Tags
“Though we can’t think alike, may we not love alike?”
This phrase is one of the most frequently cited and most frequently misused quotes by United Methodists. The phrase is typically used to argue that doctrinal agreement is unimportant compared to loving one another. It is the go-to quote for Methodists who argue that Wesley was not interested in correct beliefs. However, I am convinced that most people who use this quote have not actually read much of John Wesley, much less this sermon.
Consider for example the following quote from Wesley at the end of the sermon when he is describing what a “catholic spirit” is and is not. “It is not an indifference to all opinions. This is the spawn of hell, not the offspring of heaven. This unsettledness of thought… is a great curse, not a blessing; an irreconcilable enemy, not a friend, to true Catholicism.”
The confusion surrounding this sermon is understandable, because in the introduction to the sermon Wesley does say that differences of opinion or belief should never prevent Christians from loving one another. Here is the entire paragraph the well-worn quote is found within:
But although a difference in opinions or modes of worship may prevent an entire external union, yet need it prevent our union in affection? Though we can’t think alike, may we not love alike? May we not be of one heart, though we are not of one opinion? Without all doubt we may. Herein all the children of God may unite, notwithstanding these smaller differences. These remaining as they are, they may forward one another in love and in good works.
Wesley then frames the rest of the sermon around the brief exchange between Jehu and Jehonadab in 2 Kings 10:15. Wesley wrote: “The text naturally divides itself into two parts. First a question proposed by Jehu to Jehonadab, ‘Is thine heart right, as my heart is with thy heart?’ Secondly, an offer made on Jehonadab’s answering, ‘It is.’ – If it be, give me thine hand.’”
In answering the first question, “Is thine heart right, as my heart is with thy heart?” Wesley argues that differences of opinion are unavoidable. More interestingly, he argues that everyone thinks all of their opinions are true, but also knows that he is likely wrong about some of the things that he believes, “He knows in the general that he himself is mistaken; although in what particulars he mistakes he does not, perhaps cannot, know.” In essence, Wesley is arguing for epistemic humility. He wants people to acknowledge that as strongly as they hold their opinions, they could be wrong.
Wesley then turns to the various ways that people worship God. Wesley argues that, “everyone must follow the dictates of his own conscience in simplicity and godly sincerity.” And again, Wesley argues for a tolerance of a diversity of practice when it comes to different denominations, and different practices of the sacrament.
Then, Wesley asks “what should a follower of Christ understand” when he is asked “is thy heart right with God?” Then, for more than two pages Wesley asks questions that must all be answered affirmatively in order to receive the endorsement “thy heart is right, as my heart is with thy heart.” Here are a few of the questions Wesley asks:
Is thy heart right with God? Dost thou believe his being, and his perfections? His eternity, immensity, wisdom, power; his justice, mercy, and truth?
And that he governs even the most minute, even the most noxious, to his own glory, and the good of them that love him?
Dost thou believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, ‘God over all, blessed for ever’? Is he ‘revealed in’ thy soul?
Is he ‘formed in thy heart by faith?’“Having absolutely disclaimed all thy own works, thy own righteousness, hast thou ‘submitted thyself unto the righteousness of God’, ‘which is by faith in Christ Jesus’?
Is God the centre of thy soul? The sum of all thy desires?
Art thou more afraid of displeasing God than either of death or hell? Is nothing so terrible to thee as the thought of ‘offending the eyes of his glory’? Upon this ground dost thou ‘hate all evil ways’, every transgression of his holy and perfect law?
The list of questions continues. Here, there are two things to notice. 1) Wesley is not dismissing either the importance of beliefs or of action. He actually seems very concerned to vet the person he is considering joining hands with, asking them a litany of questions. He is not shrugging his shoulders and saying, “I guess your truth is just different than my truth.” 2) The list of questions is filled with doctrinal assumptions! Among other things, the questions about the first person of the Trinity ask the person to affirm the classical understanding of the perfections of God. The questions about Jesus require the person to affirm the divinity of Christ, the necessity of justification by faith, and the new birth. There is at least an implicit affirmation of original sin and there is an assumption of agreement on hating sin and being determined to avoid transgression of his holy and perfect law.
People often read this sermon to suggest that Wesley thinks people with different understandings of sin should just agree to love each other. I’m not sure that pays sufficient attention to what Wesley is actually saying in this sermon. Another way of saying this is that I don’t think Wesley’s understanding of “opinions” would have included disagreements about sin. Wesley was a man of his time and thought that sin was clearly spelled out in scripture.
