Author Archives: Kevin M. Watson

Arrogance vs. Confidence in the Truth of the Gospel

10 Wednesday Apr 2013

Posted by in Christian Living, Ministry

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

Does absolute certainty about the truth of the gospel mean that one is arrogant and lacks humility? Can people know for certain that they are God’s beloved children?

These questions were on my mind after reading a tweet from Donald Miller this morning. And I have been wrestling with his words all day. Here is what he wrote:

Many follow leaders who sell confidence rather than truth. Arrogant people assume they’re right. Humble people understand many perspectives.

This comment has stuck with me today because I think it summarizes how many people today feel about the relationship between truth and certainty and tolerance and humility.

I have no idea what prompted Miller to tweet this, and to be fair, twitter is a very limited platform for nuance. It is entirely possible I will take the rest of this post in a direction that Miller would not disagree with. My purpose is not to slam Miller or even argue with him. He has simply provided stimulus for my further thinking about the ways we think about truth, confidence, arrogance, and humility.

The first sentence of the tweet seems to suggest that leaders should sell truth and not confidence, or that it is bad to sell confidence rather than the truth. I think the most charitable reading of this would be that Miller means that some leaders sell confidence even in the face of the truth, or that they are pushing certainty even if the truth is more complex. If this is correct, I would say that I agree. The goal of a pastor, for example, should not be to peddle certainty. Rather, it should be to introduce people to a relationship with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Certainty can sometimes be a hindrance to this relationship.

So, if my reading is right, there is much that I agree with about this statement.

But, I think there is also a subtext here. And I think the subtext is actually of greater urgency to address. That is, I don’t think there are many people who would defend pushing certainty over and against the truth.

The deeper concern that I have is this: Can Christians be confident of the truth of the gospel, can they assume they are right – can they be absolutely certain that they are right – about who Jesus is and his significance for human flourishing without being arrogant?

I think this question is of deep significance for the current cultural moment in American Christianity. There seems to me to be pretty significant pressure on Christians to hold their truth claims loosely, otherwise they are by definition intolerant, arrogant, and/or closed-minded.

The second sentence in Miller’s tweet states: “Arrogant people assume they’re right.”

While this is a beautifully written sentence, it strikes me as nonsense. Is it assuming that you are right that makes you arrogant? If so, who doesn’t assume they are right? And what is the value of a person who assumes that they are wrong in order to avoid being arrogant? If you think you are wrong about something, you should change your mind so you think rightly about it. And then you should assume you are right until you are convinced otherwise. In other words, I think arrogance is something much different than thinking you are right. Someone who carefully considers an issue and comes to a strong conclusion is not by definition arrogant. If they were, conviction and arrogance or belief and arrogance would be the same thing. Believing something was true would by definition be arrogant.

Charity requires me to assume that this is not what Miller means, particularly because there is still one more sentence to his tweet. (But, though I do not think this is Miller’s position, I do think that many people feel this way when they encounter someone who has strongly held convictions. So, again, I think it is pointing to something deeper going on in our cultural moment.)

The final sentence of Miller’s tweet is: “Humble people understand many perspectives.” So, I think Miller means that arrogant people assume they are right, without understanding opposing points of view (and probably without even considering them). This understanding of arrogance, a sense of superiority that leads one to believe they are right without even weighing the evidence, fits well with my own understanding of arrogance. And I think it should be rejected.

However, again, I think it is absolutely essential to affirm that someone can be humble and confidently affirm that the gospel is true. In other words, a person could understand many perspectives on Jesus and strongly reject all of them as inadequate in favor of a firm conviction that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. In other words, I think some people would see the conviction that Jesus is the only way to the good life as by definition arrogant. I don’t think it is.

N.T. Wright describes part of what I am trying to get at in his book Simply Christian:

One of the regular tactics the skeptic employs at this point is relativism. I vividly remember a school friend saying to me in exasperation, at the end of a conversation about Christian faith, ‘It’s obviously true for you, but that doesn’t mean it’s true for anybody else.’ Many people today take exactly that line.

Saying ‘it’s true for you’ sounds fine and tolerant. But it only works because it’s twisting the word ‘true’ to mean, not ‘a true revelation of the way things are in the real world,’ but ‘something that is genuinely happening inside you.’ In fact, saying ‘It’s true for you’ in this sense is more or less equivalent to saying ‘It’s not true for you,’ because the ‘it’ in question – the spiritual sense or awareness or experience – is conveying, very powerfully, a message (that there is a loving God) which the challenger is reducing to something else (that you are having strong feelings which you misinterpret in that sense). This goes with several other pressures which have combined to make the notion of ‘truth’ itself highly problematic within our world” (26-27).

But here is the key reason that this tweet got my attention. I believe that one of the most basic things pastors should be doing is teaching that by the power of the Holy Spirit we can know, with certainty, that Jesus is who the church says he is and that we are God’s beloved child. John Wesley described this sense of certainty as assurance. In his sermon “The Witness of the Spirit, I” he expanded on Romans 8:16, “it is that very Spirit bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God.” Wesley described the witness of the Spirit as follows:

The testimony of the Spirit is an inward impression on the soul, whereby the Spirit of God directly ‘witnesses to my spirit that I am a child of God’; that Jesus Christ hath loved me, and given himself for me; that all my sins are blotted out, and I, even I, am reconciled to God…

The Spirit of God does give a believer such a testimony of his adoption that while it is present to the soul he can no more doubt the reality of his sonship than he can doubt of the shining of the sun while he stands in the full blaze of his beams. (274, 276)

This is good news! But, if we separate truth from certainty (within or without the church) we have a problem. I believe the church needs more leaders who help people find deep, abiding confidence in the truth of the gospel. I believe the church needs leaders who can be agents of the Holy Spirit, to help people find certainty in the truth of the resurrection and the whole new way of living that is made possible in the grace soaked world in which we are currently living. The church could use more people who boast in the resurrection and the transforming power of the Holy Spirit.

