wfn.org | Commentary: Vote against membership amendments

[NewsDesk@UMCOM.UMC.ORG]

April 9, 2001 News media contact: Thomas S.
McAnally*(615)742-5470*Nashville, Tenn. 10-71BP{164}

NOTE:  See UMNS story #165 for a response to this commentary.    Photo
available.

A UMNS commentary
by the Rev. Peter Milloy*

It has been reported that our General Board of Discipleship recently trained
interpreters" to explain at annual conference sessions the proposed
constitutional amendments regarding church membership.  I believe a
difficult task lies ahead of them, as most people attending the sessions
won't see much need to change our membership rules.  Neither do I.

I urge annual conference members to defeat proposed amendment No. IV, which
would abolish the vow requirement for church membership.  Companion
amendments VII, VIII, X, and XI should also be rejected.

Amendment IV would pave the way for creating a category called "baptized
members."  Persons who have been baptized will become church members and
remain members permanently, regardless of whether or not they later profess
faith or choose to participate in the life of the church.  This will not
affect apportionments, but there are several other factors that should make
us cautious in considering this change.

"We believe baptism signifies entrance into the household of faith,"
according to Article VI of our Confession of Faith.  That ought to be
sufficient as a statement of how God includes newly baptized children.  Our
current category of preparatory member acknowledges their social inclusion
within the household of faith during their youth while at the same time
setting an age limit (19) beyond which they cease to be recorded unless they
have publicly professed faith and chosen full church membership.  That makes
sense.
Many of those we baptize as infants, of course, do not proceed to choose
United Methodist church membership.  Many become members of other faith
communities or of none.  God does not stop loving them and it's
theologically true to say they remain part of God's family.  (They were so
from birth, I think.  It is arrogant for me to imagine that any ritual I
perform makes someone part of God's family.)  But it makes no sense to say
they remain members of the United Methodist Church.  

Church membership is simply a somewhat narrower category than the family of
God or the household of faith, and it must be so in order to have any
practical meaning.  (All the saints who from their labors rest are surely
part of God's family.  For example. we may refer to them as the Church
Triumphant, but we take their names off the roll and we don't  expect them
to help out at the fall festival.)  

The church need not administratively embody its insight about God's
inclusiveness in an artificial list of names which has no other purpose than
to express our theology or  perhaps to reassure anxious parents that their
wayward offspring are still on the church roll even though no one has to
"pay" for them.  It is pointless.

If we put every baby on a membership roll with no expiration date, we will
create problems for ourselves that may not show up right away but will 20
years from now.  Little Miranda gets baptized today and the minister
announces she's now a baptized member of the church.  We smile and
congratulate ourselves on our inclusiveness.  But what does her name on the
roll mean 20 years from now when we don't know where she is?  Someone heard
the family moved to California a few years ago, but no one knows for sure.
Or Miranda stays around and is now 35 but hasn't been in church since she
was two and is a wiccan or an agnostic or just completely secular.  What
point is there in keeping her name on the roll?  Does it not, in fact,
violate Miranda's integrity to claim her as a United Methodist Christian
when she herself has chosen a different path?  Her "no" to God may not be
her "final answer," but meanwhile our church roll ought to reflect reality,
not wishful thinking.

To say that persons whom we've not seen since kindergarten, or who
vociferously repudiate the Christian faith, are nevertheless members of the
church is to make of the concept of church membership an intellectual
abstraction. It may also be an insult to those who faithfully participate in
the church.  Seminary students will grasp this notion, but when they try to
explain it in the parish they will get blank stares.

Finally, consider record-keeping.  The legislation to be proposed after
passage of this amendment will require you who are pastors or church
secretaries to compile a roll of "baptized members." This will have
retroactive implications because the roll will include those baptized in the
past.  You'll start with your current record of all those who have ever been
baptized at your church, then subtract those who have died (but how will you
know in every case?) and those who have transferred out.  You'll keep on the
roll those who later became full members through confirmation (yes, they'll
be on both rolls) and haven't yet transferred out or died, and then you'll
add all the adults and children who have transferred in and are still on
your roll of full members or your current preparatory roll.  Got all that,
pastor?  Now imagine how big this roll is going to be.  And ask yourself
what use it will be to anyone.  Better yet, ask yourself if you really plan
to go to all that trouble.  Will it be an act of integrity for you to vote
for this amendment if you know in your bones you won't actually spend the
time and energy it will take to compile this roll?
#  #  #

*Milloy is pastor of Wesley United Methodist Church in Crookston, Minn.

*************************************
United Methodist News Service
Photos and stories also available at:
http://umns.umc.org