Methodists, particularly United Methodists, have a very bad habit of making sweeping statements about what makes the Methodist tradition distinct or unique. The main reason this is a bad habit is because when Methodists do this they are often claiming ownership of things that are basic to Christianity or that are at least at the heart of the values or beliefs of other parts of the Body of Christ. When Methodists do this, it makes us look oblivious at best, and obnoxious and arrogant at worst.
Since joining the faculty at SPU two years ago, I have had more interactions with Christians who are not United Methodists than I had previously. More than once, I have heard someone ask why Methodists claim something as a distinctive of their tradition when it is a basic Christian affirmation. Just yesterday, a colleague pointed out that Methodists do not have the market cornered on holiness.
I am trying to do a better job of being more humble and accurate in what I claim as a distinctive of my own branch of the Christian family tree. I have also become more sensitive to just how often Methodists make rather grandiose claims about the marvels of our own tradition.
Here are the three most common ways I have heard people describe Methodism’s distinctiveness that are not unique to Methodism.
1. Methodists believe in grace.
Asserting that grace is a distinct belief of Methodism would understandably be offensive to other Christians, because they believe in grace too! Ask your brother or sister in Christ from a non-Methodist tradition whether they believe in grace and let me know when you find someone who says no.
John Calvin talks extensively about grace in his Institutes of the Christian Religion. Here is one example, that is particularly important for Methodists to read because it refers to the role of grace in both justification and sanctification:
Christ was given to us by God’s generosity, to be grasped and possessed by us in faith. By partaking of him, we principally receive a double grace: namely, that being reconciled to God through Christ’s blamelessness, we may have in heaven instead of a Judge a gracious Father; and secondly, that sanctified by Christ’s spirit we may cultivate blamelessness and purity of life. (Institutes, III.XI.1)
Grace is very important to Methodism because it is very important to Christianity. When Methodists claim that we are distinct because we talk so much about grace, we look foolish to other parts of the Body of Christ and damage our own commitment to having a “Catholic Spirit.”
2. Methodists allow you to use your brain.
This affirmation, when I hear it, seems to do two things at once. It is a way that Methodists congratulate themselves on being so educated, open-minded, and tolerant. At the same time, it indirectly insults people whose views are less sophisticated than we perceive ours to be.
While there are some parts of Christianity that don’t affirm the role of theological education to the degree that most Methodists do, every classic Christian theologian I can think of would insist on using your mind to love God.
Faith seeking understanding did not originate with Methodism!
The way that I sometimes hear Methodists talk about our being unafraid to use our minds smacks of a kind of elitism and arrogance that is disappointing, particularly when coming from members of my own ecclesial family. And it is all the more problematic (and ironic) because it is sometimes used as a way to dismiss someone else’s beliefs without actually using one’s brain to make a reasoned argument as to why something is wrong and something else is right.
3. Methodists are connectional.
The ideas behind this are more complicated, but this is basically an assertion that Methodists are distinct because we are a church that is connected to each other in a variety of different ways (conferences, itinerant preachers, general boards and agencies, etc.).
Intentionally or not, this affirmation implies that other denominations are not interested in working together or connecting with each other. Though the polities are not the same, I imagine that the Roman Catholic Church, or the Eastern Orthodox Church, or the Anglican Church (and others) would see themselves as a connectional church in a way quite similar to Methodists.
Could it be that a distinctive of Methodism is taking credit for things that belong to the legacy of the global church? I hope not. Maybe every tradition succumbs to this temptation. As a Methodist, I have found myself wrestling with the pretension of my own tradition over the last two years.
Have you noticed the tendency of Methodists to claim basic Christian beliefs, values, or practices as uniquely Methodist? What other claims of distinctiveness that aren’t actually distinctive of Methodism would you add?
Kevin M. Watson 
Kevin-
What I would bring up is something almost on the opposite of this list. I have encountered more and more people who come to Methodism because they think it doesn’t have distinction.
It might be they are seeking a church home were anything is allowed (the negative side of it) or it is a couple trying to find a religious middle ground from the traditions they grew up in (one is Catholic and the other free church).
Both of these create the scenario you are talking about. The grace issue is a great example.
Thanks for the comment, Chad! I agree. I thought about including “you can believe anything,” but it didn’t fit the organization of the post as well, because I don’t think many other traditions would defend that as a good thing. And, as a Methodist I don’t think it is an accurate representation of what it means to be Methodist.
Kevin, you are the Wesleyan myth-buster. Thank you for the great post, as well as many others you’ve written helping us to understand our own tradition more accurately.