I’d love to see this tweet in the future:

The church has many leaders who help people embrace passionate faith in Christ. They are certain Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. And they are desperate for every single person to hear and embrace this news.

But, alas, it isn’t 140 characters.

[I’d love to connect with you online. Feel free to follow me on twitter @kevinwatson.]

Recent Wesleyan/Methodist Scholarship

04 Thursday Apr 2013

Posted by in Book Review, Christian Living, Methodist History, Wesley

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, ,

I have recently found myself either purchasing or adding to my “wish list” a number of books in Wesleyan/Methodist studies. Here a few books that are newly released, or soon to be released.

New Releases:

The Ashgate Research Companion to World Methodism, edited by William Gibson, Peter Forsaith, and Martin Wellings, 537 p. ($149)

From the book description:

This Companion brings together a team of respected international scholars writing on key themes in World Methodism to produce an authoritative and state-of-the-art review of current scholarship, mapping the territory for future research.Leading scholars examine a range of themes including: the origins and genesis of Methodism; the role and significance of John Wesley; Methodism’s emergence within the international and transatlantic evangelical revival of the Eighteenth-Century; the evolution and growth of Methodism as a separate denomination in Britain; its expansion and influence in the early years of the United States of America; Methodists’ roles in a range of philanthropic and social movements including the abolition of slavery, education and temperance; the character of Methodism as both conservative and radical; its growth in other cultures and societies; the role of women as leaders in Methodism, both acknowledged and resisted; the worldwide spread of Methodism and its enculturation in America, Asia and Africa; the development of distinctive Methodist theologies in the last three centuries; its role as a progenitor of the Holiness and Pentecostal movements, and the engagement of Methodists with other denominations and faiths across the world.

Keeping Faith: An Ecumenical Commentary on the Articles of Religion and Confession of Faith of the United Methodist Church, D. Stephen Long, 118 p. ($18)

From the book description:

Keeping Faith offers resources to help Christians reclaim the importance of doctrine and thereby to know and love well God and God’s creation. Although it gives particular attention to the Wesleyan and Methodist tradition, it is of necessity an ecumenical effort. Neither the Wesleyans nor the Methodists invented Christian doctrine. In fact, the Wesleyan tradition contributes little that is distinctive or unique. This is a good thing, for unlike other disciplines where originality and uniqueness matter greatly, Christian doctrine depends on others and not the genius of some individual… This work is an ecumenical commentary on the Confession of Faith and the Articles of Religion found in the Wesleyan tradition and also draws on ancient and modern witnesses to God’s glory.

Key United Methodist Beliefs, William J. Abraham, and David F. Watson, 172 p. ($15.99)

Read my recent review here. From the book description:

Deepen your faith and enrich your life through this study of core Methodist beliefs. Written by popular seminary teachers, this book will connect you to the life and ministry of John Wesley, demonstrating relevance for the lives of Christians today as it offers an introductory examination of each.

Wesley, Wesleyans, and Reading Bible as Scripture, edited by Joel B. Green and David F. Watson, 350 p. ($39.95)

From the book description:

The theology of John Wesley has proven exceedingly influential in the religious and spiritual lives of Wesley’s followers and his critics. However, Wesley did not leave behind a written doctrine on scripture. This collection presents an array of diverse approaches to understanding John Wesley’s charge to read and interpret the Bible as scripture. Contributors move beyond the work of Wesley himself to discuss how Wesleyan communities have worked to address the difficult scriptural–and theological–conundrums of their time and place.

Coming Soon:

The Sermons of John Wesley: A Collection for the Christian Journey, edited by Kenneth J. Collins and Jason E. Vickers, 608 p. ($49.99)

From the Book Description:

With an eye on serious Christian development, Kenneth Collins and Jason Vickers have arranged this collection of the sermons of John Wesley in terms of the way of salvation in general and the “ordo salutis” in particular. This book contains the sermons that John Wesley approved, in addition to the standard 52 of the North American tradition, organized to correspond to the logic of Christian discipleship and formation. The editors include an outline and short introduction to each sermon detailing its importance and context. Sermons include “Sermon on the Mount,” which is key to understanding Wesley’s ethics, “Free Grace,” “On Working Out Our Own Salvation,” and “The Danger of Riches.” The book is designed to enhance the reader’s understanding of Wesleyan practical theology and written in an accessible style that will be appealing to the wider Wesleyan family of churches. Also included are all of the 44 standard sermons of the British tradition.

Wesley and the People Called Methodist 2nd ed., Richard P. Heitzenrater, 352 p. ($29.99)

This second edition of Richard P. Heitzenrater’s groundbreaking survey of the Wesleyan movement is the story of the many people who contributed to the theology, organization, and mission of Methodism. This updated version addresses recent research from the past twenty years; includes an extensive bibliography; and fleshes out such topics as the means of grace; Conference: “Large” Minutes: Charles Wesley: Wesley and America; ordination; prison ministry; apostolic church; music; children; Susanna and Samuel Wesley; the Christian library; itinerancy; connectionalism; doctrinal standards; and John Wesley as historian, Oxford don, and preacher.

