Resurrection, Ginghamsburg and Younger Clergy

18 Wednesday May 2011

Posted by Kevin M. Watson in Christian Living, Ministry

Tags

I have been thinking about the post I recently wrote on younger clergy and the conversation it has prompted. I can’t put my finger on it, but I am not satisfied with the post and my articulation of the importance of younger clergy. As I have been chewing on this, I had a thought I am not really sure what to do with:

Of the largest congregations in the UMC today, a significant portion were new church plants that were planted by a younger pastor who is still the senior pastor.

Last year Adam Hamilton listed the ten largest churches in the UMC on his blog. I am not familiar with all of the churches on the list, but I know that three of the top six churches were started by the same person who is currently the senior pastor, and two of the top six were not large churches when the current pastor was appointed to the church. And while I don’t know their ages, I am confident that they were “young” when they planted their churches.

These churches are: Church of the Resurrection (Adam Hamilton), Granger Community Church (Mark Beeson), and The Woodlands (Ed Robb, Jr.). Windsor Village (Kirbyjon Caldwell) and Ginghamsburg (Mike Slaughter) were smaller churches that became “mega” churches under the pastorates of Caldwell and Slaughter.

I am not sure what to do with this. On the one hand, none of these pastors were appointed to be the senior pastor of one of the largest congregations in their annual conference when they were young and relatively inexperienced. On the other hand, now they are the pastors of 5 of the 6 largest churches in the UMC. One obvious insight could be that entrepreneurial younger clergy should be given the opportunity to plant new churches. But is there something else that can be gleaned from this?

If Hamilton, Beeson, and Robb Jr. had not been given the chance to plant new churches, these churches likely would not exist.

Does this have anything meaningful to say to the conversation today about younger clergy? Does this tell us something less obvious than, “We should let younger pastors start new churches?” I wonder what thoughts these pastors would have about the importance of younger clergy and recruiting, supporting, and placing them?

What do you think? Do you see any meaningful connections?

Edit: Thanks to John Reasons who corrected the initial draft of this post where I incorrectly included Mike Slaughter as planting Ginghamsburg. I knew better, but definitely had it wrong in this post. I have revised the post to correct my error.

The Number One Call to Action

17 Tuesday May 2011

Posted by Kevin M. Watson in Christian Living, Ministry

≈ 11 Comments

Tags

younger clergy

If I were in charge of the Call to Action, which I clearly am not, the number one priority would be aggressively recruiting younger clergy. Unfortunately, The United Methodist Church’s approach to ordination in many ways is almost the exact opposite of recruitment.

For too many people I hear from, the ordination process feel like a burden of endless obstacles in their path and hoops to jump through. To make things worse, prospective clergy are sometimes ignored or treated with indifference. I have heard many people from many different annual conferences say that they were told that it was their responsibility to keep track of their paperwork, not the DCoM or BOM.

As I have interacted with gifted younger people who feel called to local church ministry, I have had the thought that it feels like the church is almost daring them to go and do something else with their life. Sometimes, it feels like we are doing all that we can to be inhospitable and make them feel like their calling is an imposition on the church.

The irony is that the exact opposite is true. The church is desperate not just for younger clergy, but for gifted clergy who are passionate about being ministers of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

If there is one thing that I think the church could do that would be the most likely to have a positive impact on the church, it would be pouring time, money, and resources into recruiting the most gifted spirit-filled younger clergy we can find.

Here’s one possibility: What if every Annual Conference made it a priority in the next quadrennium to find 10 women and men, who were 25 and younger and displayed unmistakable passion and giftedness for ministry, and then did everything that they could to make sure that these people progressed through the candidacy process as efficiently as possible (with integrity). And then they were put in positions where they were most likely to thrive. What if we treated them like they had something of urgent importance to offer to the church not in a few decades, but NOW? If a group of young leaders were encouraged, nurtured, supported, and empowered to fulfill their callings, I would be shocked if they didn’t have a huge impact on the church.

There might be a better way to do this, and there might be something that would be even more important. But if there were one thing that I could do that I would be most confident would pay dividends, I would search far and wide for the next generation of leaders that God is raising up and I would put them in positions to thrive today.

If you are a pastor and you are reading this, let me ask you: What are you doing to raise up, encourage, and support the next generation of leaders? Maybe the best way to ask this question is to ask you what you wish someone had done for you when you were preparing for full-time local church ministry?

