From: "Alleganwesley" alleganwesley@allegan.net

I was comfortable in my little egg carton ecclesiology until you brought this subject up in my mind again.

I was requested by my professors to pursue this question for my master's thesis. Since you and I are in the same denomination, our struggles are similar.

I came to the same conclusion that a denomination may hold membership requirements that are extra biblical. My thesis was similar to the arguments you put forth. Membership isn't about the kingdom of God, it is about keeping order within a sub-group of the kingdom.

In the end, I abandoned my thesis. I could defend it, but I didn't want to defend it. The tension between the Bible and the unity of the church seemed to be the ruling factor in this debate. Who is right? All have valid points. That isn't easy to say when I believe in absolutes.

My comfort zone has been stretched many times by this issue, and will continue to be stretched I'm sure. Thanks for raising the question in my mind once again.

Mark A. Schlechty

From: JoeWayWat@aol.com

Hey Keith!

Not bad! If we would adopt all your suggestions (and I am not attempting to suggest there is anything wrong with them) we could bypass any effort to merge with other "Holiness" churches (Nazarene's in particular) and go right into a merger with The Roman Catholic Church! Wouldn't Hans Kung be pleased!

Joe Watkins -- Vancouver, WA

 From: "Jonathan White" holy3x7@ncats.newaygo.mi.us

Brilliant article.

Jon

From: Mark A Inman minman3@juno.com

 This issue seems to be at the forefront of the Wesleyan church at present and deserves some discussion. As a pastor I have viewed this issue from two different perspectives. As a lay person, before entering the ministry, I felt very strongly that some of these practices should not be in the church mainly smoking and drinking. There was no question in my mind that if I had to live a life free from certain indulgences to be a member that it made simple sense to me that others should hold to that same level of expectation. I was viewing things from an individualistic approach which many lay people can do. We are not responsible to find Sunday School teachers and departmental leaders to man our churches. We don't have to worry about getting enough people to join the church so that our original members can find some relief from doing all the work.

As a pastor I see the other side of the coin and struggle with what I sense as a dilemma which faces our church today. Many people are very happy and content to not join. To join means that now you will be expected to serve within the church and many people today aren't interested in service. They have to work long hours and drive long distances in order to have comfortable lifestyles. So rather then join the church they are attendees who will help out if the need arrives but they haven't devoted their lives to full time service, they simply want to worship on Sunday morning. Thus comes the problem. There aren't enough people willing to serve God. The older members have done their time and the newer generation doesn't seem to want to join. I have asked myself why, several times, and it seems that membership isn't that important anymore. When we put the least amount of pressure upon them to give up habits they simply find another church down the road where they can worship. They also see the discrepancies that occur. "I can't smoke, but someone else can break the Sabbath week after week, after all which one of these is actually forbidden in the Bible? Of course it is the breaking of the Sabbath." "I can't take an occasional drink, but other members get on the phone and spread discord among the brethren." Which of these is mentioned as wrong in the Bible?" We know that answer also. Don't get me wrong I don't practice either of these habits nor do I think that they are healthy, but I can also see that someone who has allowed themselves to get fat is in great danger of dying from a heart attack or many other health problems. Is that obese person not doing the same thing to their body? I recently lost 20 lbs because I realized that it was very difficult to talk about our bodies being the Temple of the Lord and giving the Lord a much larger Temple then He desired.

I agree that any organization has the right to develop any rules that it wants, but should the Wesleyan Church reject people from membership for doing things that God will accept in Heaven? People don't come to Christ perfect, but they do receive salvation. The thief on the cross was not given time to go and make restitution, but Jesus accepted him anywise. I am not sure there is a clear answer, I am not sure that all of our rules should be demolished either. Some of them determine who we are as a holiness denomination. The question must be asked though, are we legislating ourselves out of a denomination?

I have been asking some pastor's in other denominations what their membership requirements were and was shocked to find out that ours are actually some of the toughest. Even a Baptist church, which at times can be accused of being legalistic, didn't have anything in its membership commitments about smoking. Although we have the right to make the rules, will people come into our churches with all the rules? I guess that is left to be seen. --

From: Mark Mason mtmason@eurekanet.com

I am sure we would agree that the Holy Spirit would not be the author of confusion. Would he not be confusing people if he said one thing then (to the N.T. writers) and another thing now (to the modern church)?