The Works of John Wesley, vol. 13 Doctrinal and Controversial Treatises II, edited by Paul Wesley Chilcote and Kenneth J. Collins, 944 p. ($57.99)

From the book description:

The second of three volumes devoted to Wesley’s theological writings contains two major sets of material. The first set (edited by Paul Chilcote) contains writings throughout Wesley’s ministry devoted to defense of the doctrine of Christian perfection, including “A Plain Account of Christian Perfection.” The second set (edited by Kenneth Collins) collects Wesley’s various treatises focused on predestination and related issues, often in direct debate with Calvinist writers, including “Predestination Calmly Considered.”

The Cambridge Companion to American Methodism, edited by Jason E. Vickers, 398 p. ($32.99)

A product of trans-Atlantic revivalism and awakening, Methodism initially took root in America in the eighteenth century. In the mid-nineteenth century, Methodism exploded to become the largest religious body in the United States and the quintessential form of American religion. This Cambridge Companion offers a general, comprehensive introduction to various forms of American Methodism, including the African-American, German Evangelical Pietist, holiness, and Methodist Episcopal traditions. Written from various disciplinary perspectives, including history, literature, theology, and religious studies, this volume explores the beliefs and practices around which the lives of American Methodist churches have revolved, as well as the many ways in which Methodism has both adapted to and shaped American culture.

Key United Methodist Beliefs

27 Wednesday Mar 2013

Posted by in Book Review, Christian Living, Methodist History, Wesley

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , ,

“Belief matters.”

These are the very first words of the introduction to Key United Methodist Beliefs by William J. Abraham and David F. Watson. In light of my recent thinking and writing about the connection between right belief and right practice, I can’t think of a better way to begin a Wesleyan catechism.

If you have been following my recent writing, you will also have noticed the discussion about the invisibility of the Wesleyan message in online and print media compared to other parts of the church catholic. One of my hypotheses is that a major reason that the Wesleyan message is not getting a broader hearing today is because there are so many different voices claiming to represent the Wesleyan or Methodist tradition.

All of this has led to the belief that renewal will come to Methodism in America through a renewal of both Wesleyan doctrine and practice.

The challenge, though, is that in some parts of American Methodism there is a persistent mistrust of the value of doctrine. The concern generally seems to be that a church with clear doctrinal commitments will use them to bludgeon other people or exclude them.

While I appreciate the concern, I continue to be convinced that a deep retrieval of the significance of doctrine will be a part of any coming renewal of American Methodism. Along these lines, William J. Abraham and David F. Watson (no relation) have given a gift to the church in their new book Key United Methodist Beliefs.

After the simple affirmation that belief matters, they continue:

What we believe about God, about God’s saving work within creation, about human wrongdoing, about the goal of our lives and our eternal destiny all matter. They make a difference with regard to how we think about ourselves and other people, about life and death, what we should value in life, and what kind of person we should hope to become. It is common to hear people talk about beliefs as if one is simply as good as another. For some, the one great sin is to insist on a clear difference between truth and falsehood, between right and wrong, but this perspective cannot coexist with Christianity. For that matter, it cannot coexist with Judaism or Islam, either, but that is not our topic here. The claims that we Christians make about what God has done for us – for all creation – in and through Jesus Christ really do matter. (ix)

Someone might concede that beliefs matter, but point out that belief itself is insufficient. Indeed, there have been many periods in the history of Christianity where movements have arisen in opposition to a fierce and rigid dogmatism that at times led to violence. It is not enough for those who take on the name of Jesus, calling themselves Christians, to have right thoughts or ideas about Jesus. Belief must lead to action. One of the beauties of Key United Methodist Beliefs is that Abraham and Watson anticipate this objection and address it head on at the beginning of the book. Here is how they conclude the introduction.

Right belief, by itself, of course, is not enough. As Wesley put it, a person may be “as orthodox as the devil… and may all the while be as great a stranger as he to the religion of the heart.” Right belief does matter, though, because it helps us know God more fully, and it is by knowing and loving God, and by God’s knowing and loving us, that we become the people God wants us to be. We read in the Roman Catholic catechism, “The whole concern of doctrine and its teaching must be directed to the love that never ends. Whether something is proposed for belief, for hope or for action, the love of our Lord must always be made accessible, so that anyone can see that all the works of perfect Christian virtue spring from love and have no other objective than to arrive at love.” The goal is love, and God is love. We should do all we can, therefore, to know God. (xii)

This book is helpful because it is a strong articulation of the importance of beliefs for United Methodism that also demonstrates that those who argue for the necessity of doctrine for the life of the church make the argument for both doctrinal and practical reasons. In other words, right doctrine is always connected to right practice. From start to finish, it is clear that the authors of this book are convinced not only that orthodoxy (right belief) matters but also that orthopraxy (right practice) matters.

Abraham and Watson’s consistent connection of belief to practice has the potential to advance the conversation about the role of doctrine in the church beyond the strawman argument that those who care about right belief do not care about practice, or Christian living.

To cite one of many examples. In the chapter “Who Is God the Father?” Abraham and Watson affirm a key belief: “To think of God as God the Father is to believe that God loves all people and wishes to save us from sin and death” (6) They then conclude: “The nature of God the Father is one of self-giving, and in like kind, we should give of ourselves to God and our neighbors as well” (7).

The title of the book is a bit misleading, as the book is about much more than “United Methodist” beliefs. To me, it is really a Wesleyan catechism. Unfortunately, the title of the book will likely narrow the potential audience, when many Wesleyan communities would have been likely to use the book if the title were “Wesleyan Beliefs” or “A Wesleyan Catechism.”

