Category Archives: Christian Living

Empowering and Equipping Laity

22 Tuesday Jun 2010

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

≈ 10 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

In response to my recent post on the expansion of Methodism in the early 19th century, I highlighted the large percentage of laity who were involved in spiritual formation of other laity in their churches. I suggested that one of the key reasons for the success of early Methodism was that for every church there were several lay people who were leading class meetings, where the lay leader of the group was responsible for asking each person in the group, “How is your life with God?” I then suggested that “one of the most essential tasks for the United Methodist Church today is training and empowering laity for this kind of ministry.”

John Meunier responded with a brief and piercing comment: “Someone teach me how to “empower and equip” lay leaders and I am there.”

So how do we empower and equip lay leaders in the contemporary United Methodist Church?

In this post I will do two things. First, I will identify two ways I think the early Methodist approach to discipleship can be directly adopted by contemporary United Methodists. Second, I will specifically outline one way to empowering and equipping the laity for the kind of ministry I have in mind.

It seems to me that often when folks in the Methodist blogging world talk about John Wesley or early Methodism, they trip over themselves to make sure their audience realizes that “things are not as they used to be.” At one level, this is an obviously true observation. Life in the 21st century United States is very different than life in 18th century Britain. An awareness of context is very important both in reading and interpreting Scripture and in making comparisons or prescriptions from one period of history to another.

And yet, the pastor in me often wonders if the concern for context is often a way of distancing ourselves from taking the Christian life too seriously. What, for example, has changed about the current context that would make the question “How is your life with God?” an irrelevant question for the twenty-first century?

As it relates to empowering and equipping lay leaders in the church, my guess is that the church could fruitfully adopt most of the strategies of the earliest Methodists without having to do too much contextualizing. Here are two specific ways that the early Methodist approach could be directly adopted by contemporary Methodists:

First, the expectation that every Methodist must join and participate in a weekly class meeting meant that Methodist leaders were constantly trying to identify people who might do a good job leading a class meeting. When a gifted lay person was identified, the typical response was to encourage them to become a class leader. This is relevant for contemporary Methodists because I suspect that many pastors most naturally assign their most gifted laity to be the leader or chair of a committee, rather than seeking to help them find a way to pastor other members of the church. So, the first thing I think contemporary Methodists should do to equip and empower laity for the ministry of “watching over one another in love” is to make identifying lay leaders who are gifted for this kind of a ministry a priority over everything else. If you have a lay person who would either be an excellent chair for the board of trustees, or would be willing to lead a weekly small group focused on growth in grace, you should direct that person every time to lead a weekly small group focused on helping others grow in grace.

Second, early Methodism equipped and trained lay people through a sort of apprenticeship. The first thing that someone who was Methodist did was join a weekly class meeting. In that meeting they would observe a lay person leading the class meeting, asking each person how their lives with God are, facilitating the conversation, making sure everyone has a chance to participate, and offering advice or encouragement as they discerned it was helpful or appropriate. These class leaders, when they identified someone they thought had the potential to be a good class leader, would talk with them and provide an opportunity to lead a class. I believe that this is relevant for contemporary Methodism. The main concern of some pastors might be that there are no laity currently involved in this kind of ministry who can apprentice others. My guess is that nearly every church (if not every church) has at least one or two laity who would thrive as a spiritual director or guide for others, but they are not able to exercise this gift because it is not currently valued by the church, or they are not able to exercise these gifts because they are so absorbed in tasks of institutional maintenance. The first step, where there is not currently an active lay ministry to others would be for the pastor to work to identify people who are gifted in this way, and seek to apprentice them and then help them start a ministry with others. This could be very similar to the ways that excellent Sunday School teachers are identified, except that they would not be teaching a curriculum, but would be a shepherd of souls.

The second thing I want to do in this post is outline the steps that could lead to empowering and equipping laity to start something like a class meeting. (I want to preface this by saying that this approach assumes that the congregation where this is being implemented generally has little to no awareness of the class meeting or the early Methodist approach to discipleship.)

First, preach a sermon series on the Wesleyan Way of Salvation and the Methodist “Method” for Making Disciples. Depending on the pastor and the congregation’s need for teaching on this, I would envision this being 6-12 weeks. The goal is that after the sermon series, the congregation should have a basic familiarity with Wesleyan theology and the “method” for bringing this theology to life that gave Methodism its name.