Wesley then shifts his attention to what it means to join hands. For him it is not pretending to embrace one another’s opinions or modes of worship. Rather, “Hold you fast that which you believe is most acceptable to God, and I will do the same.”
Here is how Wesley describes joining hands. Wesley expects someone who joins hands with him to:
Love him “as a friend that is closer than a brother; as a brother in Christ.” He further asks, “Love me with the love that ‘covereth all things’, that never reveals either my faults or infirmities; that ‘believeth all things’, is always willing to think the best, to put the fairest construction on all my words and actions…”
Pray for him.
Provoke him to love and good works. In this Wesley includes, “O speak and spare not, whatever thou believest may conduce either to the amending my faults, the strengthening my weakness, the building me up in love, or the making me more fit in any kind for the Master’s use.”
Love him not in word only, but in deed and in truth.
Finally, Wesley turns his attention in the last part of the sermon to his understanding of a “catholic spirit.” Interesting he begins, “There is scarce any expression which has been more grossly misunderstood and more dangerously misapplied than this.” He then offers three statements of what a catholic spirit is not.
First, it is not “speculative latitudinarianism”, an eighteenth century term that referred to “an indifference to all opinions.” For Wesley, this is “the spawn of hell, not the offspring of heaven… an irreconcilable enemy, not a friend, to true catholicism. He continues:
Observe this, you who know not what spirit ye are of, who call yourselves men of a catholic spirit only because you are of a muddy understanding; because your mind is all in a mist; because you have no settled, consistent principles, but are for jumbling all opinions together. Be convinced that you have quite missed your way: you know not where you are. You think you are got into the very spirit of Christ, when in truth you are nearer the spirit of antichrist. God first and learn the first elements of the gospel of Christ, and then shall you learn to be of a truly catholic spirit.
Second, a catholic spirit is not “practical latitudinarianism” or an indifference to public worship and the way it is conducted.
Third, a catholic spirit is not “indifference to all congregations.”
There are many different directions that one could go in from here. I suspect I have already largely exhausted my allotment of words that most of you want to read, so I’ll try to wrap up with a few brief observations:
1) Wesley is making the case for charity and a hermeneutic of generosity towards others. He is realistic in his acknowledgement that people will not agree about everything. I also suspect that he takes the call to love one another more seriously than most people who appeal to this sermon do. (I.e., do we really love those we disagree with like they are our brothers and sisters, or best friends? Do we spend serious time on our knees in prayer for them, begging God to bless them and pour himself into their lives in new ways?) The sermon reminds me of the room for growth I have in loving those with whom I disagree. And it reminds me that it takes work, it is not something to merely be vaguely affirmed.
2) I don’t think this sermon supports the “Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors” motto that some love and some love to hate. Saying that Wesley is arguing for open-mindedness in this sermon is much too simplistic. He is actually saying that Christians should be close-minded in their own beliefs, but generous and charitable with those with whom they disagree. Put differently, Wesley is arguing for certainty in the specifics of one’s faith that comes from careful thought and examination of the options and not a devaluing of the role of doctrine in order to have a bigger tent.
3) Speaking of big tents. My reading of this sermon is that Wesley would find a big tent vision for Methodism a liability and not an asset. For example, when he acknowledges disagreements about the sacraments, he does not seem to me to be arguing that the folks who disagree should try to worship in the same church. On the contrary, he seems to assume that they would not be a part of the same faith community, but they could still be a part of the church catholic. It makes me wonder if Wesley might view our experiment at unity within diversity as an attempt for one church to be the whole church catholic and if he might think that attempt itself lacked both humility and sense, particularly because we are so obviously not a full expression of the church catholic. A cursory reading of Wesley’s letters, for example, will provide multiple examples of Wesley defining which beliefs are acceptable within the movement he was the leader of and which ones meant that mutual cooperation was no longer possible. Wesley regularly enforced doctrinal/dogmatic uniformity among early Methodist preachers.
Ultimately, while it is probably technically true that contemporary Methodists do believe just about anything, I do not think one can use this sermon as justification for either deemphasizing doctrinal commitments or for a community of faith that lacks clarity about what its own vision for what faithfulness looks like.
(You can read the full text of Wesley’s sermon “Catholic Spirit” here.)
Kevin M. Watson teaches, writes, and preaches to empower community, discipleship, and stewardship of our heritage. Connect with Kevin. Get future posts emailed to you.
Gary E. Holdeman said:
Great blog, Kevin! Right on….as always!