Each chapter is oriented around a central question and is divided into five sections: A Wesleyan Faith, A Lived Faith, A Deeper Faith, The Catechism, and In Your Own Words. The first three parts are narrative, as you would expect in a typical book. The fourth part, in true catechetical format, is a question and answer format, which often includes Scripture passages that amplify the answer. The fifth chapter is basically questions for discussion, which could help an individual reader reflect more on the impact of a particular belief for their own life or it could be used as a basis for discussion in small groups.

And just in case I was on the fence for the first nine chapters, chapter ten, “How Should Wesleyans Live?” is largely an engagement with the “General Rules”: do no harm, do good, and attend upon the ordinances of God.

Key United Methodist Beliefs is an exceptional resource that has the potential to be useful in a variety of contexts. If I were a local church pastor, this would be a resource I would use in preparing people for confirmation or membership. I highly recommend this book. At a minimum, it should be in every Wesleyan/Methodist pastor’s personal library.

The Gospel in a Wesleyan Accent #andcanitbe

13 Wednesday Mar 2013

Posted by in Christian Living, Ministry, Wesley

≈ 14 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

How do you preach the gospel in a Wesleyan accent? This has been on my mind quite a bit over the last month. My last two blog posts were about this to some degree. In the first post, I discussed my sense of the current state of United Methodism, arguing that what we are in favor of is not good enough. One of the key arguments of that post was that United Methodism’s common discourse is thin and impoverished doctrinally. Another way of putting it is that there seems to me to be deep disagreement about what we are for. It is more clear that we are confident that we can change the world than that we believe that we are desperately dependent on the Triune God to do anything that matters.

A few days later I wrote another post noting that the Wesleyan message is almost entirely invisible in print and social media in comparison to other expressions of Christianity. The conversation from the initial question I raised has taken on a life of its own, particularly with the use of the hashtag #andcanitbe on twitter. (To be clear, I did not come up with the idea for the hashtag and I do not have any control over what is happening with this conversation, which I’m sure is obvious to anyone who uses twitter – nobody controls what happens there! Please do feel free to follow me [@kevinwatson] and contribute to the conversation.)

Those two posts were more related for me than I initially realized. I am starting to wonder if one of the most significant factors in the decline of the United Methodist Church is an inability to agree on and articulate a clear and compelling theology. Some see this as an asset of contemporary Methodism – there is plenty of room to agree to disagree. But I wonder what the fruit is of this “big tent” vision of Methodism. Relating this to my second post, I suspect that the Wesleyan message is invisible because those who claim to be Wesleyan do not themselves agree on what the Wesleyan message is?

As the #andcanitbe conversation has gained some momentum, I have been asking myself what my hopes are for this conversation. Here are my current hopes:

First, I want to see God show up in amazing ways. I want to see broken and hurting peoples’ lives changed by the amazing grace of God. This is really central to everything else for me. I want to be a part of something where I can say, “God did that” and where everyone knows that is absolutely the case. Not that we did something cool for God, but that the almighty One dwelt among us in tangible ways.

Second, for #andcanitbe more specifically, I hope that the conversation will result in an articulation of the gospel in a particularly Wesleyan accent with clarity and conviction to a broader audience. I really appreciated the phrase Matt Judkins (@matt_judkins) used early on. He spoke of the need to identify “core unifying commitments” of the Wesleyan tradition. I would love to see a result of this conversation be a network of spirit-filled women and men who have clarity about the key unifying beliefs and practices for contemporary Christianity. I would begin by naming the following as core beliefs: sin and the need for repentance and forgiveness; justification by faith; the new birth and assurance; and sanctification by faith, even unto entire sanctification. Another way this has been put is:

All need to be saved.
All may be saved.
All may know themselves to be saved.
All may be saved to the uttermost.

And it will not surprise those of you who are familiar with my work that I think a crucial core practice of any expression of the gospel in a Wesleyan accent would be Christian conferencing (by which Wesley meant small group accountability structures, like the class meeting and band meeting and not “polite conversation,” which is how some UM leaders are increasingly redefining it). There are, of course, other practices that are crucial as well.

Arguing that core unifying commitments are crucial may be a difficult sell in a tradition that not too long ago was best known for slogans like “you can be anything and be United Methodist” or which defined its distinctiveness not by any particular theological commitments, but by a method of reflecting theologically (the Outlerian Quadrilateral). Thankfully, fewer people today seem to want to be known as the church that has no beliefs. Yet, the UMC has recently presented itself to the world with slogans like “open hearts, open minds, open doors” and by suggesting the need to “rethink church.”

For my part, I am increasingly convinced that an inability to clearly and passionately articulate a common message is a liability, not something to be celebrated. I would even go so far as to say that a clear message that people are burdened to share with as many people as possible is of more urgency than openness.

Third, I would like the conversation to be clearly focused on the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and not on ourselves. Being in the Pacific Northwest and at Seattle Pacific University where I am around non-UMs at least as often as I am around UMs has made me more aware of the ways that United Methodists (myself included) often talk and act as if we are the center of the ecclesial universe. I have particularly found myself questioning whether the things that people sometimes assert as unique about Methodism would not also be claimed by most of the Church. All that to say, I am less interested in being a part of something that focuses on defining how Wesleyans are different from others, than I am in working to more effectively proclaim the gospel with a Wesleyan accent.