Second, towards the end of the sermon series announce that small groups will be forming which will explore this further. A book like my A Blueprint for Discipleship: Wesley’s General Rules as a Guide for Christian Living would be helpful in helping folks get a better sense of the way that Methodism was originally designed to be a force for the spiritual renewal and transformation of its members. Sunday School classes could also be encouraged to use this study during this period of study.

Third, at the end of the study people should be invited to join an experimental class meeting that would last six weeks. During this time they would be able to see what a class meeting is like and they would be able to discern whether they would be willing to make a longer term commitment to being in a class, or even become a class leader.

Fourth, at the end of this period people would be invited to make a commitment to join a class. Depending on the response, a new class, or classes would start. Ideally there would be at least one lay person who would be willing to lead each class. This is less important, but I think it also would be ideal if after the six week “experiment” the classes met in the home of the class leader, or another person’s home (mostly because this is a more intimate and less intimidating environment for people who might consider joining a class after it has already been formed).

Fifth, the pastor should ask the class leaders to meet with her once a month to talk about any challenges they are facing, to ask questions, or to process what they are learning. The purpose of this is not to gossip about what is happening in other people’s lives, but is solely for the purpose of providing continued support and encouragement for the class leaders.

Sixth, once this approach has become a part of the congregations “DNA” steps one and two could be the training that new members go through, or confirmands.

Seventh, once or twice a year there could be space in the worship service for people who have been in classes to testify to the difference it has made in their lives. Following this, the person could make an invitation to join a new round of a six week experimental class meetings where people could get a feel for a class meeting without fully committing to it. After this, the procedure that follows step three could be followed.

These are my thoughts for equipping and empowering laity to become spiritual leaders who “watch over one another in love.” What are your thoughts, objections, or questions?

Futile Faith?

19 Friday Mar 2010

Posted by in Christian Living, Life, Ministry

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

, ,

An interesting article in the Washington Post about “Disbelief in the Pulpit” has prompted quite a bit of discussion about how far pastors can dissent from the basic teachings of their particular church or denomination and still in good conscience continue as a leader in the denomination. Several times in these conversations pastors have admitted that they do not believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. And they seem to me to have expressed this in a way that suggests that this is not problematic.

I confess that I am baffled by the idea that one can be a Christian, much less the leader of the church, and not believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. It seems to me that if Christ was not raised from the dead, then Christians have no hope. Each time I have read someone casually dismiss the importance of the resurrection I have thought of 1 Corinthians 15: 12-19, where Paul does not mince words about what is at stake for Christians regarding the bodily resurrection of Jesus:

But if it preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all others.

The implications of what Paul thinks is at stake are clear – If Christ has not been raised from the dead, Christians are the most pitiable people in the world. We are to be pitied because if there is no resurrection, death has won and it is the final word. If it is the final word, the world should pity Christians because we are wasting the finite amount of time we have to live on something that isn’t true.

But more than that, we are to be pitied because we have no hope if Christ has not been raised from the dead. If there is no bodily resurrection, then when we stare death in the face, we have no grounds for hope because it is the last word. It will ultimately win. Everyday should be Ash Wednesday.

But, thanks be to God, Christ has been raised from the dead. And because of this, Christians can look death itself in the face and have hope. Pastors can read 1 Corinthians 15 in the presence of a dead body and tell the congregation that there is hope, that God is more powerful than even death itself. Paul says it much better than I do.

When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: ‘Death has been swallowed up in victory.’

Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?

The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. (I Cor. 15:54-57)

Reading this passage at funerals has been one of the most powerful things I have done as a pastor. Left to ourselves, death will overwhelm us. But with Christ, we can look even death itself in the face and dare to have hope. We can tell death itself that it will not win, its sting has been taken away.

As we draw nearer to Easter morning, this Lent, we will confront the last days of Jesus’ life. We will read of his passion, we will hear of the crucifixion. But Christians always have hope, because Easter is coming! This is not a metaphor. We celebrate Easter for eight weeks because after the Son of God was nailed to a cross, on Easter morning the tomb was empty. At the heart of the gospel is the good news that the one whom we crucified is risen, and that very one continues to seek and to save the lost.

The resurrection of Jesus Christ is at the heart of the Christian faith. Without it, what is left is a mere shell. Indeed, without the resurrection I am not sure there is anything left that can be recognized as Christianity. Proclaiming the Risen Christ is the heart of the gospel message itself.

