John, clearly an in-depth response to a difficult subject. I might just throw in another dimension on this one by suggesting that how you view sin will depend on how you understand the nature and reality of God to be.
If you hold to the traditional concept of God as a "supernatural being" then sin and judgement of the same are very different children to that which you will conceive if you hold to God as the "ground or essence of all being" as some of us do. Grace & Peace. Allan ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Maynard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Andrew Watts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "insights-l" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2003 4:37 PM Subject: Re: homosexuality and membership > At 12:19 PM 30-08-03 +0800, Andrew Watts wrote: > > >The latest article I have noticed on the emu website seems to comment > >further on distinctions between orientation and expression (Muehlenberg > >study). My reading of it sees it as repentence being the sticking point.... > >...This is the first time I have heard an EMU objection to membership > >directly (I have heard some unpleasant stories from various congregations > >but not something that has the status to be on the official EMU website). > > > >Quoting from the article:- "The church of course is made up entirely of > >repentant > >sinners. Everyone in the church still sins. But Christians have had a > >fundamental change of mind and heart. A genuine Christian will grieve when > >he or she falls into sin, and will seek, with God's grace, to gain victory > >over besetting sins. The church must accept and embrace such people. But the > >church can not and should not embrace, accept into membership, and put into > >positions of leadership, those who willfully and deliberately persist in sin > >- be it homosexuality, adultery, or any other sin. (Matt.18:15-17)" > > > >regards > > > >Andrew Watts > > Hello Andrew, you've hit the bulls-eye with your softball and have won the > kewpie doll! > > You have identified what is underlying EMU's concern. What makes a > "genuine Christian"? Are "genuine Christians" governing and leading our > church? > > What is at stake? Is it 'homosexuality' per se, but rather, how we come to > make decisions concerning doctrine and faith within the Church? And from > that, who should be considered members of Christ's Family and who should not. > > Like Baptism there are covenantal and confessional positions re. church > membership. > > Some churches require repentance before acceptance into the community of > faith. These churches emphasise that church members must be responsible in > their beliefs and for them it doesn't make sense that people can be > involved in a church without a prior understanding of 'right beliefs' and > 'right behaviour'. This is a confessional approach. It is common among > many conservative evangelical denominations. > > Other churches, including the Uniting Church, make no such > requirement. They understand that membership in the Body of Christ arises > from Baptism where all people are welcome into the community of faith "by > grace through faith". There are no pre-conditions to church membership > save what Christ has done already for us upon the cross. This is a > covenantal approach. It is the main position held by Catholic, Orthodox > and mainstream protestant churches (eg. Lutheran, Reformed, Methodist, > United/Uniting etc.) > > I sometimes call this the chicken'n'egg question. Which comes > first? Redemption and then Repentance? Or Repentance and then > Redemption? Regardless of your starting point, you'll find scripture > quotes from the Gospels, Acts and Epistles to back up your position. (Even > before the 'liberals' and 'fundamentalists' came onto the scene in the late > 19th century arguments were raging from both sides of this question). > > The "confessionals" will argue that you can't have good church members > unless they subscribe to the ethos of the organisation to which they belong. > > The "covenantals" will argue that our church membership has no > pre-requisites, as it is Christ alone (not the organisation) who determines > who is "fit" to be called God's own. As all have sinned through Adam, so > have all have been redeemed through Christ. > > Now it's not as clear-cut as this. Most baptists will argue that they are > also a convenantal church. And most mainstream protestants will argue that > they are also a confessional church. And there is some truth to this. > > Most churches which ascribe to the covenantal approach to Baptism have also > provided for what one would describe as 'governing church membership' which > comes through confirmation or "affirmation of faith". The Uniting Church > over the years has played down the importance of confirmation as a > necessary 'second step' to full church membership, in order to emphasise > the priority of Christ's saving grace over our response to that saving > grace. > > Interestingly, the traditional Catholic/Orthodox understanding of > confirmation never focused on the idea of 'governing church membership' as > those who governed were the priests and bishops, NOT the laity. But as > protestants we have democratised the decision-making councils of the church > by including the laity. Doing this presents a tension and dilemma between > an open church membership 'free-to-all', and a more restrictive membership > where governing responsibilities limited to those who have been set apart > (ordained and/or commissioned) to make those decisions, or if you are a > 'congregationalist' where the only laity allowed to vote are those who have > been 'certified'. > > Andrew, I think this is really what is at stake for some evangelicals, such > as EMU, who place a high priority upon responsible church membership. They > cannot understand how people who 'persist in sinning' (without the need for > repentance) can be allowed to be involved in church decision-making at the > local level (eg. congregational meetings, elders/leaders meetings) or > through the councils of the church (eg. Presbytery, Synod, Assembly). For > them the "anathema" that's taken place in the Uniting Church has been the > influx of 'unrepentant believers' involved in decision-making. The > theology of the gospel and its standards or demands get watered > down. Things get even more complicated for them when a large section in > the church no longer regard 'homosexuality' as a "sin". > > Dean Drayton has pointed out the tension between those committed to > 'justice' vs. those committed to 'holiness'. I think the tension is much > deeper than that. > > Who makes the decisions in the Uniting Church? Is it the