I often hear seminary students talk about being disappointed by the feeling that they are abandoned by their annual conference while they are in seminary – that they feel invisible. How can you communicate to someone who is ready to make a difference for the kingdom of God that you believe in them and are willing to invest in them?

How are you investing in the future leadership of the church?

On Perfection

29 Friday Apr 2011

Posted by Kevin M. Watson in Christian Living, Sermons, Wesley

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

Christian Perfection, sermon

The following is a filled out manuscript of the sermon I preached in chapel at Perkins School of Theology yesterday (April 28, 2011).

The Scripture passage for my sermon was 1 Peter 1:13-16: Therefore, with minds that are alert and fully sober, set your hope on the grace to be brought to you when Jesus Christ is revealed at his coming. As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance. But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: ‘Be holy, because I am holy.'”

My favorite part about eating Chinese food is by far the fortune cookie. No matter how great the food tastes, I can’t help but look forward to the moment when those plastic-wrapped brittle cookies arrive. On one occasion in particular, the waiter brought the cookies on a silver platter of promise. I was handed a cookie, ripped open the package, broke the cookie open and read: “You shall soon achieve…” Could this really be my fortune? I had to read the words again: “You shall soon achieve perfection.”

Now that is a fortune cookie! Since that day, I have wrestled with the meaning of “soon” since I received this fortune about a decade ago. Aside from my fortune cookie, it seems that we usually do not have positive association with the idea of perfection. People are often given the advice, “Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.” And when we hear of a moral failure of a celebrity, politician, church leader, or friend or family member you will almost certainly hear someone say, “Nobody’s perfect.”

So what are we to do with the questions that The United Methodist Church asks those who will be ordained? Are you going on to perfection? Do you expect to be made perfect in love in this life? Are you earnestly striving after it? For many, these questions are embarrassingly naïve and we squirm in discomfort as the next generation of pastors answers the questions affirmatively. Or, as is often related, the body of ordained elders and deacons – who have already answered these questions – laughs nervously.

Why do we ask these questions? Nobody’s perfect, right?

What if our discomfort with the idea of being entirely sanctified, or being made perfect in love, is actually a reflection of our own preoccupation with ourselves and our unwillingness to be captivated by the grace of God? What if it reflects a realistic assessment of our own capabilities, but fails to recognize that God is in the picture too? What if what is at stake in whether we affirm, defend, and preach about the possibility of being cleansed from sin and actually becoming holy as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are holy has nothing to do with our ability? What if what is at stake is our faith in the power and sufficiency of God’s grace?

In our Scripture reading for today, the author of 1 Peter exhorts his audience to “set your hope on the grace to be brought to you when Jesus Christ is revealed at his coming.” At a basic level, then, the instruction is to have hope because of the grace that is coming when Christ returns. As one scholar has paraphrased verse 13, “You have been born to a living hope; therefore hope. Live out your call.”

The content of the hope that verse 13 speaks of is further illuminated by verse 3: “Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.” As Christians, we have hope because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. The one who was crucified and died, that one, Jesus of Nazareth, he lives! Because of the resurrection, we have the right to have hope in the face of seeming hopelessness. On Good Friday, there was no hope. Jesus was dead. But just when the story seemed to have been concluded in the most final way possible, the period at the end of Jesus’ life exploded into the most amazing and wonderful news possible – Jesus lives! And among other things, for Christians this means that God’s grace is bigger than sin and death. God’s grace is more powerful than sin. Even in the face of death itself, because of the resurrection, we can say “Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?” The resurrection has implications for every part of life, and it is good news. And the world is desperate for this kind of hope.

1 Peter continues in verse 14, “As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance.” In the light of the hope that we have in the resurrection of Jesus, the writer seems to be imploring us – there is no necessity for sin. And yet, the resistance to the Wesleyan understanding of entire sanctification often sounds like we are making the case that sin is necessary, that no matter what has happened, sin exists and cannot be extinguished. Nobody is perfect. We can’t do that. We shouldn’t expect pastors to affirm that they expect to be made perfect in love in this life. But if holiness is about what God is able to accomplish in us by the power of God’s grace, then why wouldn’t we expect pastors and laity to affirm that they expect God to accomplish in us what God’s wants to accomplish?

Perhaps there is a deeper issue. Perhaps we are afraid or unwilling to be transformed in the ways that God wants to transform us, rather than it being the case that God is not able to operate in our lives in these ways. It may be that we continue to be attracted to sin in ways that we are unwilling to acknowledge or recognize. It may be that we are afraid at what complete freedom for obedience to God would do to our lives as they currently exist. But do we really want to argue that sin is necessary for those who have been forgiven and renewed by the power of the Holy Spirit?

