wfn.org | Commentary: Vote for membership amendments

[NewsDesk@UMCOM.UMC.ORG]

April 9, 2001 News media contact: Thomas S.
McAnally*(615)742-5470*Nashville, Tenn.     10-71BP{165}

NOTE:  This commentary is a response to a commentary by the Rev. Peter
Milloy (UMNS story # 164).  Photo available. 

A UMNS commentary 
by the Rev. Mark Trotter*

 In 1997, Peter Milloy, authored a petition on behalf of the Minnesota
Annual Conference challenging the 1996 General Conference baptism
legislation.

The Judicial Council concurred with one of his arguments, namely that some
of the legislation violated Article IV of Division One of the church's
Constitution, even though that article does not define church membership but
is aimed at "Inclusiveness of the Church."   Membership is not defined in
the Constitution, but in the Book of Discipline's 200 paragraphs.
Nevertheless the Judicial Council stated that Article IV must be amended for
the 1996 legislation to be implemented.

The 2000 General Conference amended Article IV as the Judicial Council
recommended, along with other relevant articles defining membership on
church governing boards and conferences. These amendments are now part of
the package to be ratified by the annual conferences.

Mr. Milloy's article urges a vote against ratification. Reading his argument
one would not know that three general conferences have, with enthusiastic
majorities, endorsed the legislation submitted by the Committee To Study
Baptism, and declared its document, "By Water And The Spirit" (BWAS),  an
"official" United Methodist statement about baptism.

That approval came because the committee presented an understanding of our
ritual that brought together the two long separated emphases of our
heritage, "catholic" and "evangelical."  Both traditions were present in
Wesley, but torn asunder in the 19th century revival culture of frontier
religion.  BWAS affirmed that baptism, more than anything else we do,
restores our historic tradition by proclaiming both God's grace in
initiating the Christian life, and the necessity of our response to that
grace in Christian discipleship.

BWAS makes the argument that, rather than being an ancillary rite of the
Church, baptism is a foundational sacrament, and its theology should shape
the way we organize the life of the Church. Following that guideline, the
Committee To Study Baptism recommended that we  change the category
"preparatory member" for those baptized, to "baptized member,"  and "full
member" for those confirmed to "professing member."

Mr. Milloy states that the categories "baptized member" and  "professing
member," have "no purpose than to express our theology."  We agree, and ask
what better purpose for general conference legislation than to manifest our
theology in the way we structure our life.

The old terms, "preparatory member," and "full member," are appropriate for
a sorority, fraternity, lodge, or other community organization, where one
endures a preparatory term doing things to qualify for "full" membership,
after which one is no longer required to do anything.

Indeed we believe that a large part of what is wrong with the Church is that
it thinks in terms consistent with membership in any other community
organization rather than the Church. The proposed language, "baptized
member" and "professing member," remind us that after we are included in the
Church by grace, we are to begin a life-long journey of perfection in grace.
For the first time the vocabulary we use to describe our membership will
reflect a theological and biblical understanding of the Church. It also
recovers the historic perspective that baptism belongs to the Church and is
not a service rendered to those who use it for their own purposes.  

Mr. Milloy seems to imply that the Church is defined by "our membership
rules." I suppose that is why he can also say that baptism of infants is a
rite of "social inclusiveness." The point of BWAS is that the Church is not
defined by human action, but by God's covenant in Christ, and is not
understood by language of social institutions, but by covenantal language.
We did not invent baptism, we received it from the Lord as the means of
entry into the Church. The language BWAS proposes for membership is based on
that theological foundation.

There are other points in his article that demand comment.  He quotes "our
confession of faith"  that defines baptism as  "entrance into the household
of faith..."  The "confession" he is referring to is the old Evangelical
United Brethren Confession, included as part of "Our Doctrinal Standards."
He makes no mention of the other foundational confession, the much older
Articles of Religion, which defines baptism as "a sign of regeneration or
the new birth. The baptism of young children is to be retained in the
Church."

The main focus of Mr. Milloy's article, as well as his petition to the
Judicial Council, is the anticipated burden of record keeping, particularly
the roll of baptized members. The fact is we presently keep such a roll as a
permanent record. 

He also suggests that by calling it the "roll of baptized members," we are
merely "expressing our theology."  That is exactly why it was proposed. We
hope the Church will take its theology seriously that those who have been
baptized are by grace included in the Church, and are to be nurtured in the
faith into which they were baptized. As BWAS states categorically, that
includes bringing each baptized person to an understanding of what God was
doing in Christ,  experiencing that grace personally, and responding to it
in discipleship.

And if they should stray, by calling them "baptized members" we are reminded
that God does not let them go, so neither should the Church. And if they
behave in ways unbecoming a Christian, those who seek to redeem them from
sin can make use of baptism theology to tell them they have the covenant
promise of forgiveness if, like the prodigal son, they return home. That is
a theology of church membership worthy of the faith into which we are
baptized.

It should be noted that Mr. Milloy and others have raised important
questions about the mechanics of record keeping. Those on the task force
appointed by the General Board of Discipleship  are now aware of these
issues and grateful to those who, with keener eye,  have pointed them out.
The task force, in turn, has taken these matters to the General Council on
Finance and Administration staff responsible for the statistical data of the
Church, and who create the "official forms and records." They have assured
us that they will work hand in hand with the Board of Discipleship in
crafting clear and user-friendly forms and records. Mr. Milloy's
hypothetical "Miranda" example is presumptuous since no one has started
either the process of writing legislation or designing forms to comply with
it.

We also realize that this has been a long, 13-year process, involving
matters often complicated, and touching on theological issues rarely debated
in United Methodist legislative assemblies.  For that reason, the Board of
Discipleship has trained "interpreters" in each annual conference to answer
questions. Our prayer is that the amendments the general conference has
approved will be ratified so that the legislation can be implemented and we
as a Church can begin to be shaped by our theology.

# # #

*Trotter, retired clergyman in the California-Pacific Annual Conference, was
chairman of the churchwide Committee to Study Baptism.

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