Finally, while I think unity matters, I am not arguing for homogeneity. My sense is that if the Holy Spirit brings renewal to United Methodism, or the broader Wesleyan tradition, the Spirit will bring together a variety of voices from miraculously different backgrounds, who feel a common leading to articulate a message that is theologically in harmony and not a cacophony. In other words, I expect that if God does show up in miraculous ways, one fruit will be that people who have not been working together will start working together. People would become deep partners in ministry with people they have never met before and would not have met if God had not sovereignly brought them together. A sign of revival would be the Holy Spirit bringing people together from different cultures, races, ethnicities, and genders. I am thinking of Pentecost. I am thinking of early American Methodism. I am thinking of Azusa Street. And I am thinking of Revelation 7:9-17:

After this I looked, and there was a great crowd that no one could number. They were from every nation, tribe, people, and language. They were standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They wore white robes and held palm branches in their hands. They cried out with a loud voice: ‘Victory belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb.’ All the angels stood in a circle around the throne, and around the elders and the four living creatures. They fell facedown before the throne and worshipped God, saying, ‘Amen! Blessing and glory and wisdom and thanksgiving and honor and power and might be to our God forever and always. Amen.’ Then one of the elders said to me, ‘Who are these people wearing white robes, and where did they come from?’ I said to him, ‘Sir, you know.’ Then he said to me, ‘These people have come out of great hardship. They have washed their robes and made them white in the Lamb’s blood. This is the reason they are before God’s throne. They worship him day and night in his temple, and the one seated on the throne will shelter them. They won’t hunger or thirst anymore. No sun or scorching heat will beat down on them, because the Lamb who is in the midst of the throne will shepherd them. He will lead them to the springs of life-giving water, and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.’

Now that, I want to be a part of! Come Lord Jesus.

The Invisible Wesleyan Message

14 Thursday Feb 2013

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 26 Comments

I raised a question on twitter and facebook that I want to explore here, where I can develop things a bit more and where, I hope, you will feel free to comment without the constraint of 140 characters.

Here is how I put it on facebook:

“It seems to me that Wesleyans are almost invisible in social and print media. An informal survey on twitter, for example, named Adam Hamilton as the UM leader most likely to have the largest following on twitter. Hamilton has 9,000 followers. This is staggeringly small compared to Mark Driscoll (about 350,000 followers), John Piper (about 450,000 followers), or Rick Warren (about 900,000 followers).

Does the invisibility of Wesleyans in social media and print spheres matter? What is at stake?”

(As of this writing, the United Methodist who has been identified with the largest following on twitter is Tim A. Stevens (@timastevens), who is currently serving as the executive pastor at Granger Community Church with 38,000 followers. Leonard Sweet also has many more than Hamilton with near 26,000. Feel free to comment with an update if you know of someone who has more followers.)

I raised the question in a more concise way on twitter (you can follow me there @kevinwatson) and had several interesting exchanges there as well. Someone has also suggested the hashtag #andcanitbe if you want to contribute to the conversation, or follow it, there.

A few calls for nuance that have been made and are worth repeating. United Methodist and Wesleyan are not necessarily the same thing. And United Methodists don’t have the market cornered on being Wesleyan. In other words, there are United Methodists who aren’t Wesleyan. There are also Wesleyans who are not United Methodist.

I also feel compelled to say that the purpose of this is not to disparage the Reformed tradition, or to suggest that any of the names I mentioned are the best representations of the Reformed tradition. They are simply anecdotal. I recently saw a video clip where Mark Driscoll explicitly stated that he knows many Arminians who love Jesus, and that he would welcome Arminians to join Mars Hill. I would hope to see Wesleyans be at least as charitable to Driscoll as he is willing to be towards us.

But the purpose is to say that we are not doing a very good job of getting our message out. For at least five years I have heard people raise the lack of visibility of Wesleyans in print publications, for example, with some regularity and frustration. I once heard a UM leader make the point that you would not find hardly any books in Barnes and Noble that were written from a Wesleyan perspective. Since hearing that comment, several informal perusals of book stores has confirmed that observation in my own experience. And in many ways the discrepancy is actually worse in Christian bookstores. Now that physical Cokesbury stores are closing, there is almost nowhere a person who is searching for Christian resources can go to find material that is deeply Wesleyan. I’m actually not sure you can overstate the gap that currently exists between the effectiveness with which folks in the Reformed tradition are getting out their message compared to Wesleyans.

So, do you think this matters? Why? Most, but not all of you, who have already contributed on twitter and facebook did think it matters. And by all means, if you have already chimed in on facebook or twitter, please contribute here as well!

What We Are FOR Isn’t Good Enough

12 Tuesday Feb 2013

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 18 Comments

What we are for isn’t good enough. It just isn’t.

In fact, I’m not even sure that within The United Methodist Church there is consensus about what we are for.

What horrifies me is that I’m not sure United Methodists are capable of coming up with a vision that meets the demands of our own faith. I am afraid we may have lost faith in anything other than ourselves.

When I have experienced the UMC at its broader levels of organization, it has been very discouraging. I am saddened to witness good, sincere, and wonderful people trying so hard to show the rest of the church that God has been at work in our midst. It makes me sad, because I usually feel like most people don’t believe the hype.

When we are most passionate, we are too often talking about what we have done for God, not what God has done for us.

It is not good enough to be in favor of doing nice things, even for God or in the name of God.

We are dying. And it is because we are not certain we believe the world needs Jesus. But if the world doesn’t need Jesus, it surely doesn’t need us.

The world doesn’t need us to do something for it. The need is far more desperate and devastating than that. We are not enough. We never have been enough, even in our glory days. The world needs – people need – a relationship with God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Far too often, an agnostic theology is lurking behind our actions. At our worst, our service seems to be motivated by a sort of guilt about our privilege. It becomes a kind of bargaining chip, and a sophisticated one at that! We make peace with our affluence, or at least try to, by doing something for someone else every once in a while.