Maybe the Holy Spirit is confused with why we think he has changed his mind about divorce/remarriage, wealth, and women's leadership roles, for instance. How is such an attitude any different than that of the Mormans, who argue that they have received an "additional" revelation in the latter days? Is it possible that what is whispering to us or guiding us today is not really the Holy Spirit but the spirit of our age, the spirit of postmodernism - a spirit that the Holy Spirit charged us in explicit terms NOT to be conformed to?

Just thinking... - Mark Mason - Vienna, Wva

From: "Wainer G." magui@email.msn.com

What do I think? Was it ever different? Was not and is it not men, and our institutions, who have decided what is to be canon, even from within what we have accepted as canon?

Aren't our various denominations the proof that we, humans who see in certain ways, the "authoritative body" over even what is authoritative in the book?

Don't we, the church, decide who and how we do baptism, for example? Why most of the Hispanic evangelicals, for instance, having great difficulties with infant baptism?

It is clear to me that even our own Divine book is "used" by us, individually and as a denomination, according to our own perceptions and understandings. Although we are sincere and can quote to each other that our opinion is not our own opinion but the Bible's truth.

In Brazil to smoke is a reason for exclusion from the Baptist church... at least the one I grew up in.

Some missionaries from Brazil went to Portugal and decided to attack the drinking of wine; the National pride and at the table of every good Christian evangelical and Catholic Portuguese.

The church, people together, have defined, always, what is to be validated. We have interpreted the Scriptures according to our biases, cultural tendencies, and experiences.

I don't mean to say that all our interpretation are all right and can be biblically justified. However, perhaps is the variations we can find in the Scriptures a Divine design so to allow more "windows" of connections to people. The great variety within the Body of Christ, in my opinion, is one of its greatest reason the church can appeal to so many different people and reach right wing and liberals who, although accuse each other, are convicted of believing in the same book and being followers of the same Jesus.

Above all I thank God that salvation does not depend on having an A on Bibliology but an open heart to embrace Jesus and a mouth that says it so and that He is still working in new ways in and through those who are not afraid of following the Holy Spirit and go with the wind... --Wainer G.

Dan LeRoy From: "pastordan" pastordan@gateway.net

 The Wesleyan Church stands at the open door of what can be one of the most critical choices of its history. It is a choice that most of the local churches in the denomination have already made. It is the decision to move from being a sect to being a church.

The 2000 General Conference offers the denomination the opportunity to officially complete our transition. The opportunity comes in the form of the debate over membership structure in the church.

In every other area of expression, the transition has already been made. We no longer have a prescribed dress code. (Modesty is still a virtue among us, but we essentially dress like everyone else around us.) We no longer have a prescribed hairdo for men and women. We no longer have a list of acceptable and unacceptable automobiles. (Buicks were okay, Cadillacs were not. Now some of our people even drive Jaguars. Imagine.)

We have come to realize that there were no real moral issues in these areas, only our preferences, our interpretations of biblical principles, and cultural stipulations regarding our lifestyles.

The one remaining sectarian expression among us is that of our membership commitments.

I believe we have confused membership with discipleship in this church. In our tradition, they are the same thing. I believe that biblically they are different. I speak with conviction, balanced by caution and respect.

What makes us sectarian is that we have set our entry-level requirements higher than others around us. That may not always be bad. What is bad is to set them higher than the Bible sets them. I believe we have done that.

I understand our history and how we got to where we are. I know that our model for discipleship, which we have adopted as our model for ‘church’, is the class meeting used by John Wesley to nurture believers into disciples. The problem with that model is that the class meeting was not intended to be a church, it was intended to be a small group for discipleship. On this matter, we have out-Wesleyed Wesley.

As a result, we find ourselves in the uncomfortable position of wrestling with our heritage (our ‘tradition’) in light of contradictory direction from the Word about who is a ‘member’ of the church.

If I were a newcomer to this fellowship, it would be difficult for me not to ask the irreverent question, ‘How can we say to people that they can be members of God’s church, but not ours? Whose church is this, anyway?’ As irreverent as that question may appear to be, it is at the heart of the issue, and is the one, fundamental question The Wesleyan Church must answer honestly in order to move forward toward a more Bible-based concept of church membership.

We do have a discipleship mission. It is the reason we exist as a church in The Church. It is our niche. No one is debating that. The debate is over the role of membership in that discipleship process.

If we would be a New Testament church, then we would be compelled to accept as members those God has accepted into his family (which is what the church on earth is supposed to be). We are then compelled to nurture them into being fully devoted followers of Christ, a process all disciples are undergoing to become more and more like him and less and less like the person we used to be.