When the disciples said to Thomas, “We have seen the Lord!” He responded, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.” You probably know the story, but here is what happens next:

A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, ‘Peace be with you!’ Then he said to Thomas, ‘Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.’
Thomas said to him, ‘My Lord and my God!’
Then Jesus told him, ‘Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (John 20:26-29)

What an awesome gospel we have been given! Even during the midst of Lent, we celebrate on Sundays, because the resurrection of our Lord is such good news that we cannot contain it. It is the reason we come together to worship God every week. Our faith is not futile, because the one who was crucified lives! Jesus is risen, praise God!

Amen.

Prooftexting Wesley

12 Friday Mar 2010

Posted by in Christian Living, links, Methodist History, Wesley

≈ 12 Comments

Tags

, , ,

When I taught United Methodist History last semester, I asked my students to search either the internet or denominational publications for articles which specifically interacted with John Wesley and appealed to him in order to make a point about the contemporary United Methodist Church. The assignment was for the students to research in depth what Wesley actually said about whatever the article addressed and determine whether the article had faithfully appropriated Wesley. The assignment ended up succeeding beyond my expectations for it. There were several students who found what they were looking for, or did not dive as deep as they could have into the Wesleyan corpus. However, there were many papers that reflected systematic investigation into what Wesley wrote about a particular topic. And best of all, there were a few instances of students who read Wesley so carefully and conscientiously that they allowed themselves to be surprised by him.

One of the motivations for the assignment was that popular writing about Wesley often reflects a shallow engagement with Wesley’s own writing and is a foil for saying what the person would have said if they were simply stating their opinion. I am not aiming this at a particular group or theological spectrum. I have seen too many instances all across the theological spectrum of prooftexting Wesley. Everyone who goes to seminary is taught not to prooftext the Bible (prooftexting means pulling a passage out of its context and using it to prove something that does not follow from the context it is found within). Most seminarians make a real effort to avoid doing this, and are happy to call others on it when they prooftext. And yet, prooftexting Wesley seems to be a beloved pastime.

The most recent example of this has been in response to comments by Glen Beck that suggested people should flee from churches that promote social justice. (I want to be clear, at this point, that this is not a disguised attempt to defend Beck. In fact, though this post is prompted by the response of others to Glen Beck, this post is not about Glen Beck at all. It is about John Wesley, whose thought I would rather spend my time and energy interacting with.) The main reason I became aware of the recent prooftext is because I actually quoted the passage that has been used in the discussion, so that my post has twice been linked to in relation to these conversations. Jeremy Smith, using good blogging etiquette, linked to my original post (which is nothing more than the quote from Wesley that Smith uses). However, a post by BaptistPlanet padded their argument by suggesting that I agreed with them, when – again – my original post was not making an argument, it was literally just the quote from Wesley. Here is what they attributed to me: “As Kevin Watson observed last year, their denominational devotion to social justice extends unbroken all the way back to John Wesley:” Please read my original post, and see if you think you can get that out of my original post.

At this point, some of you are probably wondering if I am going to actually mention the quote from Wesley that is the source of this. Here it is:

“Directly opposite to this is the gospel of Christ. Solitary religion is not to be found there. ‘Holy solitaries’ is a phrase no more consistent with the gospel than holy adulterers. The gospel of Christ knows of no religion, but social; no holiness but social holiness.”

The move that Jeremy made in his initial post on this, which seems to be a frequent move, is to equate social holiness with social justice. I think this is questionable on its own merits (see for example this post and this post by Andrew Thompson – a Th.D. student at Duke who is studying with Randy Maddox and Richard Heitzenrater). However, what I think is indisputable is that it is not a valid move to make when interacting with the passage mentioned above, which Jeremy explicitly cites on his blog. (In fairness, my guess is that Jeremy googled something like “no holiness but social holiness” and came up with my post, which cites the single passage, and not the entire Preface. I will remedy that below by citing the entire Preface. Though I do think it is incumbent on all who appeal to Wesley to do this sort of investigation.)

The quote from Wesley comes from the 1739 Preface to his “Hymns and Sacred Poems”. As I mentioned, I am going to quote the Preface in its entirety at the end of this post. I urge you to read Wesley’s comments in their entirety, to put this quote back in its context. The passage is not that long, and if we are not willing to take the time to read Wesley in some depth, we should probably stop appealing to him.

As a student of Wesley and the history of Methodism, I think it is worth getting this right for its own sake. And as a pastor in The United Methodist Church, I think the rest of the Preface goes a long way towards explaining why there is apparent disagreement about conflating social justice and social holiness. I have never met a Christian (at least as far as I can remember) who has said, I don’t believe that Christians should help other people. I have met many Christians who are concerned that the desire to help other people has replaced the importance of faith in Jesus Christ. Christians are right to insist that only Christ can save us. Salvation is not something that we can earn by our effort. Thus, a few paragraphs before Wesley says “no holiness but social holiness” he writes, “Other foundation therefore can no man lay, without being an adversary to Christ and his gospel, than faith alone; faith, though necessarily producing both, yet not including either good works, or holiness.” Faith is prior, it is the foundation. Wesley wants us always to be explicit about this.