There is no hope for The United Methodist Church unless what we are for is adequate to the gospel that justifies our existence.

We should stubbornly and persistently be for this very gospel. The good news is that in Jesus of Nazareth the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, God’s grace has been unleashed on a broken and hurting world.

I am almost tempted to say that United Methodists should fast from doing things for God. Instead, we should relearn how to talk about what God has already done for us. We need to start by telling ourselves about Jesus, about what he has already done for us and which we cannot do for ourselves – practicing it until none of us are embarrassed or hesitant to say the name of Jesus. We need to state clearly that we are all desperate for God’s grace, that without it we are utterly and hopelessly lost.

We should be for conversion. We should be unapologetically in favor of calling people to turn away from sin and towards God’s grace, because we are certain that this is the hope that we can offer them. We need to state clearly that we are justified by faith in Christ, not by our works. We need to know that we cannot save ourselves.

We need to be for holiness. Not because we are confident in our ability to make ourselves better, but because we believe that the resurrection of Jesus from the dead means that sin and death no longer have the last word and no longer should inhibit our hope for what is possible now by the grace of God.

We need to quit carelessly denying the possibility of complete freedom from sin in this life. Instead, we need to be honest and broken by our complicity with the ways of sin and death. Rather than endorsing sin by thoughtlessly saying “nobody’s perfect”, we need to recognize that sin continues in our lives because we will it to continue. We sin not because we must, but because we choose sin over the freedom that God gives us from sin.

Methodists who are worthy of the name should be unabashedly in favor of Christian perfection. What is at stake is not a vague theological principle. Our hope is at stake. Where is our hope? If it is in ourselves or human capacity, then we would be foolish to preach Christian perfection. But if our hope is in the One who has shattered sin and death’s hold on all who are created in the image of God, then why would we, how could we, tell anyone that God does not want them to experience complete freedom from all that keeps them from abundant life in the triune God?

The message of entire sanctification is not going to be extinguished before Jesus returns. When the MEC persecuted and expelled B. T. Roberts, largely because of his proclamation of Christian perfection, the Holy Spirit raised up a new people. Ultimately, this is God’s message and not our own.

I could be wrong, but I am afraid that United Methodism is where it is because we have not recognized the extent to which we are beggars in need of mercy, and we have not offered a message with sufficient sustenance to a world starving for the fullness of God’s grace.

We probably need to reorganize. We probably need to be more adaptive in leadership. But none of this matters if we don’t really believe the message we are proclaiming. Do we really believe in a risen savior? Do we really believe he is enough for a broken and hurting world? Do we really believe that the Holy Spirit is active, bringing healing and wholeness?

We are dying because what we are for is not enough. Our imagination and energy have drifted away from proclaiming the gospel with passion, energy, and conviction. When we encounter broken people, too often we are unsure if Jesus is enough.

Jesus is more than enough. And the truth is that he is all that we really have to offer. Thanks be to God, in Christ we are offered forgiveness of real sins, and freedom from sin’s pull on our lives. And as long as we are alive, we have the incredible opportunity to share this message of reconciliation and healing with the world.

Seattle Pacific Seminary Has Been Approved for United Methodists

08 Wednesday Aug 2012

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 3 Comments

Seattle Pacific Seminary, the seminary at Seattle Pacific University, has been added to the list of schools approved for United Methodist candidates for ordination by the University Senate of The United Methodist Church. I was thrilled to receive this news from my Dean earlier this summer, because it means that God has provided a way for me to live into a major part of my sense of calling – to pastor United Methodist seminary students who are preparing to become pastors. I am so grateful to get to teach and prepare future United Methodist pastors!

While I am ecstatic for personal reasons, I am even more grateful for the affirmation that SPS has received from The United Methodist Church because I strongly support SPU’s general vision and commitments as a university and its more particular mission as a seminary. The main purpose of this post, then, is to try to help get the word out about SPS and our ability to train UM students for ordained ministry.

The key foci of Seattle Pacific Seminary are affectionately referred to as the AAA model. Our vision for seminary is that we should be an academy, an abbey, and an apostolate. Here is how it is described on the website:

The interplay of scholarship, spiritual edification, and service defines our unique vision for educating both undergraduate and seminary students – all informed by our Wesleyan heritage that joins “knowledge and vital piety” as a means of changing the world.

Academy

SPU is known for its rigorous yet supportive academic environment. Whether you are an undergraduate or a seminary student, you will learn in close collaboration with faculty colleagues from many disciplines across the University. Our professors are outstanding biblical and theological scholars who value academic excellence, research, and teaching in service to the church, and have a deep Christian faith.

Learning goals of the Academy

We teach so that you and other students will:
• Develop an informed and reflective faith.
• Develop confidence in the Christian faith.
• Be able to interpret Scripture deftly and thoughtfully.
• Understand how the divine revelation of Scripture and the canonical tradition are informed by reason and the experience of the Holy Spirit.
• Learn and evaluate different worldviews operative from the perspective of Christian faith.

Abbey

In the School of Theology, we stress accountable discipleship, and provide opportunities for you to worship and fellowship in intentional Christian community. Our purpose is that you and your professors will be formed more and more in the image and likeness of Jesus Christ.

Learning goals of the Abbey

We teach so that you and other students will:
• Shape your life around Christian character and values.
• Cultivate personal spiritual disciplines in your life.
• Engage others of different beliefs in civil discourse and with a catholic spirit.
• Be able to nurture others in Christian faith.
• Recognize your membership in the body of Christ, entering into the moral and theological discourse of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.

