A week behind

I'm about a week behind the hoopla of the Judicial Council meeting, but I thought that I'd write a quick post about it anyway. Seminary makes me a week behind. That's just the way it is. I'm lucky that I'm not a week behind in my work!!

I'm beginning to wonder about the long-term ramifications about Decisions 1031 and 1032, and conversly, 1041 and 1042, in which the J-Council decided not to reconsider their previous decisions. I agree with the J-Council and I think that they got it right the first time. I don't think that the decisions were necessarily about homosexuality, instead focusing on a lack of due process given Rev. Johnson, thus violating his constitutional rights (1031) and the interpretation of who has the power to determine membership-thus, are we born into membership as a right or is it something that can be given and taken away. I think that stating that we are born or baptized into membership seems a little baptismal regenerationish to me and I'm not really comfortable with that. In fact, several wars and theological debates raged during the Reformation to finally state that you are not necessarily born into the church; instead you chose the church and the church accepts you based on standards of lifestyle that the church deems acceptable. (At this point, I should discuss my understanding of a Wesleyan view of salvation and sanctification, but I don't feel like I have that much time or space right now, but it is importantto memebership. Maybe I'll write about that later.) With this in mind, part of Decision 1032 was about homosexuality, and the pastor's right to determine who should be allowed into membership, but I think that most of 1032 was allowing the pastor to have final say on membership, and I think that this is a pastor's responsibility. But I don't want to debate 1031 and 1032...I just wanted to give some background on where I'm coming from.

Here's the question-What's going to happen at GC 2008? My hunch is that the liberal side of the church will bring legislation forward to change the way we deal with church membership. My hunch is that it will fail. Thus, based on 1031 and 1032, I think that we'll begin to talk about amicable seperation. I don't know how I feel about seperation. I hate the idea of the church dividing over anything. I think that we spoil our Christian witness to the world when we realize that we can't get along. I think that we destroy conversation, dialogue and the ability to learn and grow from each other's experience when we seperate. I don't think that any social issue, including homosexuality is worth splitting over. If we were to do so, we would not be true to the Biblical mandate to be, to think, to love with the mind of Christ Jesus. In fact, I believe that the only thing that brings church unity is an understanding of the work of Christ in and through us and how we will respond to the mandates and mission given by Christ through the witness of Scripture.

But here's the catch...I don't think that the issue that the church has been debating since 1976 is really the issue of homosexuality. I think that the main issue is our understanding of the authority of Scripture, and based on our understanding of Scripture, the Divinity of Jesus. I think that the issue of homosexuality is the way that we're playing out our ideas of Scripture and our Christology. Naturally, I think that we would have to work out how we minister to and with homosexuals, but I think that the main issue here isn't homosexuality, but how we decide to hold the importance of Scripture. With this in mind, I'm not necessarily against the idea of amicable seperation, because Scripture and Christology matter, and the matter a bunch. Scripture and Christology sets us apart as being a church, rather than being a cult, so if the real fight is about Scripture, we have to begin to rethink if we're really a church that is unified by the Presence and work of Christ.