Blessings, Gary
John Meunier said:
Did you watch the sermon from CA-NV before you posted this? I ask because the preacher used the “love alike” quote as a keynote to the whole sermon. And in exactly the way you suggest Wesley would not.
John Leek said:
A good word Kevin. It distresses me, likely more than it should, to see people repeat something over and over and over without seeking to understand it. It’s limited to Wesley by no means, but as one who loves him I’ve found those who quote him are often in error.
Thank you for your careful consideration of his “Catholic Spirit” sermon.
Betsy said:
From a pew sitter who had this revalation after delving into Wesley after havoc was wreaked within my local church based on the first half of the sermon–Thank you, Thank you, Thank you. I’ve been saying people need to read the whole sermon–the second half has been lost. It took me two readings to finally grasp what he was saying in the second half of the sermon and I was blown away because I was indoctrinated with only the first half.
Kevin Watson said:
John, I have been meaning to write this post for a few years. Watching the sermon yesterday provided somewhat of a catalyst for finally putting fingers to keyboard, so to speak.
Gary, John L., and Betsy, Thank you for your comments.
Cynthia Astle said:
This is a long post, Kevin, but worthy of reprint on UM Insight as part of the ongoing discussion about the UMC’s future. Thanks for the post and the link to the full text of “Catholic Spirit.”
John Meunier said:
I’m glad the sermon was a prod. This is an excellent post.
Troy Sims said:
I agree to a great extent. It is frustrating when folks take things out of context, whether Wesley, the Bible, or any stripe of politician.
One thing I’m taking issue with these days, though, in relation to Wesleyan scholarship is the idea that if Wesley wrote it or said it in 1750 he never changed his mind. Wrong:
* Many claim (not particularly in this article) that because Wesley said early on that you must have assurance of salvation that you can’t doubt. Wesley changed his mind on that. Just read his 1788 sermon, “On Faith,” to see how he changed. (Read more about this here: http://lovinggodwithallyourmind.com/2012/05/aldersgate-day-not-the-end-of-the-story/)
* Understanding / Doctrine of Christ:
– In 1784, when Wesley edits the 39 Anglican Articles of Religion down to 24 for the American Methodists to start a new denomination, he purposely leaves off the article saying Jesus is the only way!
– In a letter written to a Quaker named Robert Barclay, Wesley says he agrees with this statement from Barclay: “The benefit of the death of Christ is not only extended to such as have the distinct knowledge of His death and sufferings, but even unto those who are inevitably excluded from this knowledge. Even these may be partakers of the benefit of His death, though ignorant of the history, if they suffer His grace to take place in their hearts, so as of wicked [people] to become holy.”
– Similarly, in Wesley’s sermon, “On Faith,” he says that people of other faiths can have a saving relationship with God. The difference is quality. For Wesley, they have a relationship as that of a servant to a master. Christians, for Wesley, have a relationship as that of a parent to a child.
* I find it interesting that in paring the 39 Anglican articles down to 24 that he purposely leaves off the one saying we need to pay attention to the Apostles and Nicene Creeds.
YES. Wesley says often that there are things we are to believe, but we also see more wiggle room with him when we look at how his theology evolved than we often want to give him credit for.
Kevin Watson said:
Troy, Thank you for your comments. I must admit being confused by your response. My post does not suggest that Wesley’s theology never changed or evolved. The entire post is focused on one sermon and the way that sermon has been used by 21st century Methodists to argue for theological pluralism.
To the broader point of recent Wesleyan scholarship, I think you are simply wrong to suggest that the majority of scholars of John Wesley would argue that because he said or wrote something at a certain time that never changed. Randy Maddox’s Responsible Grace is the standard survey of Wesley’s theology in most UM seminaries and it constantly notes the development and change within Wesley’s thought. Even to your specific reference to Aldersgate, the development of Wesley’s understanding of assurance after Aldersgate has been argued and debated for decades by Wesley studies scholars. These things may be missed by popular perceptions of Wesley, but they are far from overlooked by people in the guild of Wesley Studies.
Wesley’s thought did change during his life. I do not think, however, one can extrapolate from this a vision for theological pluralism. Another thing that changed throughout Wesley’s life was his relationship with other people. He repeatedly fenced the theological boundaries of the movement he was associated with, separated from Moravians, Calvinists and Anglicans (many of whom were dear friends) because of theological disagreement that he felt ultimately prevented union.
optimistwf said:
Hi Kevin,
Thanks for your response. In my comments, I wasn’t really going against you so much as wanting to make some clarifications. Just based on my personal experience some folks would read your post (which was good) and assume that Wesley always believed certain things. Folks not only proof text words from a sermon but also out of the whole of Wesley and try to make black and white statements across the board.