What do we think Jesus meant when he said that the greatest commandment was “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself.” I am convinced that by the grace of God, the children of God are truly able to keep these commandments. And expecting any less is not because we have accurately assessed God’s ability or God’s willingness to enable us to be faithful. Rather, it is a failure of our imaginations and our hope in the saving power of Christ. Or, it is another sin that God wants to free us from!

But someone will say, Is Christian perfection only about avoiding sin, or avoiding breaking a commandment or rule? Thanks be to God it is so much more! As our Scripture passage for today ends, “But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: ‘Be holy, because I am holy.’” Christian perfection is about holiness. It is about being renewed in the image of God so that we actually love God and love our neighbors. And in this passage, it is not offered up as a polite suggestion or an option. It is an imperative, a command, “Be holy!” As one scholar has put it, “A holy God demands a holy people, just as a God of hope creates a hopeful people.” (NIB, 258) Thus, this passage suggests that a stubborn refusal to believe in the possibility of deep holiness is not a polite and proper modesty or humility on our part, rather it is a sinful refusal to respond to God’s grace.

I know not all of us are Methodists, but for those of us who are, this is of particular urgency! Holiness and entire sanctification are in our DNA! In fact, John Wesley, believed that Methodism was raised up by God to preach and spread the doctrine of entire sanctification, the possibility that God is able and willing to save us to the uttermost!

In the sermon “The Scripture Way of Salvation”, here is how Wesley himself made the case for entire sanctification: Before we say anything else, we have to be clear that the foundation of sanctification and entire sanctification is faith, just as justification or forgiveness is by faith. The faith that saves from sin and perfects us in love, then, is faith that God has promised this in the Scriptures. Secondly, it involves faith that God is able to deliver on God’s promises. Third, it is a faith that God is able and willing to do it now. And finally, it is faith that God actually does it. Wesley ended this sermon with a powerful plea:

By this token may you surely know whether you seek it by faith or by works. If by works, you want something to be done first, before you are sanctified. You think, ‘I must first be or do thus or thus.’ Then you are seeking it by works unto this day. If you seek it by faith, you may expect it as you are: and if as you are, then expect it now. It is of importance to observe that there is an inseparable connection between these three points – expect it by faith, expect it as you are, and expect it now! To deny one of them is to deny them all: to allow one is to allow them all. Do you believe we are sanctified by faith? Be true then to your principle, and look for this blessing just as you are, neither better, nor worse; as a poor sinner that has still nothing to pay, nothing to plead but ‘Christ died.’ And if you look for it as you are, then expect it now. Stay for nothing. Why should you? Christ is ready. And he is all you want. He is waiting for you. He is at the door! Let your inmost soul cry out,
Come in, come in, thou heavenly Guest!
Nor hence again remove:
But sup with me, and let the feast
Be everlasting love.

Is there something within you that is stirred by Wesley’s words? Could that be the Holy Spirit, inviting you to such faith, such hope in the amazing grace of God? 1 Peter calls us to “be holy in all we do because God is holy.” This holiness is rooted in the hope that we have in the grace that has drenched the world in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Christ is risen! Sin no longer reigns. Even in the face of the continued presence of sin, Christians can proclaim that there is no inevitability of sin. It is allowed to continue to the extent that we invite it into our lives, but God through Jesus is able and willing to free us from the power of sin and free us for joyful obedience.

When we pushback against this understanding of Christian perfection, I wonder if part of it is that we feel like this is just another idea that reminds us that we are not measuring up. That we are not good enough. That we are not focused enough, disciplined enough, or whatever enough. But, like the gospel itself, any understanding of Christian perfection that seems like it is bad news is either a misrepresentation or a misunderstanding. Christian perfection is not intended to be another item to add to our spiritual to do list. It is a blessing that God wants to freely give to us. The only catch is that God will not work without our assent. Grace makes us able to recognize the promptings of the Holy Spirit, but still allows us to decide whether we will respond.

On second thought, that was a pretty Wesleyan fortune cookie! And perhaps the questions that we ask ordinands are neither embarrassing or naïve. Are you going on to perfection? Do you expect to be made perfect in love in this life? Are you earnestly striving after it? Note that the second question is not, do you expect to make yourself perfect, or even become perfect in love in this life? No. The question is, do you expect to be made perfect in love in this life? The answer to each of these questions can be and should be, “Yes, by the grace of God!”