Apostolate

The School of Theology is also an “apostolate” — a place of sending forth. As a student, you will participate in service activities (acts of mercy and justice), especially with the poor. And you will sometimes find yourself stretched beyond your comfort zone — for the sake of the gospel — through urban or global multicultural experiences. In the School of Theology, prayer, and service provide you with the seedbed for scholarly study, vocational exploration, and preparation for leadership in the congregation, the campus, and the classroom.

Learning goals of the Apostolate

We teach so that you and other students will:
• Be prepared to discern, own, and be equipped for your vocation.
• Be deeply rooted in the worship and ministry of a local congregation.
• Articulate your faith in a winsome and engaging manner, in order to share it with others.
• Be prepared to engage in global and intercultural settings.

I will say more in another post about why I think SPS is a great place for United Methodist who are preparing for ministry. For now, I will say that my favorite way that we seek to bring the abbey piece to life is by having all of our seminary students participate in a weekly Wesleyan class meeting. (If you are unfamiliar with class meetings, you can read more about them here.)

The goal of the class meeting requirement is to provide a place for students to experience the Wesleyan understanding of “social holiness” as they care for one another and pursue continued growth in their relationship with the Triune God. This experience will also equip students to organize and lead class meetings in their future ministries. My hope is that by being a part of this kind of communal Christian formation students will both continue to grow in their faith during their time in seminary and be prepared to help others experience transformational small groups in the local church.

(Mis)Understanding Wesley’s Catholic Spirit

26 Thursday Jul 2012

Posted by in Christian Living, Methodist History, Wesley

≈ 25 Comments

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.

Online Class Meetings

25 Wednesday Jul 2012

Posted by in Accountability, Christian Living, Methodist History, Ministry, Wesley

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

,

In my writing and teaching about reclaiming the Wesleyan class meeting, I am sometimes asked about the potential for online class meetings. The class meeting was a small group of seven to twelve people that was centered on each person answering the question “How does your soul prosper?” (For more on the class meeting, click here for a previous series I wrote.)

The more I have thought about the class meeting, the more I have become convinced that the class meeting is more of an archaeological relic from when early Methodism’s days as a movement focused on justification by faith, the new birth, and growth in holiness. Today, most United Methodists do not have the vocabulary to talk about their personal experience of God. I’ve been in class meetings where we revised the original question so it was either “how is it with your soul?” or “how is your life in God?” People who do not have previous experience with a group like this often struggle to find the words to answer the question.

I mention this because I am often asked by people who want to be in a class meeting, but are struggling to find the critical mass to start a class, about the potential for an online class meeting.

Here are my initial thoughts (with the caveat that these are very much still in process for me):

I think there is some potential for online class meetings, but I would have a strong preference for class meetings that meet in real life. Here is my guess: Groups that meet in person in someone’s home have a much better chance of being successful in the long run than do those that are started by people who have met online and cannot meet in person because of geographical distance.

There are two scenarios where I think online class meetings would be most likely to succeed. 1) Technology could be used to sustain community that would otherwise be interrupted by a move. Imagine, for example, an amazing seminary that requires its students to participate in weekly class meetings during their time in seminary, the seminary I teach at does have this requirement! 😉 Here, many of our students have formed close friendships and want to stay accountable to one another, even as they are sent out from SPU. Given a context where people have met together for years and have built deep relationships, I think an online version of the class meeting could be used to help people continue the community that has been built.

2) Technology could be used to help pastors participate in a class meeting themselves, especially if they have never participated in one previously. There are a host of issues here that could be explored further. There is disagreement, for example, about whether pastors should or should not be involved in something like a class meeting with their parishioners. I think it would be better for the church if the pastor is in a group like this within their congregation; however, I am more of a pragmatist than a purist on this. I would rather a pastor be in a group than not, so if it helps a pastor enter into a class meeting by joining a group of other pastors, then by all means they should do it! And if it is not feasible to meet in person because of geographical proximity and scheduling issues, then an online meeting could work really well.

Before I sketch what I think would be the ideal way to organize an online class meeting, I want to make one qualification. One of the values of the class meeting is that it was a way to ensure that every person who was associated with “the people called Methodists” was connected to a community of people who were seeking to be saved from their sins and would watch over one another in love. A concern I always have when discussing online class meetings is that it will be a way for people to play it safe and join together with those they are already comfortable with, rather than risking inviting people around you to try something new. In early Methodism, the class meeting was one of the major pieces of the early Methodist movement. Better to start a class meeting in any form than not start one. But in my mind, it is even better to start one with people in your local church, to invite and encourage them to grow in their love and knowledge of God. I believe that a return to a form of small group practice like the class meeting is one of the best hopes for Wesleyan faith communities, but can only bring renewal to local churches to the extent that they are connected to local churches.

Conducting an online class meeting:

Here’s how I would organize an online class meeting. First, contact the people you would like to be in the group. Agree on a consistent time to meet weekly (remember to take time zone differences into account, if applicable). The best news about trying an online class meeting today is that technology makes it possible to meet as close to in person as possible. I would use skype, facetime, or some other online chat forum to meet. It is ideal if participants can see each other, but not essential. I do think it is nearly essential that the group be able to hear each other’s voices. Instead of sitting together in a circle, or around a table, you will be sitting in front of your computer. But you will still be able to answer the weekly question, pray for each other, and even sing (as long as I don’t have to lead the singing)!