The other thing that is missed when Wesley’s words are pulled out of context is why he is writing this. The major contrast Wesley is making is “the manner of building up souls in Christ taught by St. Paul” from “that taught by the Mystics.” This is not explicit in the passage, but given what was going in the Fetter Lane Society, which Wesley was part of at the time, I think it seems likely that the target in his mind for these attacks was the Moravian quietists in Fetter Lane – the ones who said you should do nothing but wait for faith, by yourself without the means of grace. It is not hard to imagine this audience when Wesley writes, “For contemplation is, with them, the fulfilling of the law, even a contemplation that ‘consists in a cessation from all works.’”

It seems to me that when Wesley says “social holiness” what he means is that we do not grow in our relationship with God – we do not become holy – by ourselves. John Meunier’s comment on Jeremy’s original post comes closest to the point, “Wesley clearly meant by social holiness the idea that we have to be in connection and relationship with other Christians to be holy. You can’t sit in your closet and by holy. You have to be with other people to love them.” (This is comment #12. John frequently blogs here.)

Does this mean that Christians, particularly Methodists, should not care about helping others? Of course not! The Greatest Commandment is to love God and love our neighbor. The “General Rules” command Methodists to do no harm, do good, and practice the means of grace. But I am convinced that Wesley would be adamant that the foundation of our reaching out to help others has to be faith in Jesus Christ. I actually don’t think it is all that controversial amongst Methodists that Christians should help others. I have never heard a Methodist say they think we should stop going on mission trips to build houses or repair damaged churches. I have never heard the most conservative Christian say it is a bad idea to send food to starving people. They, rightly in my view, get impatient when they perceive that the church is becoming merely a social service agency. There is no holiness without social holiness. That is why Wesley created the society, class, and band structure. So Methodists could watch over one another in love and encourage each other to growth in holiness, of which good works are absolutely a part.

But social justice is not the same thing as social holiness. Our tendency to equate the two reflects just how impoverished our understanding of the holiness that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit invite us to is at the moment.

As promised, the entirety of Wesley’s Preface to the 1739 Hymns and Sacred Poems follows. I pulled this from the Duke Center for Studies in the Wesleyan Tradition, which is an excellent online resource, you should check it out.

——

1. Some verses, it may be observ’d, in the following
collection, were wrote upon the scheme of the mystic divines.
And these, ’tis own’d, we had once in great veneration, as the
best explainers of the gospel of Christ. But we are now
convinced that we therein “greatly err’d, not knowing the
Scriptures, neither the power of God.” And because this is an
error which many serious minds are sooner or later exposed to,
and which indeed most easily besets those who seek the Lord
Jesus in sincerity, we believe ourselves indispensably obliged, in
the presence of God, and angels, and men, to declare wherein
we apprehend those writers not to teach “the truth as it is in
Jesus.”

2. And first, we apprehend them to lay another foundation.
They are carefull, indeed, to pull down our own works, and to
prove that “by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified.”
But why is this? Only “to establish our own righteousness” in
the place of our own works. They speak largely and well against
expecting to be accepted of God for our virtuous actions—and
then teach that we are to be accepted for our virtuous habits or
tempers. Still the ground of our acceptance is placed in
ourselves. The difference is only this: common writers suppose
we are to be justified for the sake of our outward righteousness.
These suppose we are to be justified for the sake of our inward
righteousness. Whereas in truth we are no more justified for the
sake of one than of the other. For neither our own inward nor
outward righteousness is the ground of our justification.
Holiness of heart, as well as holiness of life, is not the cause but
the effect ofit. The sole cause of our acceptance with God (or, that for the
sake of which, on the account of which we are accepted) is the
righteousness and the death of Christ, who fulfilled God’s law
and died in our stead. And even the condition of it is not (as they
suppose) our holiness either of heart or life, but our faith alone,
faith contradistinguish’d from holiness as well as from good
works. Other foundation therefore can no man lay, without being
an adversary to Christ and his gospel, than faith alone, faith,
though necessarily producing both, yet not including either good
works or holiness.