Related to that, when I said “scholarship” I wasn’t necessarily meaning the scholars so much as people (lay and clergy) who participate in the scholarly work of reading and interpreting (mis-interpreting) Wesley and Wesleyan scholars. I should have chosen a different word there.
Part of what I’ve tried to do in Christian education is to make sure some of these details don’t get overlooked, making sure that they don’t only stay within the guild of Wesley studies.
Thanks for your work!
optimistwf said:
Also, thanks for the reminder about how Wesley would sometimes separate from other groups. Sometimes we focus so much on maintaining the unity of the organization that we miss out on what is ultimately important for us – what God may be calling us to.
John Leek said:
Troy/OptimistWF?
Kevin may have skipped addressing most of your points as they aren’t directly related to the topic at hand, but I’d like to address your interpretation of “On Faith”
You come away with the idea that Wesley is saying those of other faiths are saved, but by a different degree?
Take another look at paragraph 9 of the second section of that sermon:
– In my reading Wesley says that Protestant faith of right belief, Catholic, Materialist, Diest, or Muslim without the faith as he defines it in his sermon Justification by Faith are as lost in sin and hell as Judas Iscariot.
– The faith of the servant, as defined by Wesley, is found in the utter despair that one cannot be free from sin without a new work of Christ. The faith of a son is found after that. Any sort of works righteousness, any belief that we have any good action without God’s direct intercession is definitely not “there” yet.
– I recommend reading Wesley’s sermon on The Spirit of Bondage and adoption to help understand the distinction between servant and son and what it required. – Wesley argues, though I don’t recall right off if it is in this particular sermon, that (and this may be the possible source of confusion) once someone has the faith of a servant God’s grace will keep them alive until God does the works of Justification and Regeneration in the sinner.
Kevin, may be able to speak more clearly on this, but I don’t see evidence in my reading of Wesley and specifically see no evidence in On Faith which you cite for any worldview resembling universalism.
Wesley doesn’t want to squelch what God may be doing in the hearts and minds of his hearers, but his description of what it takes to be saved doesn’t really budge. He is charitable enough to share that some Catholics and some of those of other Protestant denominations are authentic Christians.
Okegbile Deji (Very Rev Dr) said:
This is a message for the church today in search of church unity.
Pingback: When Methodist Distinctives Aren’t | Vital Piety
Keith A. Jenkins said:
I appreciate all that you say here, but I wonder how you would respond to a question I have wrestled with for the entire 38 years of my career as a UM pastor:
Does recognizing John Wesley as the Founder of our denomination also mean that we must be his disciples?
In reference to the particular issue you have explored so effectively in this essay, even though Wesley did not embrace the notion of theological pluralism, does that mean that The United Methodist Church cannot? We do not live in John Wesley’s world. So, why must we always be bound by his understanding of the Christian faith?
Kevin Watson said:
Hi Keith. Thank you for the question. Here are the immediate thoughts that come to mind.
First, I think even Wesley himself would be appalled at the notion of making disciples of John Wesley. The hope is to help people become disciples of Jesus Christ. That was Wesley’s desire and is the stated desire of the contemporary UMC.
Second, I am happy to concede that we do not live in John Wesley’s world. Context is essential for history and theology. And yet, the question of context is sometimes used as a trump card in support of a serious logical leap. It is virtually impossible to tell what work your statement “we do not live in John Wesley’s world” is doing. From what you’ve said, it feels a bit like this is the implicit logic of what you are saying: “John Wesley did not believe in theological pluralism. But we do not live in John Wesley’s world. Therefore, we should believe in theological pluralism today.” Pointing out that the context has changed is not sufficient for determining what ought to be the case today. The fact that something happens today that didn’t happen three hundred years ago does not tell us anything about which is morally preferable. I think the limitations of the objection are seen a bit more clearly if you replace John Wesley with Jesus (but that opens up an entirely different can of worms).
Third, it seems to me that United Methodism has already given theological pluralism a run for its money – and it hasn’t seemed to bear much fruit. (Though, I will agree that all kinds of variance and disunity exists on the ground in United Methodism.) Methodists used to be known for vacuous statements that seemed to have the best of intentions like, “You can believe anything and be United Methodist.” This was said with a straight face as if it were a virtue. It would take a new blog post to spell out completely, but I think the downplaying of theological commitments for the sake of unity has pretty well been discovered to be a dead end. It undercuts the UMC’s mission to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. And it leads more to incoherence than meaningful unity.
