some reasons for which you would remove someone from the church. In my senarios, I was thinking along the lines of members who refuse to obey you (such as the Calvinist sunday school teacher who refuses to stop teaching just as a homosexual member might refuse to refrain from immoral conduct), but I won't quibble the details.

I do find it very odd, however, that would be willing to admit a athiest member or dishonestly answers 'yes' to the membership questions. Do you consider these questions to be a mere formality?

[Dean Snyder]

John

I do not consider the questions a mere formality. I did say I thought it would be difficult for an atheist to answer the questions honestly. The point is that it is not my prerogative, when someone comes before the congregation having been prepared to understand the questions and when he or she answers them, to then say "I have decided your answer is wrong by my interpretation of Scripture and the faith and therefore I deny you membership." No pastor is objective enough to do this. Our job is to help people understand the questions and to ask them to respond honestly. In every case in my experience, those who chose to not seek membership figured it out for themselves. My pain is those who have chosen against membership voluntarily because of the ways we (I) have misrepresented God. How many people have opted out of membership because they thought they had to believe in an old white man with a long white beard sitting somewhere in outer space? This is by far the bigger danger, and I am wary of my colleagues in ministry who are so confident that they have such a clear handle on God's heart and mind that they can stand in God's place to judge the quick and the dead. This is my philosophy: Make the questions clear and let people deliberate in their own hearts and answer them before God and the congregation. Don't then respond by saying: You don't really repent because you are doing something that I personally consider especially wrong.

The other thing I want to say is that I think you have nailed the problem in this whole discussion on the head when you talk about "members who refuse to obey you." It isn't about obeying me. This is a community of mutual accountability not obedience to an earthly sovereign. The pastor is sometimes a referee, never a czar.
Dean

[John]

The point is that it is not my prerogative, when someone comes before the congregation having been prepared to understand the questions and when he or she answers them, to then say "I have decided your answer is wrong by my interpretation of Scripture and the faith and therefore I deny you membership."

So by refusing membership, you would be saying to the athiest applicant "Your interpretation is wrong -- God does exist."

Isn't this kind of a bedrock issue? Why are you uncomfortable taking a stand on it?

[Dean Snyder]

John

In my experience the real world is pretty complicated, and I prefer to try to understand the complexity rather than to try to force it into more orderly categories and pigeonholes, such as believer versus nonbeliever. It is not so much uncomfortability as an unwillingness to presume i understand the complexities of our spiritual journeys.

An old story told me by my Old Testament professor Harrell Beck: Reinhold Neibuhr sometimes preached in a small church where he summered. One Sunday a well-known skeptic attended. After the service the skeptic said to Neibuhr: “As a believing unbeliever, I’d like to thank you for your sermon.” Neibuhr replied: “As an unbelieving believer, I’d like to say you are welcome.” Who of us is not somewhere between being an unbelieving believer or a believing unbeliever?

Meredith Grudger spent a year between college and seminary visiting a church in every state in the continental U.S. She talks about visiting a UMC in New York state – listen at http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/commentaries/2003/may/. Very profound.

Glad your move went well. Welcome back.

Dean

[Michael]

I think we're forgetting some key points in our Wesleyan theology in this discussion. Prevenient Grace. God's love reaches out to us before we are moved to turn to God.

This is our strongest reason for infant baptism. By baptizing infants, we boldly assert that this is God's bestowal of grace, therefore a sacrament, and not a ritual called for by our action or preparedness. Likewise, while our Elders (et al) break the bread at communion, it is truly the Lord's Supper, with Christ presiding at the table. Therefore, a perceived lack of holiness of the Elder or the recipient does not diminish the gift of God's grace in that moment. Therefore, our Wesleyan theology has a perfectly fine way of explaining why we extend membership without a holiness test. (Although I don't know the reference, I understand that Wesley had the idea that "confessing" beliefs in order to gain membership would immediately open the door to those who would make an insincere confession.) This is why we Methodists believe in going on to perfection! We're not expected to have to have our 'stuff' together before we are eligible to receive God's grace. In such a case, it would no longer be grace. We come "Just as [we are]" with the vow of faith to move onward towards perfection.

Regardless of one's position of the sinfulness of homosexuality, our understanding of God's grace demands that we hold open the door for everyone. For, even us straight folk have "unrepentant sin," likely of which we are unaware until we accept God's Grace and allow God to work in our lives. This is the process of Christian Perfection. Expectations that we should arrive at the church door with our lives already perfected are clearly in contradiction with the Christian belief that we need God's help.

Even the stringent or outright disagreement of some with what seems obvious to the rest of us must be welcome for the very process of communal discernment of God's will demands that all voices have a place at the table to partake in "holy conferencing." We must not forget that we were once slaves in Egypt and that the voice of God has often been spoken by the oppressed and marginalized minorities. Now, not all the time, but definitely some of the time, and in some pretty important issues. Therefore, we should not exclude voices from the table nor exclude people from the Body of Christ (even if they really challenge us).

Baptism is God’s gift of grace, the gift of initiation into the Body of Christ. While each of us could use to take this radical gift more seriously, none of us should want to stand as judge over who is worthy of receiving God’s freely given gift.

“All this is God’s gift, offered to us without price.”