The New Testament church required four things of its members at the point of entry into the fellowship of believers. The entry requirements were 1) a personal conversion to Christ, 2) baptism, 3) acceptance of the Apostles’ teaching (note acceptance of the teaching at point of entry, not mastery of a lifestyle that reflects the teaching prior to being permitted to belong), and 4) a covenant of allegiance to the church body. These are clearly reflected in the book of Acts. The record is clear that the New Testament church took its mission seriously to disciple the converts (members) into mature Christians (disciples). And they did it in that order.

Our membership concept is understandable, rationally and historically. But it is not defensible biblically. Where the New Testament believers tenderly cared for the new converts by receiving them into the fellowship and nurturing them into growth, our particular misapplication of this matter has tended to cause us to hold people out of the church instead of letting them in.

I believe that is wrong. I believe we have sinned against them. I believe we need to change.

We have expectations that we hold before the members of our church to help them measure their growth in Christlikeness. That is illustrated by what is currently known as our list of covenant membership commitments. It is a good list. It is a biblically sound, responsible and accurate expression of the sanctified life.

I think it is one of the best expressions I have seen as a description of what we want our Wesleyan Christians to be. But it is not a proper entry-level expectation. It is more proper as a description of maturity in spiritual growth, attainable through the power and grace of the sanctifying presence of God’s Holy Spirit in our lives. There’s nothing wrong with the list. The problem lies in our application of it.

I believe we should have a one-tier membership structure in The Wesleyan Church. That is what the New Testament believers had. But ours should be like theirs. Love the lost into the church, recognize them as members of the Body of Christ at the point of their conversion, and help them as new believers to become established in the faith and growing in Christlikeness. Reserve leadership for the mature Christians, but recognize the standing of all Christians. That’s the biblical model.

Let us have the courage and the grace to change our tradition to submit to the scriptures.

 --Dan LeRoy was the founding pastor of the Chapel Hill (NC) Wesleyan Church.

FROM: TheRhea3@webtv.ne t (Josh and Sarah Rhea)

AMEN YOU HIT IT RIGHT ON THE HEAD !

From: "carl mccann" vader@darthcarl.fsnet.co.uk

Thank you for your article, it encouraged and aided me greatly and would like to take up the invitation to respond. I am aware that when people are making a stand against something they may have to disobey a structure or authority (Blacks refusing to give up their seats on buses for examples during the days of racial inequality) but am still worried by the lack of obedience to my own church rules on alcohol (I am from the Church of the Nazarene which stands by total abstinence apart from medical exceptions).

I am a twenty one year old university student, gifted in evangelism and youth work and am horrified to say that the biggest problems that I encounter towards bringing my friends to a personal knowledge of Jesus and mature Christian life is the fact that they see hypocrisy within Christians. This manifests itself in many ways (petty arguments and gossip etc) but on many occasions is with regards to church members drinking alcohol.

I, out of agreeance with the rule but also because I respect the body of the church which 'I CHOSE' to join, do not allow membership of people who do not wish to live a life of abstinence from alcohol. Having made this stance I place emphasis on finding areas of service and showing appreciation for the integrity of these people - I wish they would make the sacrifice and become members but admire their honesty.

However as I have moved through the youth organisation of my church I have become increasingly aware of a disregard for this church rule and this situation has revealed itself to many of the non-member but attendees of my youth group. I have been saddened to see many of these young people who were doing so well in their faith lose respect for the church and become at best drifters and on many occasions completely backslide upon discovering that many of those in leadership are taking the privileges of membership yet disregarding he rules. I find myself facing difficult questions from these people such as 'How can they have all the privileges of membership and drink while I am being honest and staying a non-member'. - On the one hand I wish to remain loyal to these members and do not wish to undermine other peoples opinion on them or encourage personal grudges, but I cannot present an acceptable answer.

Therefore I would like to present the argument that while many denominations go through such periods of examination over rules within the church that are controversial, regarding alcohol or otherwise, that all members, regardless of their personal opinion should respect those rules as to not do so is to act disrespectfully, promote anarchy and can have saddening side effects on other Christians choosing to live lives of integrity if not lives of abstinence from alcohol.