Sorry for such a lengthy response!
All the best,
Kevin
Keith Jenkins said:
Kevin,
First, I agree that Wesley would probably be appalled by such a notion, but that doesn’t keep many modern Methodists from acting as if being a Wesleyite were an essential and indispensible part of being a UM. They may not say this in so many words, but it is a strong underlying assumption.
Second, I hope I’m not guilty of a serious logical leap (or a frivolous one, for that matter). You spend most of your time in your second point arguing against what you suppose to be my meaning. You said, “it feels a bit like this is the implicit logic of what you are saying: ‘John Wesley did not believe in theological pluralism. But we do not live in John Wesley’s world. Therefore, we should believe in theological pluralism today.’” That is not what I meant. And while that may be a defensible inference to draw from what I said, I don’t think it represents the clearest, most straight-forward reading. What I meant was more along the lines of this: “JW did not believe in TP. But since our world is not the same as JW’s world, and since we are not disciples of JW, we need not necessarily be bound by his views. It is permissible for us to hold views different from those held by JW, one of which can be TP.” I meant for my statement to be permissive, not prescriptive or obligatory, as your use of “should” and “ought” suggests. In other words, we were not being “apostate Methodists” when we officially embraced theological pluralism, and neither are those who continue to do so.
Third, I professed faith in Christ, was baptized, and joined the UMC in 1970, during my senior year in high school, after 10 years of not having stepped inside a church. Between 1971 and 1978, I completed my formal education at two UM schools (Duke MDiv Class of ’78) in preparation for full-time ministry in the UMC. So, I am the tail-end of that generation whose faith perspective in general and understanding of what it meant to be a UM were totally shaped by the theological pluralism of “Our Theological Task” as described in the 1972 and 1976 BOD. So, I heard the jokes and insults about “UM’s don’t believe anything.” I lived in that world. I did ministry in that world. And I assure you, the people who said this did not correctly understand theological pluralism. And because it was too frequently explained poorly and consequently misunderstood, people came to confuse theological pluralism with theological relativism.
But here’s the deal. Theological pluralism worked for me. It worked very well for me, even as one who came to Christ in a sudden, dramatic, transformative conversion experience. So, I sought to disciple others using this model, just as I had been. I can’t claim a great deal of success in this endeavor, but there are more than a few UM clergy and laypersons who found an intellectual and spiritual home in theological pluralism because of my ministry. And I’m not alone. The “fruits” of theological pluralism that grew during the 70’s and 80’s are not insignificant, nor are they gone. Largely left behind by the last paradigm shift, yes, but not gone and not totally forgotten.
Talk about a lengthy response!
Kevin Watson said:
Thanks, again, Keith. I think there is a lot of confusion about the difference between being Methodist and being Wesleyan (or whether there is a difference, or should be one). The development of American Methodism as a theological tradition is a current research project of mine. I hope to explore the issues you raise here in more depth in that project.
Thanks for the response to my second point. I should have just asked you what you meant, instead of putting forth what I assumed was the subtext. Were we to have an in person discussion of this, I’d have several further questions to ask about theological pluralism being permitted but not prescriptive or obligatory. The distinctions seem to me to be hard to pin down.
I very much appreciate the distinction you make between theological pluralism and theological relativism. Thank you, as well, for pushing back on the fruit you’ve seen from theological pluralism. It is a joy to hear of the fruit of your own ministry!
To return to the original question you asked, I’d say that there is de facto evidence that one can be United Methodist and see theological pluralism as at the core of what it means to be Methodist. However, my sense is that embracing theological pluralism was an experiment within one part of pan-Methodism that lasted for about a decade before it was mostly abandoned. Outler used it as a way to try to hold together a big tent vision of Methodism that came from the merger of the EUB and MC, which could be seen as fairly distinct theological traditions. As you point out, this was officially part of the UMC from about 1968 to the revision of “Our Theological Task” that came within about a decade.
Your own life and ministry, on the other hand, demonstrate that Outler’s vision is one that was powerful and spoke deeply to many people. The way I might categorize it, then, is as a kind of informal sub-tradition within the UMC. I would tend to see it as a relatively new development that does not have much evidence for being a key part of what it has meant to be a Methodist throughout the history of the tradition. As I continue researching the development of American Methodism as a theological tradition, perhaps I will find that I am wrong about this.