members and their > leaders who have been acknowledged and deemed responsible through right > beliefs, behaviour or understandings? Or is it our God in Christ who > through the Holy Spirit, speaks, acts and reveals his sovereign will for > our lives? > > If you lean to the former, you'll see things from a confessional > perspective. If you lean to the latter, you'll see things from a > covenantal perspective. > > Neither position is strictly correct. We live within the tension and I > think we'll be living within this tension for some time, regardless of how > we feel about the 'homosexuality' question per se. > > I'll give you an example. I've personally come to a conclusion that those > who are charged with governing responsibility must subscribe to a higher > standard of faith, belief and practice. They must set the example. I > distinguish this from the ordinary laity of the church (pew-sitters) > because of my firm opinion that all should be welcomed into the faith and > family of Jesus Christ. I take the covenantal approach re. church > membership and the confessional approach re. church government. > > But taking this position isn't easy. In the Uniting Church and through its > Basis of Union we recognise that all members within our church are called > to ministry and mission. There is no distinction between those who > participate in the worship, witness and service of the church, and those > who are called to lead and to govern. > > We are all called to be ministers and ambassadors of Jesus Christ. > > So if a homosexual person comes into the church through baptism, > confirmation or confession of faith, doesn't that person have the right to > exercise their gifts for ministry and ministry? > > This isn't a new problem for a mainstream protestant denomination such as > ours. Some of our grandparents (or great-grandparents) before being > baptised or confirmed had to sign temperance pledges in additional to > confessing Jesus as Lord. It was, as it were, that drinking alcohol was > such a grievous sin, that young people were required to sign pledges before > they were allowed to take their place among their 'elders' as full-fledged > members within their church. Some churches today (in isolated pockets, > thank goodness, still have some of these requirements, and additionally in > respect to smoking or gambling). > > Hence, it becomes quite complicated if you take the extreme conservative or > liberal positions, especially in a denomination that emphasises the > ministry of all believers which was the hallmark (among others) of the > Protestant Reformation. > > How do we determine who is allowed to be called a "genuine Christian" or > church member and who is not? How do we determine who is allowed to become > a full-fledged governing church member and who is not? Is there any > confession of faith to which we must subscribe? Is there anything more > which is required? > > Some conservatives have reckoned the Uniting Church has abandoned > completely any standards at all. We no longer 'adhere' to the Basis of > Union, but rather have watered things down by saying we are now only > 'guided' by the Basis. I recall in Presbyterian days in the USA the same > argument between those strictly interpreting their doctrine and faith > through the Westminster Confession of faith and those who wanted to move on. > > Now our church leaders (and those who support them) will argue we haven't > abandoned our standards of faith and belief. They also call us back to the > Basis of Union. But they also remind us that we are 'Uniting' - not > uniting. 'Reforming' - not yet reformed. They welcome the inclusion of > different voices within the church, listening to all viewpoints (not just > those who "know the right stuff already") and through consensus-making will > come to decisions that will embrace the concerns of both those 'outside' > the church as well as those 'within'. > > Now it might be obvious for some of you which side you lean towards in this > discussion. > > But it becomes even more complicated. EMU's recent petition of some 20,000 > signatures was tabled with Assembly Standing Comittee calling upon a > reversal of the decision concerning Proposal 84 and calling the whole > church to repentence. But the signatures included not only church members; > it also included 'church attendees', eg. those who had not formally joined > the church through Baptism, confirmation and/or confession of faith. > > When it comes to recognising who should be in the church and who should > not, or who should be recognised as responsible church leaders and who > should not - who makes that call? The "hierarchy"? The > "grass-roots"? The "moral majority?" The "faithful remnant"? The "true > believers" vs. the "false ones"? > > How do we make responsible decisions at the local church level and the > wider councils of the church? Congregational meetings are now often > conducted by consensus, which does not require formal majority vote of > 'certified members'. > > How do we decide who has the right to be a church member to make those > decisions? Do we set down pre-conditions that go beyond Baptismal > membership or basic confession of faith (eg. simply confessing 'Jesus is > Lord')? Or do we go back to the early Church where only those who were > confirmed, ordained and consecrated by Apostolic succession through the > laying on of hands, set the parametres for matters of doctrine, faith and > practice? > > In other words: What makes a genuine Christian? > > Do you have a covenantal or confessional answer to that question? > > Christ's Blessings and Shalom, > > John M. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > John Maynard, Bunyip VIC 3815, Australia > --------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCLAIMER: The information in this message and any attachments is > confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the > addressee. Access to this message by anyone else is unauthorised. Please > immediately contact the sender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> if you have > received this message in error. > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > - You are subscribed to the mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the message body 'unsubscribe insights-l' (ell, not one (1)) > See: http://nsw.uca.org.au/lists.htm > ------------------------------------------------------ > ------------------------------------------------------ - You are subscribed to the mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the message body 'unsubscribe insights-l' (ell, not one (1)) See: http://nsw.uca.org.au/lists.htm ------------------------------------------------------