Holiness is about God’s grace, not our goodness or our works. But we worship an all powerful, all loving God who desires to renew the divine image within each one of us, so that our lives are no longer plagued by the stains of sin, and so that we are able to enter into full communion with God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. May the Triune God give us each the faith to believe that grace is bigger, more powerful, and more capable of transforming our lives than anything else. May we be holy as God is holy, even today!

A Proposed Definition for “Small Groups”

21 Thursday Apr 2011

Posted by Kevin M. Watson in Accountability, Christian Living, Ministry

≈ 15 Comments

Tags

small groups

In my previous post I discussed the term “small group” and how difficult it is to define and pin down what the term actually signifies. Is a small group a curriculum driven study? Is it a hard-core accountability group? Is it an affinity group with no obvious component geared toward Christian formation? In surveying the ways that the term is deployed, the answer would appear to be “yes.”

Figuring out what a small group is becomes even more difficult when we recognize that the boundaries between informational, transformational, and affinity groups are often blurred so that one group contains many aspects of each of these categories of small groups.

At the end of my last post, I suggested that it might be more helpful to skip the question “What is a small group?” and ask instead, “What should the definition of a small group be?” In this post, I am going to propose a definition for how the United Methodist Church should define small groups in the context of twenty-first century American Christianity.

Before offering my definition of how small groups ought to be understood, I want to clarify several assumptions that inform my defintion.

First, the church and people have limited time and resources. Church leaders need to be clear about what is most important for people to do in order to reliably expect to grow in their faith. When it comes to small groups, then, I think the church ought to decide which type of small group will be most helpful for the UMC’s stated mission of “making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world” and clearly prioritize those types of groups over others.

Second, United Methodist leaders cannot take biblical literacy for granted amongst its membership.

Third, despite there often being room for significant growth in knowledge of the Bible and its contents, a deeper problem for United Methodism than biblical illiteracy is that most United Methodists know more than they put into practice. For example, I am confident that most committed United Methodists could tell you that reading the Bible and praying are important Christian practices. I doubt most United Methodists do both of these things on a daily basis. (I hope I am wrong.)

Fourth, every Christian ought to be able to talk about their faith in light of the every day events of their lives. However, I do not think that every Christian is actually comfortable doing this. One of the reasons many Christians are not comfortable talking about how they are growing as followers of Jesus Christ is because you learn how to talk about your faith by talking about your faith, and this does not happen in focused ways in most small groups. However, I believe it is possible for every Christian to recognize God’s action in their lives and to give voice to experience of God’s presence or a lack of a sense of God’s presence.

Fifth, I assume that Jesus cares more about whether we are becoming the kind of people he wants us to be than whether we are becoming more knowledgeable. I do not think that these two things are mutually exclusive. However, if we have to pick between information or transformation, I think we should have a strong bias in favor of transformation.

Sixth, when the UMC talks about small groups, we should be able to take for granted that any small group would have a strong Christian emphasis. In other words, Christian small groups are not social clubs or activity groups that do not have any focus that is distinctly and easily recognizable as Christian.

I am sure that there are many more ways I could list criteria for how we should define what a small group is. What do you think I missed?

Based on the previous factors, I would say that the ideal understanding of a small group in a Christian context should be:

Small group – a group of people who gather together on a regular basis with the goal of becoming more faithful disciples of Jesus Christ, to attend to the ways that God is at work in their lives and the extent to which they are cooperating with God’s grace, and to watch over one another in love and mutually challenge, support, and encourage one another in the pursuit of deeply committed Christian discipleship.

This is very much a working definition that I pulled together for the purpose of this post. However, I think it has the advantage of being general enough to provide for flexibility and adaptability to various contexts and the needs of various groups of people. On the other hand, it is clearly and correctly weighted toward the transformational approach to small groups as opposed to informational groups or affinity groups. There are a variety of ways a group could be organized in order to meet this definition. And yet, any group that is not primarily focused on attentiveness to growth in discipleship would not count as a small group by this definition.

Finally, I think this definition is a start for providing much needed clarity for knowing what we mean when we say “small group.” I also believe that such an understanding of small groups compliments and strengthens United Methodism’s own understanding of its mission, “to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.”

This post is admittedly a thought experiment, and certainly not an attempt to try to say the last word about how we should understand small groups. What would you change or add to what I have said?