However, that to one side, as I said I also obey this rule because I agree with it and would live an alcohol free life regardless of my church stance. These are my reasons

1. Many households suffer alcohol abuse. Many partners and children are abused because of alcoholism. Many families live in poverty because of the grip that alcohol has on a family member and the financial expenditure that this incurs. Problems such as these are not on the decrease, they are infecting more families year by year and generation by generation. Accordingly there are many people who associate alcohol with fear, pain and suffering, and many others who cannot imagine a life without it. It is clear that Christendom, if not as a whole then certainly certain groups and denominations, needs to present an alternative. Their needs to be churches where an alcoholic in remission can go without fear of temptation; Where a child can sit at a table and not suddenly become panic stricken at the sight of what it associates with a beating; in short where alcohol will not be found.

2. As a youth worker and as a young person I am in touch and within youth culture. I cannot comment for anywhere other than Britain but it is clear to me that without alcohol the Police and other emergency services would have easier jobs and more resources to channel into fighting organised crime etc. In my own town it is a joke that if you are burglar you can work a housing estate without fear of a fast response time from the police on a Friday night because almost the entire force is required in the town centre because of drunken behaviour.

3. It is also clear to me that many teenagers are unable to enjoy themselves without alcohol. They do not have the self confidence to relax and be themselves in a social environment without a few drinks. I am reminded of Eph 3 which talks about Christ making us strong inwardly and conclude that surely with Christ in us a Christian can open many doors to witness by abstaining from alcohol and yet enjoying life. Christianity should enable teenagers to deal with their self confidences and develop a self worth and so take away the need to hide behind a drunken mask. I see many (countless) one night stands taking place because of drunkenness and accordingly that national abortion rates escalate just after any time of celebration. I know that many of the holidays that teenagers go on revolve around alcohol and result in what can only be described as a out of control sexual orgy.

It seems blatantly clear to me that British society would be a better place without alcohol. It seems blatantly obvious that British teenagers are unable to drink in moderation and need to be 'not led into temptation' by models of abstinence. Thank you again for your article and I pray that your denomination will deal with the issue wisely and have the strength to follow through with whatever the decision is. I pray that mine would do the same. Yours sincerely --Carl McCann

From: Eric Bragdon ebragdon@yahoo.com

I completely disagree that the Church is based as much on sociology as theology. Being a member of a church is to realize that that "a church" is a branch of "the Church" and "the Church" belongs to Jesus Christ and Him alone. He is head of the Church. He makes the rules. For us, as servants of Christ to change the rules our master gave us concerning His Church, is to disobey Him. If we allow ourselves to think that sociology plays as large a role (and in other words, has equal weight) as theology, we are saying that the people of the church play as large a role (and thus have equal authority) to that of God Himself. Neither should we base our memberships on what we feel they should be. They are not our members, they are God's members. If our individual churches were clubs we set up for our own glory and benefit, then making our own rules for fellow clubbers would be acceptable. The Church, in reality though, is not for our glory but for God's. Many times in the life of a believer, regardless of the fact that he understands the Bible to be the Inspired Word of God and Truth, he will deny, or even worse, alter that truth to fit his personal desire. For example, if a very wealthy man reads in God's Word of giving and selflessness, he may agree that the Church has the authority to "loose" such a thing so that he may still be accepted as a voice in the body of Christ without having to alter his original state of being. The Lord, however, often requires a sacrifice of sorts, not for sin because He was the ultimate sacrifice, but that we, in our sin and selfishness, were crucified with him. Therefore the old man is passed away and all things are made new, and made so according to the will of God given us through scripture. Would we be true to ourselves then, to profess to be servants of the Most High God, if indeed we did not serve according to His will? Let us then, seek the truth of God in every facet of our lives, with no selfish pretenses and preservations, but with an attitude of servitude. And when it comes to His Church, be on the watch for those who are playing the "religious" game. Instead, allow those who are sincere in their endeavor to faithfully and selflessly serve Christ to lead this body into the future--a future we claim not for ourselves, but for Jesus Christ.

--Sincerely, Eric

From: "Andy Trowbridge" amjk@hoosierlink.net

We need to be cautious in this area. Yes we can say who can and can't be members of our "club". However, we need to allow for the fact that people will be turned away because of our "rules" for membership. We have people who are members and do not practice what is in the discipline. What are we going to do with them. Do we kick them out? What about our ministers who make mistakes and then are let back into the ministry? Are they special just because they are ministers? God tells us to "Judge not, that you be not judged." Matt. 7:1 (NKJV) Isn't that exactly what we are doing when we set up rules of membership.

God does not allow sin. We should not allow sin. God is the one who defines sin. Look into the Bible and, to coin a phrase, see "what it tells me about God" and you'll see what he has to say on any of these issues without proof texting. God says no to drunkenness, murder, and the like.