Kevin
Pingback: Catholic Spirit and Methodist Doctrinal Commitments | Vital Piety
Allen Gibson said:
I enjoyed reading your post, though I would quibble here and there with you. I think, for example, you make too light a matter of what Wesley calls “invincible ignorance.” This is an important realization made by Wesley centuries before post-modernity and the “hermeneutic of suspicion.” became common language in academia. He recognizes the paradox of being human– that we must by our nature adopt very particular understandings, and that these understandings are the products (in part) of our “invincible prejudices” and our unique set of experiences (as well as social location, family background, educational opportunities, et al.) But the necessary particularity of our existence naturally precludes our ability to know everything that is necessary to know in order for us to elevate our understandings to the level of absolute certainty.
And so the viewpoints we hold, even those we hold dearly as tenets or pole stars for our faith and practice, are nothing more than our opinions. As such, they are afflicted with the fallibility that arises from our invincible ignorance and that is influenced by our invincible prejudices.
So in this reading of Wesley, I find it interesting that (1) his seven questions that define the parameters of orthodoxy are heavily flavored by his notions of grace, especially the means of grace that involve loving service to God through loving service to others; and (2) that he does not require anyone to adopt his understandings of these questions. Rather, he asks them, and if you can answer them affirmatively “with uncrossed fingers,” he accepts your answer and offers his hand in fellowship.
He holds onto the freedom for himself that he offers to the reader/listener– no one need change their opinions in order to be in loving fellowship. In fact, one should have opinions, and one should hold to those opinions firmly (but with the humility that comes from the admission of one’s own ignorance and prejudice). Loving fellowship simply requires the recognition of our kindred status within the realm of God, a status that ultimately will not ever rest on our flawed understandings of God at work in the world but rather will depend entirely upon the grace of God offered through Jesus.
And the actions required by such love are simple acceptance and a willingness to be in prayerful relationship. Explicitly, Wesley eschews debating over differences of opinions because it changes what should be an egalitarian respect of different viewpoints honestly gained into a contest over whose viewpoint is “right” and whose is “wrong. This is impossible to ultimately determine because the necessary condition of humanity is to be in error.
This always puts me in mind of James’ argument in Acts 15–“Why should we impose on the Gentiles the strictures of the Law that we ourselves (as Jews) were not able to keep?” It also reminds me of Paul’s extended argument in Romans 14-15, that as servants within the household of the Master, each servant has different capabilities and different responsibilities. If, as servants, we judge the work of another servant, we cannot help but judge wrongly– for we do not know what the Master knows regarding the capabilities of the servant and what the Master has asked of the servant. Paul insists that our correct attitude is this: “Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God.”
Just some thoughts, here on the cusp of a dramatic GC 2016.
Keith Jenkins said:
Mr. Gibson, it is a rare pleasure to hear such clarity of thought and felicity of expression combined in a single comment, especially in today’s climate of cheap and careless ideological diatribe. I hope you don’t mind that I have copied portions of your response into a document to preserve for future reference.
My simpler way of trying to express the same thoughts you have expressed so elegantly is this: We are saved by grace, not by being right.
John Thorpe said:
Would like to know Watson’s thought
on the current UMC’s kunungeron
concerning LGBTQ in decisions about
contents of the UMC’s Discipline?
John Thorpe
UMC delegate to Memphis Conference
m
Pingback: John Wesley’s Advice to the People Called Methodists (Part II) | Vital Piety
williambuggins said:
Dear Kevin,
I am a non denominational evangelical Christian living in the United Kingdom.. As there are only two places of worship in our village we attend the little Methodist chapel. Through our involvement I became aware of this issue.
I am doing some research into this document with a view to opposing its recommendations. To me the whole document is built on false premises, twisted logic and mis-applied Scripture.
Click to access conf-2019-10-marriage-and-relationships-task-group-2019.pdf
Anyway, in the conclusion it quotes from John Wesley’s sermon “Catholic Spirit”,
“Though we cannot think alike, may we not love alike May we not be of one heart, though we are not of one opinion Without all doubt, we may. Herein all the children of God may unite, notwithstanding these smaller differences. These remaining as they are, they may forward one another in love and in good works.”
I read the sermon and happened on your article. I agreed with your conclusions and have actually included it in my personal notes. So thank you for taking the time and trouble to write it.
Pingback: John Wesley’s Sermon “Catholic Spirit”: A Brief Summary | Kevin M. Watson