What Is a Small Group?

19 Tuesday Apr 2011

Posted by Kevin M. Watson in Christian Living, Ministry

≈ 7 Comments

Last Friday a fascinating story was posted at UM Portal, “Going virtual: Building community through online small groups.” The article addresses many different aspects of the church’s witness through the internet. These issues, it seems to me, need more critical and careful discussion. I commend this article to you for its potential to stimulate a deeper conversation among United Methodists about what faithful ministry online looks like.

As I reread the article, I found myself a bit frustrated by how slippery of a term “small group” is. Unfortunately, the term is almost meaningless. When someone talks about a small group ministry the only thing that you can be relatively certain of is that it is a group that meets periodically that is relatively small. So, the agreed upon definition of a small group seems to be that it is a group that is small. Typically, the term “small groups” in a Christian context signifies two different types of groups: informational groups and transformational groups.

Informational groups focus on knowledge and the key question is: What do I need to know? They are curriculum driven (what book are we going to study?) and are led by an instructor. As a result, they are largely passive. The posture of those involved in informational groups is typically listening and responding to specific questions. Bible Studies are an example of this category.

Transformational groups focus on living faithfully and the key question is: How am I living? They are experience driven (how did you see God at work in your life over the past week?) and led by an exemplar (or spiritual director or mentor). As a result, they are more active than informational groups. The posture of those involved in transformational groups is typically thinking about life and the ways that we are being conformed to the image of God and the ways in which we are resisting God’s sanctifying grace. Accountability groups are an example of this category.

Often, a particular group does not fit entirely into either of these categories. A group may be primarily informational, but strives to connect the information to the person’s life. (In fact, I think most informational groups would say they want this to happen. I’m just not sure how effectively they accomplish this goal.) On the other hand, transformational groups may primarily focus on the lives of the participants, but still work in an informational component (such as a period of discussion of a passage from the Bible).

Small groups are in vogue in the 21st century United Methodist Church. But the desire of some churches to grow small group ministries has led to another category that is largely separated from the first two: affinity groups. For example, one church recently had a campaign for starting new small groups and one of the results was the organization of a “Red Hat Society” small group. To be sure, such a group meets the literal definition of a small group, it is a group and it is small. But does it represent part of the Christian ministry of the Church? I must admit, I don’t know much about Red Hat Societies. But, it is not immediately clear to me how such a group would help people learn or become more like Jesus Christ. Groups that are organized only in order to share similar interests seem to endorse a definition of small groups that is so broad it is meaningless, at least as a part of a conversation about the ministry of the Church of Jesus Christ.

The UMC’s Call to Action report has argued that the number of small groups is one of four key drivers to vitality. (You can download the research findings here.) On the one hand, it makes sense to me that the number of small groups would be a likely predictor of congregational vitality. On the other hand, it seems like more needs to be said about what kind of small groups lead to vitality. Do all groups that are small in the church actually lead to vitality? It seems to me that there is a distinction between a vitality that is related to the presence of people and a vitality that is related to people who are present and becoming more and more like Christ! In my view, an appropriate understanding of congregational vitality must be given appropriately Christian weight in defining what congregational vitality looks like. Put differently, is there a difference between a vital social organization and a vital Christian congregation? A congregation could very well be a vital social organization and not a vital congregation. It matters who is the focus of worship and how people are being formed.

So what is a small group? Perhaps a more helpful question is, what should be the definition of a small group? What do you think?

Connecting Points

15 Friday Apr 2011

Posted by Kevin M. Watson in Uncategorized

≈ 7 Comments

I began blogging nearly four years ago. I initially began blogging because I started seeing the word used more and more frequently in various media, and I didn’t know what it was. I decided the best way to learn about blogging was to blog. The experience has been better than I hoped! My favorite part of blogging has been the interaction I have had with you, those who read deeply committed.

Recently, I have been trying to think about the many ways that people find their way to this blog and how I can better connect with all of you. And so, the purpose of this post it to point to some ways that we can further connect.

Here are a few ways that you can connect with me:

Subscribe to deeply committed by email

clicking here

Subscribe to deeply committed through a reader. I use google reader, which is free and easy to set up. (After you register for google reader, just click on “add subscription” and then type “deeplycommitted” and click subscribe.)

Follow me on twitter by clicking here.

