homosexuality & open communion

I recently received an email asking for my and another’s opinion on a difficult topic. Here is the conversation.

The Initial Question:
Here is my dilemma about Chandlers sermon on homosexuality. He says at the beginning of the sermon that he has avoided this topic because he is afraid it will make one sin worse than another. He then says that someone who is a homosexual can’t take communion because they aren’t walking with Christ. I can’t wrap my head around this. We all live in sin everyday.  He quotes Romans 1:28-32 and how all of these things are what God gave the Gentiles for their sins. I have been struggling with the idea of sin vs sin for a while and just can’t get it. The way I think I see it is that all sin is equal. How then can he say you can’t take communion if you aren’t walking with Christ. Any help you two could give me would be great. I just am a little lost on this one.

The Response from a friend:
Wow.  That might need to be a conversation not an email.  Gonna have to chew on that and read up a little more.  I can see where there is a problem, especially in the context of the “open table” that the Methodist denomination practices.  That’s very different than a Baptist perspective, actually most other mainline denominations and Catholicism too.Let me get back to you in 4-5 years! Ha.

My Response:

So I started writing…and then it became quite long. Here is the short answer, then the long to follow:

SHORT:

Yes, sin is sin. Though, I think, the distinction Chandler is making is one of the heart. The

homosexual is proudly proclaiming their lifestyle–translated they don’t care that it is sin they are doing what they want to do. I think Chandler (did he mention this) would feel different about the person who struggles with the desires but is really trying to live according to God. Sinning then acknowledging it before God, with a repentant heart is quite different.

This all assumes a hardline about homosexuality as sin. And also a hardline about sin in general–something the Baptists would typically do and I would go out on a limb and say the Methodist don’t.

LOOONGGG:

Let me say a few things about the Methodist ‘open table’, then I’ll try to show the distinction I think Chandler is working with here.
So an open table policy of the Eucharist is contrasted to the closed communion of say the Catholic church. Most Protestant churches hold to some sort of open communion. The Catholic churches holds that you have to be a part of the Catholic church and have gone through the catechisms & other processes of membership into the church before you are prepared for communion.

So in general the open communion doctrine is understood as meaning, if you are a Christian of any denomination you are welcome to join the community in taking communion. This doctrine doesn’t necessarily overlap with a church’s doctrines towards one’s spiritual preparation before communion (this is where Chandler is hitting).

I personally have large problems with the United Methodist in this regard. It seems there is a huge gap between stated belief & practical application–always siding with a liberal-don’t-step-on-any-one’s-toes kind of attitude.

This is an official United Methodist invitation to communion from a hymnal:

Christ our Lord invites to his table all who love him,
who earnestly repent of their sin
and seek to live in peace with one another.
Therefore, let us confess our sin before God and one another.

All are welcome…who earnestly repent….confess our sin before God & one another. Practically speaking the Methodists stop at the first line. I would argue that Wesley himself fought to get the people communion served regularly, but he also fought to keep his people living a holy repentant life before God.

The counter argument of the United Methodist is that it is a ‘converting ordinance’, my understanding of this being that through the taking of communion God’s grace may work in your life drawing you further to God. So you don’t ‘get right’ before communion but rather through it.

Popular imagery of the Eucharist today in the United Methodist Church are of a banquet or feast. The problem, I would argue (and I am not alone), is that this is simplistic vision of the Eucharist and causes it to lose the call of discipleship which should be associated with any and all acts of the sacraments.

While I could continue to talk about this, let me speak of Chandler’s position, as I understand it.

Sin is sin, there are none worse than others. All disqualify us; only through God’s grace found in Jesus are we able to come to the table. To use the invitation I quoted above, the requisite that Chandler is highlighting is that of repentance & confession. For Chandler, the homosexual is boldly sinning without any desire for repentance or cleansing. This unrepentance is, I think, what is at the heart of the issue.

It is one thing to proudly flaunt one’s gayness. It quite another to be struggling with the fleshly desires of the heart within a community. Lets set this up with alcoholism, to get a better perspective.

For someone to come in every Sunday morning still {proudly} drunk from the weekend’s partying, would you unquestioningly allow them to come and partake of communion? Maybe as a Methodist you would want to keep to the open table and say yes they need God’s grace as much as anyone. I would then ask where/when are you discipling then. When does the community step into one’s life to call a brother/sister to the Way? Furthermore, it would seem to me, by not excluding the drunk from communion, you are also passively approving of their life.

This is very different from the person who is in AA, deeply involved in the Church community. They acknowledge their problem and are actively living/aligning their life away from such things. They may slip up but slipping up is very different from boldly sinning. God wants us to confess our sins and return back into his arms. This person no doubtedly should be accepted to the table. They meet the criteria of the Methodist invitation–confession of Jesus as Lord, repentance from the old life, a life focused on Christ centered living, while confessing the mishaps along the way.

The former person isn’t, they don’t confess Jesus as Lord because they are Lord of their life. They want control over their weekend exploits. They aren’t repentant because they are still in the sinful-fleshfilled life. They don’t have a life of peace or confession of sins.

Chandler says that the homosexual is this unrepentant bold-sinning person. My understanding/experience of Baptist congregations is one where communion is pretty open–they aren’t checking id cards at the door or anything. But there is an understanding that we need to make ourselves right before God before we partake in the communion, because it is a holy sacrament which shouldn’t be taken lightly.

I didn’t listen to this sermon of Chandler’s yet, but I would assume he would apply this to all unrepentant sin not just homosexuality. If he doesn’t I would be deeply grieved. I’ve never seen or known about a Baptist literally excluding anyone from communion. That used to (&probably still happens at some places) happen a lot, you would go to the priest for the bread & wine and they would just not give it to you. I can’t image Chandler being a gate-keeper for the bread & wine.

The Baptist come from a tradition that isn’t scared to speak of sin, unfortunately many avoid the most pernicious of them–religiosity. I would say Chandler can go strong against this certain sin because he is railing against the pharisee every week.