Ultimately, I think online class meetings offer both potential and peril. The potential is that the virtual format may help some folks stay connected to Christian community that God has used to help them grow in holiness. It could also help people find a class meeting to participate in if they are in a culture that is not willing to try a class meeting. And best of all, everything that is essential about the class meeting can be preserved (i.e., people talking to each other about their relationship with God and their pursuit of growth in grace). The peril is that virtual classes could discourage vulnerability and intimacy. They could also encourage people to avoid their literal neighbors and inviting new people into the group.

A good rule of thumb is that you are doing something right if the class meeting is both a means of grace to you personally and it is also used to invite people into a deeper relationship with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Theological Theodicy: A Review

16 Monday Jul 2012

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment



Why do bad things happen to good people?

This is a question Daniel Castelo, my friend and colleague at Seattle Pacific Seminary, wrestles with in his new book, Theological Theodicy. As is characteristic of Castelo’s writing, this book is well-organized and accessible to the educated reader, without cutting theological corners or providing pat answers.

Castelo begins by outlining intellectual shifts that have changed the tenor of asking the “Why?” question about the existence of evil and suffering in the world. “Theodicy, as it shifted in modernity, became a rationally legitimating warrant for atheism” (9). Castelo then fleshes out the logic of the approach that raises the “Why?” question in order to justify a rejection of the existence of God, challenging many of the assumptions that are often smuggled into this approach. He then brings the first chapter to a close by noting that theodicy often falls short philosophically because “the key terms in question, ‘God’ and ‘evil,’ are often insufficiently developed or nuanced because they are usually devoid of a theologically substantiating context” (19). Castelo, rightly in my view, challenges the idea that Christians can answer questions about why bad things happen in an abstract way, without a careful consideration of who the triune God is.

In the second chapter, Castelo analyzes two different approaches to the “god” of modern theodicy, those of deism and dualism. Both approaches are found to be wanting, and the reader is reminder that neither “god” adequately represents the God of Christian faith. Castelo then moves to several dogmatic proposals for a Christian account of a creator God. After laying out these proposals, he concludes, “creation is good because it comes from a good Creator, and the degree that it can be evaluated as good is based on the measure with which it references its Creator” (54).

Among the topics addressed in the third chapter, I particularly appreciate Castelo’s discussion of death and where it fits into Christian theology. In contrast to those who often attribute positive roles for death in God’s ordering of creation, Castelo argues:

What one can observe is that death is the denial of life, and as such, it has been deemed by the Christian tradition as the primary and most determinate consequence of the fall. Death is not a good thing; although it may be a resting place, the cessation of suffering, and although it may be viewed as a rite of passage into eternal life, death is not something good in and of itself.” (75-76)

Castelo begins the fourth chapter in an arresting way:

Interestingly enough, we are outraged by evil, suffering, death, but we are not similarly outraged or shocked when we are beneficiaries of positive arrangements beyond our control… the American rate of consumption and waste, the use of energy and the like, are all impossibly available to the entire human race. And yet, outrage is normally not directed at these kinds of ‘luxuries’ or discrepancies; rather, Americans often use the language of being blessed, lucky, or deserving of such arrangements because of their work ethic, ingenuity, religious fervor, or some other reason. The hypocrisy here is that we often ask the ‘why’ question when things go horribly wrong; we rarely if at all ask it when things play out exceedingly (and unfairly?) in our favor. (80-81)

Finally, Castelo summarizes what can be said about what God has done (particularly through the way that Jesus takes on suffering in the passion) and is doing (particularly through the mission of Christ’s body, the church) to engage the reality of suffering. Ultimately, Castelo makes the case for a “pragmatic theodicy,” one that focuses on the healing and repairing of creation. He also provides a helpful reminder that in Scripture, “the call of discipleship” is not “associated primarily with answering questions… Rather, the call of discipleship is to reach the lost and needy with the good news of healing and repair that Jesus Christ proclaimed and embodied.” (94) Thus, when Christians are confronted by evil, sin, pain, and even death, the response “is not to explain but to feel for the purpose of being moved to action.” (94)

In this gentle, yet probing summary of the challenges that are posed by the problem of evil, Castelo is at his best when he gives the reader permission (even encourages) to avoid offering definitive explanations for why bad things happen. Rather than explaining, in thoroughly Wesleyan fashion, Castelo suggests that “the Christian life is one of bearing other’s burdens.” (97)

While Castelo is willing to honestly acknowledge and recognize the presence of suffering, because it is a Christian account, he is compelled to make sure that the last word is one of hope. “The creation has a hopeful future because its future is God.” (102)

This book provides excellent pastoral guidance to all who have taken on the name of Christ and seek to bring the riches of their tradition to bear as they seek to stand with others who experience pain and suffering. I heartily recommend it to anyone who has asked “why?” or felt unable to answer this question when it was asked by someone else. Those who have been reluctant to offer simple explanations for deep questions, which are usually asked with deep personal urgency, will find comfort that the Christian’s job is not to answer questions or defend God against every possible accusation. However, readers will also be made uncomfortable as they are reminded that much of the evil that is present in the world is allowed to exist because people choose to ask how a good all-powerful God could allow this to happen, rather than stewarding what God has entrusted them with to make a difference.

Regarding my personal interest in small group formation, I believe this book has a real contribution to make to small groups like the Wesleyan class meeting and band meeting. Small groups are often shallow and group members struggle to enter into one another’s lives in meaningful ways. When groups do enter into the “deep end” of each other’s lives, they often do so with little to no preparation to sit with someone who experience agonizing loss and is grasping for explanations. Castelo’s work can help people to be prepared for just how hard bearing one another’s burdens can be, while providing a reminder of just how desperately important it is.