You can also email me at deeplycommitted@gmail.com

Finally, if you like what you have read here and want to read more you can read my published writing. I have written a book on the General Rules and Wesleyan discipleship called A Blueprint for Discipleship. I was one of the co-authors of an introduction to John Wesley’s theology, as seen through his sermons, called Reclaiming the Wesleyan Tradition. I have just had a chapter on small group discipleship published in Generation Rising. All three of these books were written primarily for the church, with the hope that they would be used in small group settings. You can also read an academic piece I wrote, “Forerunner of the Early Methodist Band Meeting”, that was published on-line in Methodist Review.

Most important, please keep reading and commenting! For those of you who know much more about online communication and social media, I am sure I have missed something. What advice would you give me about how I can better connect with you and others?

Thanks for the continued conversation!

A Future with Hope for The United Methodist Church

12 Tuesday Apr 2011

Posted by Kevin M. Watson in Book Review, Christian Living, Methodist History, Ministry

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

Future, Generation Rising, small groups

The recent conversation about the Call to Action report and the Leadership Summit (known in the twittersphere as #umclead) has stirred up quite a bit of conversation amongst United Methodist leaders about the future of the denomination. It has also revealed a significant amount of discontent with the status quo as well as the proposals from the CTA about a way forward. One particular concern I have frequently heard is related to the role of younger people in the church. We hear a lot about the need for younger clergy in particular, but are we ready to entrust the church to them?

From that perspective, the timing of the release of Generation Rising: A Future with Hope for The United Methodist Church could not be better. The book is written by younger leaders in The United Methodist Church about why the church has a hopeful future.

As Andrew C. Thompson notes in the introduction, “There is one thing that is lacking in recent books on Wesleyan renewal in the church, though: the voice of a younger generation” (xii). To put it bluntly: a lot of people are talking about the future of the church. But the people who are consulted about the future, or given a platform to talk about what is needed for a bright future, are usually not people who are the future of the church!

If for no other reason, then, I am excited by this book because it is one of the first attempts to let the folks who are the future speak for themselves. I am pleased that Abingdon has chosen to support this task. I hope the book will be successful because that would be a sign to younger generations that the general church really does care about who we are, what we think, and what we are passionate about. Success for the book would also be great because Abingdon and other publishers are driven by profit and a desire to make money. If this book sells, it will be easier to make the case that there is a market for voices like these in the future. (I am thinking of the numerous books that came out related to emergent that began with Brian McLaren’s success and eventually led to folks being published who would not have been published otherwise. I am particularly reminded of this book, which is like Generation Rising for emergent: An Emergent Manifesto of Hope.)

The book contains multiple excellent chapters addressing the following topics: Discipleship (Andrew C. Thompson), Holy Communion (Timothy Reinhold Eberhart), Preaching (Joy Jittaun Moore), Evangelism (Jeffrey Conklin-Miller), Small Groups (Kevin M. Watson), Missions (Arnold S. Oh), Race (F. Douglas Powe, Jr.), Ecology (Presian Burroughs), Youth Ministry (Sarah Arthur), Young Adults (Julie O’Neal), Ordination (Eric Van Meter), and Internet Ministry (Shane Raynor).

If you were reading carefully, you may have noticed that I wrote the chapter on small groups. My chapter provides an introduction to the historical background of small group accountability in early Methodism. I then argue that involvement in a small group (class meetings) was basic to what it meant to be a member of the Methodist Episcopal Church for the first several decades of Methodism’s existence as a church in its own right in the United States. Ultimately, I suggest that reclaiming something like the class meeting for the contemporary United Methodist Church is key to a hopeful future for Methodism. In many ways, writing this chapter was the stimulus for much of the writing I have done here over the past few months about the relevance of the class meeting for 21st century Methodism. If you have enjoyed the posts here, you may want to read my more formal discussion of similar issues in this book.

The book is edited by Andrew C. Thompson, blogger and sometime columnist for the United Methodist Reporter. Andrew is also finishing his ThD at Duke Divinity School and will begin teaching Wesleyan Studies at Memphis Theological Seminary this fall. One of the real joys of working on this project with Andrew and the other authors is that in reading their work and interacting with them, I have found even more hope for the future. I am grateful to have been included in this project and hope you will check it out.