3. But supposing them to have laid the foundation right,
the manner of building thereon which they advise is quite
opposite to that prescribed by Christ. He commands to “build up
one another.” They advise, “To the desert, to the desert, and God
will build you up.” Numberless are the commendations that
occur in all their writings, not of retirement intermix’d with
conversation, but of an intire seclusion from men (perhaps for
months or years), in order to purify the soul. Whereas, according
to the judgment of our Lord and the writings of his apostles, it is
only when we are “knit together” that we “have nourishment
from him,” and “increase with the increase of God.” Neither is
there any time when the weakest member can say to the
strongest, or the strongest to the weakest, “I have no need of
thee.” Accordingly our blessed Lord, when his disciples were in
their weakest state, sent them forth, not alone but two by two.
When they were strengthened a little, not by solitude but by
abiding with him and one another, he commanded them to
“wait,” not separate but being assembled together, “for the
promise of the Father.” And “they were all with one accord in
one place” when they received the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Express mention is made in the same chapter that when “there
were added unto them three thousand souls,” “all that believed
were together,” “and continued steadfastly” not only “in the
apostles” doctrine,” but also “in fellowship and in breaking of
bread,” and in praying “with one accord.”
Agreeable to which is the account the great Apostle gives of the
manner which he had been taught of God, “for the perfecting of
the saints,” “for the edifying of the body of Christ,” even to the
end of the world. And according to St. Paul, “all” who will ever
“come, in the unity of the faith, unto a perfect man, unto the
measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ,” must together
“grow up into him, from whom the whole body fitly join’d
together and compacted” (or strengthen’d) “by that which every
joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the
measure of every part, maketh increase of the body, unto the
edifying of itself in love.” Ephesians iv. 15, 16.

4. So widely distant is the manner of building up souls in
Christ taught by St. Paul from that taught by the mysticks! Nor
do they differ as to the foundation, or the manner of building
thereon, more than they do with regard to the superstructure. For
the religion these authors wou’d edify us in is
3Ori., “love”; corrected in 5th edn. (1756).
solitary religion. If thou wilt be perfect, say they,
trouble not thyself about outward works. It is better to
work virtues in the will. He hath attain’d the true
resignation who hath estranged himself from all outward
works, that God may work inwardly in him, without any
turning to outward things. These are the true worshippers,
who worship God in spirit and in truth.
For contemplation is with them the fulfilling of the law, even a
contemplation that “consists in a cessation of all works.”

5. Directly opposite to this is the gospel of Christ. Solitary
religion is not to be found there. “Holy solitaries” is a phrase no
more consistent with the gospel than holy adulterers. The gospel
of Christ knows of no religion but social; no holiness but social
holiness. “Faith working by love” is the length and breadth and
depth and height of Christian perfection. “This commandment
have we from Christ, that he who loveth3 God love his brother
also;” and that we manifest our love
“by doing good unto all men, especially to them that are of the
household of faith.” And in truth, whosoever loveth his brethren
not in word only, but as Christ loved him, cannot but be “zealous
of good works.” He feels in his soul a burning, restless desire, of
spending and being spent for them. “My father,” will he say,
“worketh hitherto, and I work.” And at all possible opportunities
he is, like his Master, “going about doing good.”

6. This then is the way. Walk ye in it, whosoever ye are
that have believed in his name. Ye know, “Other foundation can
no man lay than that which is laid, even Jesus Christ.” Ye feel
that “by grace ye are saved through faith”; saved from sin by
Christ form’d “in your hearts,” and from fear by “his Spirit
bearing witness with your spirit, that ye are the sons of God.” Ye
are taught of God, “not to forsake the assembling of yourselves
together, as the manner of some is”; but to instruct, admonish,
exhort, reprove, comfort, confirm, and every way build up one
another. “Ye
have an unction from the Holy One” that teacheth you to
renounce any other or higher perfection than “faith working by
love,” faith “zealous of good works,” faith “as it hath
opportunity doing good unto all men.” “As ye have therefore
received Jesus Christ the Lord, so walk ye in him; rooted and
built up in him, and stablish’d in the faith, and abounding
therein” more and more. Only, “Beware lest any man spoil you
thro’ philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after
the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” For “ye are
complete in him.” “He is Alpha and Omega, the beginning and
the ending, the first and the last.” Only “continue in” him,
“grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of
the gospel.” “And when Christ, who is our life, shall appear,
then shall ye also appear with him in glory!”