Kevin, your posts are a blessing. John Wesley’s “Character of a Methodist” was his earliest attempt to describe Methodism, and as you know, he used the pamphlet to disavow any sectarianism or separation from other Christians. In my experience, the issue of “distinctiveness” often arises against the caricature that “you can believe anything and be a Methodist.” But rather than alleging distinctives that really aren’t, I think we would do better to use the word “emphases.”
I grew up in a UM home, daughter of a UM pastor who was very evangelical (even preaching at many camp meetings from the East to mid-west). When I went away to a conservative non-UM college I was greeted with this (when they saw my denomination affiliation): “Oh, your one of THOSE liberals!” I was offended because I never even knew there were liberal UMs. (I went on to marry a UM pastor).
Perhaps the Methodists sharing these distinctive affirmations of their faith are trying to bust myths put upon them by the news some UMs make? Or, perhaps they are trying to justify actions. We aren’t identified by our performance (actions), our possessions or our affiliations. We’re (all Christians) are identified by our position – that of loved sons and daughters of the Father. Unfortunately, the media (both liberal and conservative it would seem) choose to identify us by the former – actions, possessions or affiliations. The only affirmation I value is my position in Father’s family, not my church membership/affiliation.
You’re not just a scholar, Kevin; you’re a gentleman, too!
I often use the distinction for United Methodists that we aren’t given a list of 10 or 20 things we must hold in common as some do, but we are allowed to think and work out our theology, and can accept the differences that occur. I am a UMC member and pastor because I am allowed to think… If other faith communities have the same freedom, then more power to them.
David and Steve, Thank you very much for your kinds words. They mean a lot coming from the two of you!
Thanks for chiming in Steve. Interacting with folks like you is helping me (I hope) to be more precise, humble, and ecumenically aware of what is distinctive of Methodism and what is a basic affirmation of Christian orthodoxy.
Dave, I am surprised that it would not be evident to you that other faith communities have the freedom to think. Can you see why the implication that other faith communities are not allowed to think would be quite offensive to them? I cannot imagine my colleagues who are adherents to Lutheran, Anglican, Reformed, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Evangelical Covenant, etc backgrounds here at Seattle Pacific would see their traditions as less thoughtful than Methodism.
More than once I’ve had someone ask me, “So what’s a Methodist?” This question has come from Baptists, Brethren, and even a young Amish man. So how do I answer? I have always been impressed with Scott Jones’ book, “Extreme Center” as representative of Wesley’s stance with respect to other denominations – Catholics think we’re Baptists and Baptists think we’re Catholic. We’re not the only ones to baptize infants, but for some it is a distinction – a very large one. But we also claim baptism is not required for salvation – not very Catholic. And unlike McDonalds, what you get at one UMC is not the same as every other UMC. Thank you Kevin for challenging us to learn to articulate our distinctiveness.
Kevin, your points are well taken. I do note that you have left out what I perceive as one of the most significant distinctions of the United Methodist Church. United Methodists are bureaucratic. In a mere 55 years, we have created a church polity that is more resistant to change than the Roman Catholic church polity, which has been created over centuries. I have not spent any significant period of time in churches of other denominations; but I suspect we have more committees, more hurdles on the ordination journey, more church trials per capita, and more rules to be aware of than most any other Christian denomination. I have to wonder what John Wesley would think about a church that spent more time in committee meetings (in contrast to class meetings) that the Anglican church of his day.
And what of those who aren’t United Methodists, but are still within the Wesleyan family? The Free Methodists and the Wesleyan Church, last I looked, are still quite connectional. From what I’ve noticed, though, Free Methodists see their discipline as a rough guideline with rules that can be bent, rather than an inflexible text that takes committees to even propose changes.
Aren’t United Methodists the third largest Christian denomination in the world? We believe in equal opportunity for women. We recognize that women and men are created differently, but we believe some women have the gifts to be clergy, pastors, elders, deacons, leaders, etc.. The two larger denominations, Roman Catholic and Baptist, do not allow women equal opportunity in these areas. Also, UMs believe in open communion and that is also unique among the top three.
Our outward practices, as you say, are not identifiable as solely Methodist and given our identity (a holiness movement within the Anglican Church, divided by political rather than religious schism from the RC) such should not be a surprise. That there is a denomination separate from our Anglican roots is the result of a political situation rather than schism (American independence in 1776).
Methodists are sinners, saved by grace who are ‘going on toward perfection’. It is this last that seems more distinctive if anything does. I would say that the Wesleyan focus on requiring both ‘works of piety’ and ‘works of mercy’ comes close to something unique. We have a foundational expectation that what we do on Sunday will inform and influence what we do the rest of the week. This is the essence of what is called the “social gospel”. We cannot be full, whole and complete followers of Christ in either worship or deeds alone – but must do both if at all possible. This is the ‘going on toward perfection’ influence.