New Volume of Wesley’s Works Forthcoming

07 Thursday Apr 2011

Posted by Kevin M. Watson in Book Review, Methodist History, Wesley

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

Wesley's Works

I am anxiously awaiting the release of vol. 10 of the Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley. The title of vol 10 is The Methodist Societies: The Minutes of Conference and will contain, as the title helpfully implies, the minutes from the various conferences in early Methodism. I am particularly interested in getting a copy of this book in my hands because there are several passages from various minutes I would like to cite from the critical edition in my dissertation. This volume is edited by Henry D. Rack, who is best known for his biography of John Wesley, which is seen by many as the standard biography of John Wesley.

The Bicentennial Edition is the scholarly edition of John Wesley’s works, as distinguished from the Jackson edition, which is much cheaper, but is not comprehensive and contains no footnotes or annotations. The Bicentennial Edition is fairly expensive (although about a year ago, Cokesbury was selling the previously published volumes for $15 each) but it is, in my view, a worth while expense for the library of any pastor in the Wesleyan family. The Bicentennial Edition has published all of the volumes of Wesley’s sermons and all of the volumes of Wesley’s Journals and diaries.

Are you as excited as I am?

Doctrine, Polity, and the UMNS

06 Wednesday Apr 2011

Posted by Kevin M. Watson in Article Review, links, Ministry

≈ 10 Comments

Tags

Book of Discipline, Doctrine, Polity, UMC

Controversy has swirled the last few weeks over Rob Bell’s newest book and Chad Holtz’s early departure from his student pastorate. Generally, the discussions related to both have seemed to me to generate a lot more heat than light. For the most part, a welcomed exception was a recent article by Heather Hahn of the United Methodist New Service. Hahn’s article shed significant light on Chad Holtz’s agreement to leave his student pastor appointment before the end of this appointment cycle. The article also reminded me that the blogosphere is sometimes as good at facilitating a rush to judgment as it is helpful in facilitating conversation and reflection among people.

In my view, the article took a turn for the worse when it came to the section “What the church teaches on hell.” This section was confusing and contained information that is inaccurate. Here is the section in its entirety:

The Book of Discipline, the denomination’s law book, does not contain any specific statement on heaven or hell.

However, the Evangelical United Brethren Church, one of the denomination’s predecessors, states in Article XII of its Confession of Faith: “We believe in the resurrection of the dead; the righteous to life eternal and the wicked to endless condemnation.”

The Confession, adopted in 1963, and the Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church from 1808 are both part of The United Methodist Church’s doctrinal standards in the Book of Discipline. As such, they cannot be altered — even by General Conference, the denomination’s top lawmaking body.

A particular belief about heaven or hell is not part of the denomination’s baptismal covenant, and therefore is not a requirement for membership in The United Methodist Church.

However, Holtz’s status as a pastor puts him in a different category, said the Rev. Taylor Burton-Edwards, director of worship resources at the United Methodist Board of Discipleship.

“This is where Chad got himself into trouble,” Burton-Edwards said. “He was articulating doctrine that was contrary to the doctrine of this church.”

Here are my main issues with this paragraph:

1. The paragraph first states that the Book of Discipline “does not contain any specific statement on heaven or hell.” But, as the very next sentence points out, one of the articles of the Confession of Faith reads, “We believe in the resurrection of the dead; the righteous to life eternal and the wicked to endless condemnation.” If “the wicked to endless condemnation” is not a way of signifying hell, then I’m not sure what it is referring to. Moreover, the first sentence of that article, which is not quoted in the UMNS article, makes it even more difficult to believe that this statement is not referring to heaven and hell: “We believe all men stand under the righteous judgment of Jesus Christ, both now and in the last day.” The Confession of Faith is not only in the Book of Discipline, it is part of the relatively small body of material considered to be standards of doctrine for United Methodists. Thus, the first statement of the UMNS paragraph is only accurate in so far as it literally means that the words heaven and hell don’t appear in this article from the Confession of Faith.

2. The article then says that the Confession of Faith and the Articles of Religion are “both part of The United Methodist Church’s doctrinal standards in the Book of Discipline. As such, they cannot be altered – even by the General Conference.” This is simply and obviously inaccurate. I think Hahn is referring to the fact that the Articles of Religion and Confession of Faith are protected by the first and second Restrictive Rules that say that General Conference “shall not revoke, alter, or change” them (see para 17, 18 of the Constitution in the BOD). In fact, the doctrinal standards can be altered and the Book of Discipline clearly describes the process for changing them. In order to change the Confession of Faith, General Conference would have to approve an amendment to the second Restrictive Rule by a “two-thirds majority of the General Conference present and voting” and because it is a Restrictive Rule a “three-fourths majority of all the members o the annual conferences present and voting” would be required (para 59). The Constitution certainly makes it very difficult to change the Confession of Faith or the Articles of Religion, but it is not true that they “cannot be altered.”