From: "Rev. Duane E. Brown" debrown@klis.com

I was just talking to another Wes Pastor last night about this drinking thing. I like your arguments in the column. I cannot seem to see an overt condemnation of "social drinking" in the bible, although Paul's teaching on drinking was for the stomach sake and not the social sake. But this issue is really hot and I wonder where things are going to go with it. It will come up again and again until something changes, I think.

Anyway, good you addressed it. Keep on keeping us thinking...

Duane

From: MarkH7557@aol.com

Once again you have put into words the thoughts I've had. The Wesleyan Church is not the only grouping of Christians in the world. And the Holy Spirit is big enough to guide our part of the Body to interpret Scripture with tradition, experience and reason.

Will everyone agree with our conclusions? No.

Do they need to agree with us? Absolutely not -- at least on issues like alcohol and smoking.

I thank God for the great diversity he has created in the Universal Church.

Let's be grateful for the part he has made us to be.

From: Hal G Robbins hallilrob@juno.com

Keith, thank you for challenging our thinking. We face changing times - rapidly changing times. The average member of the church doesn't know enough about the Bible to present a plausible argument about what ought to be changed and why. Five-ten-fifteen minute devotionals do not develop Biblical scholars or deeply spiritual people. I could also add that many ministers are not much better off.

We do know that churches with high expectations (requirements) are growing churches. We also know that most civic organizations put more demands upon their members than we do on church members. Up to half of the members in most of the churches would be kicked out of a civic organization if their attendance and financial support records were what they are in the local church.

Having said the above let me couch it in the following staement: We must always be motivated by the love of Christ. Love is an action word. It will act in behalf of the other person even when it means telling them they are wrong or admitting that you have been wrong. I certainly do not believe in or pratice legalism. We must be people of principle and conviction. Let us major major on principles and minor on notions. I love my church. It was through godly lay persons that I came to Jesus Christ when I was fifteen years old and it has been my privilege to walk among some of the spiritual giants in the Wesleyan Church.

These are great days for ministry. These are great days for loving the lost and having a compassion for them. God save from us from a lack of passion for God and for souls. --Hal

From: ERugen1020@aol.com

I used to be Catholic. Nothing I did while involved in that church came from my heart. I did not give up meat on Fridays because I loved Jesus, I did so because it was a rule I had to follow. I didn't worship on Sundays because I loved Jesus but because it was an 'obligation'. I went to holy day services, not because I hungered and thirst after a deeper understanding of Christ and what He would have of me but because it was a rule that must be kept to be labeled a 'good' Catholic and have the 'privileges' associated with that membership.

One day because of the faith and perseverance of a good Christian, my 'head' knowledge became a 'heart' knowledge. I switched denominations and knew nothing of the rules - only that I had to do NOTHING to get into heaven and spend eternity with Jesus except accept Him as my personal savior. I have remained with the Wesleyan church for sixteen years now. I stay out of the argument about rules because I know what it was that worked to transform my life - not a set of church rules but allowing Christ to reign supreme in my heart and life. I'd still have that whether I followed the rules or not. --Keli Rugenstein

From: "robert clevenger" fgowesch@bright.net

Your recent column on membership rules--WOW! I must state that I am and always have been strongly against smoking and drinking for membership. One key reason--Holiness. We are to live lives that are "set-apart for God". It is my belief that people who smoke/drink, etc. do so for their personal pleasure(?!). Yet, what about other unhealthy issues?--two that I think of, include Obesity and caffeine (and I LOVE coffee-not because of caffeine, but for the enjoyment of the drink--oh no--sounds like a beer drinker?!) I do worry that we have let down many standards, and are drawing away from a lifestyle that needs to be kept. But--the answer? I haven't got a clue!!

GREAT COLUMN--had missed opportunity to read you for several months Bob C.

From: "Nathaniel McCallum" <mc_nate@ulster.net> To: <Tuesday@indwes.edu>

I agree with you whole-heartedly! I think that the biggest confusion is not what membership should entail, but what the purpose for membership is. The older generation in churches (old-school if you will permit). Has seems to look at membership requirements as requirements for the body of Christ. Wrong. Ever since Luther nailed his famous document to the door of the Wittenburg church, membership ceased to be for salvation. The Catholic Church(until the recent council in 1969) official opinion was that Christian = Membership in the Catholic Church. Luther nailed in an emphatic "NO" and hence the idea of the invisible church was formed. Now being a Christian is no longer a mandate of the pope upon fulfilling certain requirements, but salvation was from Christ: the author and perfector of our faith. However, Protestant Christianity soon became akin to gnosticism: follow the Bible as we see fit, or you are not a Christian. Hence, to name only one event, the slaughter of the Anabaptists by OTHER PROTESTANTS! And thus, "old-school" 20th-century Christianity is born (only without much of the death ;) )...

