Currently, the Wesleyan Church is dealing through a new addition to our Discipline in regards to divorce. As it stands, our statement gives approval for divorce only in the case of marrital unfaithfulness. The addition would include abuse as a reason that we would approve of divorce. The debate has been heavy and emotional, as you can imagine. No one wants to force a person to stay in an abusive home situation. I certainly would never suggest that anyone stay in an abusive situation. Get out; get safe; get help.
However, in the discussion, there has been a lot of different ideas bandied about that I believe would be considered out of the traditional interpretation of scriptural doctrine. I'm not here to address this specific topic so much as to address this philosophy that seems to prevail: "If we're going to judge people on marrital issues in our membership, we have to also deal with people who aren't tithing, aren't attending Sunday School, or aren't doing their family devotions."
Here is my question: Are all of these the same? Is someone who gets divorced really not doing anything different (insert "worse") than a person who is missing family devotions? This is the end result of the dicussions I am having with people on this issue: We can't stand against one thing and not stand for all of the rules.
Transfer that to Sunday services, now. What can I preach as sin? What is going to be the standard for Christian living? How can we stand up for something when we can't stand against something? When is something so wrong that we just have to say, "That is worse than not paying your tithe?" I am getting concerned about the future discussions we will have with this prevailing premise. If nothing is worse than the other, how can we speak against or for anything?