3. Next, the article says that members do not have to have “a particular belief about heaven or hell” because this is not “part of the denomination’s baptismal covenant, and therefore is not a requirement for membership in The United Methodist Church.” Let me say that I love the liturgy for baptism in the UM hymnal. I think it is profound. However, I do not think it is intended to be a comprehensive doctrinal statement. I am not familiar with the precedent that the baptismal covenant is a complete summary of the beliefs that The United Methodist Church expects prospective members to affirm. The sacrament of communion, for example, is not mentioned, so does that mean it is dispensable? Moreover, according to the BOD “a professing member of a local church may be charged with… (d) dissemination of doctrines contrary to the established standards of doctrine of The United Methodist Church” (para 2702.3.d), a clear reference to the Articles of Religion and the Confession of Faith. According to the BOD, the Articles of Religion and Confession of Faith are not an additional set of beliefs that clergy are supposed to adhere to. Rather, they are an expression of the “established standards of doctrine” of The UMC. Ultimately, I think the distinction between laity and clergy is a false distinction.

4. The quote from Taylor Burton-Edwards at the end of the section adds another layer of confusion. I think this quote is intended to be connected to the previous two sentences, where the distinction between what members have to believe and what clergy have to believe is made. However, the quote from Burton-Edwards contradicts the opening statement of this section. At the end of the article, it seems that the conclusion is that saying you don’t believe in hell is contrary to UM doctrine. So, what are we to do with the first sentence?

This may all seem rather uptight, and that may indeed be an occupational hazard of my line of work. I am convinced that we will have more helpful and productive conversations about issues like the UMNS article raises when we first clearly communicate the facts that can be agreed upon. Before we can discuss what we ought to believe or teach, we first need to be clear about what The UMC does teach. In the areas I have outlined, I fear that the UMNS has actually added confusion (unintentionally) to the conversation about what The UMC teaches about hell.

Update: I just reread an article published yesterday by Heather Hahn and UMNS that addresses some of the same issues as the article I am interacting with here. I noticed that the more recent article has a paragraph very similar to the one above, but it has corrected the mistakes I note in #2. This article reads, “Church doctrine can only be changed through a constitutional amendment process, which requires approval by a two-thirds majority of General Conference and a three-fourths majority of all annual conference members present and voting.” Kuddos to Hahn and UMNS for getting this part right the second time. (Though this part of the article still contains what I think is a very confusing opening line, “The Book of Discipline, The United Methodist Church’s law book, does not make specific mention of heaven or hell.”)

Exciting News!

24 Thursday Mar 2011

Posted by Kevin M. Watson in Life

≈ 13 Comments

I have some exciting news to share from my life. I was recently offered, and thrilled to accept, a position in historical theology at Seattle Pacific University. Next year, I will primarily teach in the sequence of courses that are required of all undergraduates, particularly the junior level course in Christian theology. I am really looking forward to teaching and building relationships with undergrads at SPU.

Aside from working with undergrads, another reason I am excited about the opportunity to teach at SPU is that I will also work with graduate students in their contextual education assignments and in the “Abbey” component of the seminary. The Abbey is one part of Seattle Pacific Seminary’s three-fold focus on being an Academy, Abbey, and Apostolate. You can read more about the vision for the seminary here (and you should – the vision for the seminary is amazing!). I am particularly eager to be part of the Abbey component of the seminary, helping students to grow as disciples of Jesus Christ during their time in seminary. For example, students participate in a weekly class meeting throughout their first year in the program, which is right up my alley.

I am also humbled to be associated with the theology faculty at SPU, which is an exceptional group of teachers and scholars. I look forward to getting to know my colleagues better and working with and learning from them.

The only downside to this transition is that Melissa and I have loved living in Dallas (though we will not miss the 100 degree days in the summer). We have been blessed with a great church family and community of friends. When we came to Dallas, we both knew that we would only be here as long as I was a student in the Ph.D. program. And yet, SMU and Dallas became a home for us much more quickly than we expected. There will be many, many people we will miss when it is time to head northwest.

We will move to Seattle sometime in August and my position starts in September. We still have several months to enjoy time with friends here. (There is also the small matter of working on a dissertation!) I know the next several months will go more quickly than we anticipate. Ultimately, I can’t wait. Thanks be to God!