Enter 21st-century Christianity. With the rebirth of the Jesus movement of the 60's came a resurgence of the desire to return to the Christian walk of the first century (not really, we seem to want to return to the first century only on matters that will benefit us). The participants of this movement (or the observers of this movement, as I know no "good" Wesleyan would be a participant in this movement ;) ) are now our pastors. Thus within the church we want to see membership in the church as requiring the same things that were required in the first century church. However, we conveniently ignore the fact that the first century church was MUCH harsher with sin then we are today, they also left NO debate about what was sin to the members, only the elders decided (we want to discuss what should be required as members). Karl Marx said, "Capitalism will fail when the people realize that they can vote themselves a raise." This is Augustine's City of Man in full swing. There is no such thing as a purely good system: all systems will eventually fail because of the corrupt nature of man. We project on ourselves the false fact that "membership = Christianity" and now our churches are in the state of Marx's prophecy: we are democratically deciding how easy it will be to be a Christian. We think that membership requirements are the requirements for being a Christian. They are not, they are to help us realize the things we must sacrifice to be a disciplined Christian. That does not happen overnight. Membership is a means of accountability. It is like a public confession: I commit to do/not do these following things. The church is to hold that member accountable.

What is worse, however, is when we do not follow up on these membership requirements. What are we teaching the children? (commit to something, then don't do it. Hardly letting "yes be yes and no be no.")

Membership does not = Christianity. Membership is a tool for discipleship.

When an organized movement fails, it is typically not because of the movement, but because of the people within the movement. John Wesley realized that, which is why he focussed so much on personal discipline (Methodists). They were called the "Holy Club" not because of their theological stance on holiness, but because of their personal discipline.

Discipline did not change England though: it was the tool of discipline used by a worker of love. That is why they went to the poor and uneducated; the "un-loved." My proposition: let us teach people discipline and love through strengthened membership requirement and deepening relationships (no superficiality). We also, as leaders, need to demonstrate this discipline and love. I leave you with this quote:

I closely monitor an atheism discussion board on the internet so that I can see the arguments that are currently being used and know how to refute them. This was one of those posts by an atheist: "I don't drink, smoke, or do drugs. In fact, most of the drinkers and smokers that I know are Christian. I think the biggest challenge here is trying to rationalize the benefits of a Christian lifestyle to an Atheist one, considering the fact that there really isn't a clear cut definition between the two. It's about belief. I abide by the Ten Commandments without even trying, but I think the Bible is a self-contradicting bundle of confusing lies. So why should I put my faith in that?? Would THAT make me happy? I don't think so."

From: George Gasperson Wendoverhills@aol.com

I'd like to throw my hat in (and believe me, it's a very cheap hat) on this controversial issue. As you know, I am planting a new church that will have it's first service in 2 weeks. This church is very contemporary, having little resemblance to a traditional church and standing in stark contrast to our good old Wesleyan churches. My frustration with this issue is that the powers that be are oblivious to how difficult it is for pastors like me to apply the "Wesleyan Law" to raw, new Christians.

I would like to make 2 quick observations. First, the population of my church is made up of many new Christians. What does a church do if most of it's members are not "good Wesleyans?" Should the membership consist of just the pastor and his wife until everyone else gets to the point where they can measure up? Can you imagine the board consisting of two people, and those being won to Christ being excluded from decision-making because of rules? >From where I stand, this smells.

Second, there seems to be no application to what I call the "law of love." Keith, as you know, I came into the pastorate from a career in medicine. I wish some of our leaders could sit through some doctor visits I have had with folks who would have given everything they own to quit smoking. I prescribed patches, pills, etc., and nothing seemed to work. And the topper is that these folks love God every bit as much as I do. The law of love would say that this person has God at the center of their lives, and thus are qualified for service. However, the law of the Wesleyans says I cannot make them members. Again, something smells.

Last, if everyone involved is perfectly honest, this rule is not being followed very closely by more contemporary churches. What good is a rule that many are not following....

Thanks for the opportunity to join a debate that is very meaningful for me.

George Gasperson -- Wendover Hills Wesleyan Church