Online Archives

BY BOB BARNES

For what it is worth, I am a 'conservative' within the Baltimore-Washington Conference. That word conjures different images for different people. To me, it sometimes means that when the gay agenda is promoted as a challenge to our covenantal standards, I stand up and say my piece, defending our Biblical heritage.

That said, I believe that my more 'liberal' brothers and sisters were correct in encouraging our churches to offer membership to gays and lesbians who are seeking salvation in Jesus Christ.

In fact, I submit this is one part of the homosexuality debate where we could reach substantial agreement if we could ever trust one another enough to step out from behind our theological fences. The following is how the issues appear to me and many others from our view on the right.

In his State of the Church address, Bishop John R. Schol lamented that there are churches in our conference that do not welcome homosexual people. I suppose the point is true but it needs clarification.

The churches in our connection that do not welcome homosexuals generally do not do a very good job of welcoming heterosexuals either. They are typically dead, possessing neither a liberal desire to include everyone or an evangelical impulse to share the faith with the world. (By the way, have you ever noticed how similar liberals and evangelicals can be, deep down?)

The question our denomination really faces today is not 'if' homosexuals are to be included within the life of our churches but 'how.'

Do we insist on 'transformation' before acceptance? Do we throw out the Biblical standards regarding the purpose of sex? How do we balance actions which are 'incompatible' with persons having 'sacred worth'?

Perhaps we will never find common ground, but I, for one, believe we can find grace and unity on the membership issue, if we set aside our political divisions.

I believe the real question we ought to be talking about is: 'What does church membership mean?' To answer that question we must make a choice; whether we want to think more like a Roman Catholic or a Baptist.

To the Catholic (as well as the Lutheran, Anglican and Orthodox), participation in the church is not equated with salvation. One joins the church not necessarily because one has been saved, but because one hopes to be. You take your vows and then search for the narrow way. The problem with this approach is that over time it can evolve into church membership meaning absolutely nothing, as it does in so much of Western Europe.

In contrast, the Baptist (or Anabaptist) perspective equates baptism and membership with salvation. Both are reserved for adults or young people who have made decisions to follow Christ. The problem with this approach is that it can lead to pharisaical exclusivity. The most influential Baptist Church in our area does not offer membership to practicing homosexuals, people who are divorced (before or after they accepted Christ), and individuals who do not tithe.

The problem we United Methodists have (or maybe it is our strength) is that we never made up our mind which approach best suits us.

John Wesley founded the Methodist movement which had high, even rigid, standards of membership (like the Baptists). However, Wesley was also a lifelong member of the Anglican Church, which had a more universal understanding of membership.

That is why Bishop Charlene Kammerer of Virginia, and the Rev. Ed Johnson could both cite our heritage to support themselves in last year?s controversy that went all the way to the Judicial Council, the church?s version of the Supreme Court.

So in one sentence, how does a conservative justify offering membership to practicing homosexuals? The answer is simple: We treat them like everyone else.

Practically speaking, very few of our churches uphold standards of membership that insist on saving faith and a 'perfected' life. We expect that many of those who join have serious spiritual issues to work out and we open our churches to them as a place to do that very thing. How then can we deny the same relationship to homosexual persons who are drawn to Christ?

Truth be told, I would sacrifice my career to defend our Biblical view of sexuality; but Christ sacrificed infinitely more than that so that homosexual persons could be saved (along with everyone else). It sounds good to say we invite people into our churches but withhold membership until they have sufficiently repented, but in practice this becomes one more form of rejection to people who have already faced too much.

Of course the recent Judicial Council rulings were still correct on at least two points: 1) We don?t want our bishops micromanaging pastoral care; and 2) we need to take this up in 2008 at General Conference.

If we put away our little swords and pick up the Big One, maybe we could stop stabbing each other.

The Rev. Bob Barnes is pastor of Bedington UMC in Martinsburg, W.Va.