This understanding has influenced pastors and parishioners for so long that Methodists take these thoughts for granted as normative for all Christians. Proportionately though, there are more Methodists in community leadership positions, in human services professions and in government service than any other faith group. I believe there is a correlation.
When I saw Dave’s comment that UMC is not given a list of 10 or 20 things we must hold in common I had two immediate and conflicting reactions:
1) Have you seen the size of the BOD?
2) It would be nice if the UMC could agree on 10 things in common.
Maybe the UMC distinctiveness is having an encyclopedic book of beliefs and practices that is binding on all and ignored by everyone?
I don’t really see this issue. In fact, I think the problem is quite the opposite. There’s a reason John Stewart once called Methodism the “University of Phoneix” of religions:
http://www.umportal.org/article.asp?id=7101
The Anglican/Episcopal denomination is based on three legs: the Scriptures, tradition, and intellect. I left the Methodist Church many years ago as they are way too “distinctive” for me. I am now very happy in John Wesley’s Church.
I agree with much of what you say here; perhaps the problem is the very term “distinctives,” as it denotes uniqueness and separation. There is another, better term that comes directly out of the Christian vernacular (via St. Paul) and is still used by many other churches and religious orders: “charisms.” These are gifts that need not be unique, but function as characteristics of those who bear them. Benedictines are known for the charism of hospitality, but in no way is that unique to them. Tyndale Seminary’s James Pedlar (a Wesleyan from the Salvation Army tradition) has been doing some great work on the charisms: http://jamespedlar.wordpress.com/ecclesial-charisms/
Secondly, related to your remarks on connectionalism, the UMC does have a somewhat unique approach to connectionalism: that whole “global nature of the UMC” that was such a huge debate a few years ago. Yes, Roman Catholics and various Orthodox traditions and just about every other denomination is somehow connected to others around the world, so claiming “connectionalism” is hardly distinctive. But the UMC seems to be about the only denomination (other than the Seventh-Day Adventists) that is actually governed by one general, global conference. Every other denomination is, by and large, administered at the national level. If you can think of any exceptions here, I’m all ears (and the Vatican doesn’t count, as the vast majority of Catholic administration is actually in the hands of episcopal conferences at the national level, such as the USCCB).
Thanks for the continued conversation. I have not been able to keep up as I’d like as I’ve been away at SPU’s faculty retreat.
As a general response, I’d say that many of the responses point to differences between Methodists and one denomination. I don’t dispute, for example, that Methodists affirm the ordination of women and some other denominations do not. This is, however, clearly not a distinctive of Methodism, as many other denominations do too.
Another good example is Andy’s appeal to connectionalism. My argument is not that the way the UMC functions connectionally is like every other denomination (or any other denomination). The particularities may be distinct. What I was trying to point to is simply that we should not claim the general idea of being connectional as a distinctive of Methodism, because so many other denominations are also in favor of working together.
My concern is that Methodists often (unintentionally) talk about distinctiveness in a way that suggests that we are the only ones who care about these things. We may talk about grace in a different accent, but we should not suggest that we are the only Christians who are passionate about grace. Perhaps it will help some Methodists to think about how we would feel if a baptist claimed that a distinctive of the baptist tradition was the importance of the Bible. We Methodists would rightly point out that according to our doctrine, we also emphasize the Bible.
I couldn’t help but wonder what JW would say, and I found this in “A Plain Account of the People Called Methodists” – 1748:
V. The thing which I was greatly afraid of all this time, and which I resolved to use every possible method of preventing, was, a narrowness of spirit, a party zeal, a being straitened in our own bowels; that miserable bigotry which makes many so unready to believe that there is any work of God but among themselves. I thought it might be a help against this, frequently to read, to all who were willing to hear, the accounts I received from time to time of the work which God is carrying on in the earth, both in our own and other countries, not among us alone, but among those of various opinions and denominations. For this I allotted one evening in every month; and I find no cause to repent my labour. It is generally a time of strong consolation to those who love God, and all mankind for his sake; as well as of breaking down the partition-walls which either the craft of the devil or the folly of men has built up; and of encouraging every child of God to say, (O when shall it once be!) “Whosoever doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.”
My favorite myth is the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, as if we are the only people to ever use the hermeneutic of reason, experience and tradition when reading scripture.
Pingback: Distinctively Methodist: Entire Sanctification and Small Group Formation | Vital Piety