Thought Re: Infrequent Communion

10 Wednesday Mar 2010

Posted by in Christian Living, Ministry

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , ,

I am reading John T. McNeill’s A History of the Cure of Souls as part of my preparation for my upcoming field exam in the History of Christian Formation. I just read the following passage:

“The parishes were divided into elders’ districts, in which each elder was to examine communicants privately before each communion service, and to bring about reconciliations between neighbors found to be at variance. Metal tokens were distributed to those qualified to take communion, and were presented for admission to the communion table.” (252)

The passage is broadly referring to sixteenth century Presbyterianism. As I read this passage a question popped into my head: Is this the reason that Presbyterians typically celebrate Communion quarterly and not more frequently?

In other words, I wonder if the history of the reason for infrequent celebration of the Eucharist in Presbyterianism may have been lost. I am ignorant of the reason that academic Presbyterians would give for quarterly celebration of the Eucharist. However, the main reason I have heard lay Presbyterians give is that receiving Communion too often makes it less special. My purpose here is not to get into why I think that is an inadequate understanding of Communion. Rather, it is to ask if anyone has any further insights into the reasons that Presbyterians give for quarterly Communion.

I am intrigued by the possibility that it was originally because there was a very complicated system for interviewing every member who wanted to take Communion beforehand, which would have made it impractical to do this every month. My guess would be that very few Presbyterian churches continue to do this today. If that is true, it seems possible that the original reason for only communing four times a year has disappeared, but the practice has remained in place.

And yet, I suspect that there is much more to it than what I have just laid out. Does anyone have any thoughts or expertise to share?

Too Close to Home

09 Tuesday Mar 2010

Posted by in Book Review, Christian Living, Ministry

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , ,

I am reading Alan J. Roxburgh and M. Scott Boren’s Introducing the Missional Church: What It Is, Why It Matters, How to Become One and I just came across this:

Recently an executive of a denomination was pulling his hair out over the decisions being made in the national office. They had received an estate worth over 20 million dollars. Of that amount, the national office had spent 10 million dollars hiring an agency that researched people’s attitudes toward the denomination and then developed a massive marketing campaign that included chat rooms and a bobblehead dog mascot. The executive was frustrated because of what this program suggested – namely, there was nothing wrong with the church’s perspectives, and all it needed was a marketing challenge on how to attract more people into what was already there. Nobody and nothing on the inside needed to change; it was about how to present and market who they were. This is the attractional mind-set that has to die before a missional imagination can be born. (83-84)

The authors are challenging the attractional approach to ministry, where the goal is to get people to come to our programs or our events as a church (foremost of which is typically the Sunday worship service). Yet, as I was typing the quotation above, another reason occurred to me why marketing campaigns are not the answer. To put it very crudely: If all that mainline churches in the United States needed to attract people to become involved in a church was something that compelled them to enter the doors of a church again, September 11, 2001 would have been the advertisement the church was waiting for.

I have often heard people talk about how full their churches were in the week or two after 9/11. However, I have not yet heard anyone say that the people who visited after the devastating events of September 11th actually became involved in the life of the Church. (I am sure there are some people who joined churches after 9/11, but what I am pointing to is that I have not heard of a church where the majority of people who visited stayed connected to the church they visited over the long term.) This could be interpreted in a number of ways. But one way of looking at it is that they were “attracted” to church and did not find anything there that they needed or wanted. Spending money on Coke ads would be a waste of time and money if nobody thought Coke tasted good.

I am sharing these thoughts as a sort of stream of consciousness, so I may ultimately decide that there is nothing here worth exploring. I guess my main question at this stage is this: Does the ReThink Church campaign fit into the quotation from Introducing the Missional Church? Thanks be to God, as far as I know there is not a bobblehead dog mascot in the campaign… so it seems like we are already ahead of the game there.

The very name of the campaign at first glance would seem to suggest that there is an openness to doing things differently, to changing. But I suspect that is either not ultimately the case, or the creators of the campaign have dramatically overestimated the UMC’s ability to change over a short period of time. We are, after all, a denomination which has been lamenting the decline of younger clergy and the implications of such a decline for the future of the church, while continuing to put the real power of framing and shaping the future of the church into the hands of people who will decidedly not be the future of the church. Or to put it differently, there seems to be a broad consensus that the denomination is not healthy. However, there seems to actually be very little that is proactively being changed. And the ultimate motivation for change seems to be fear. One does not have to read too many books to read one that predicts when the UMC will cease to exist if we continue declining at our current rate.

My prayer for the United Methodist Church is that the Holy Spirit will release us from our fear of death. I pray that by the grace of God we will be motivated by love – love for God and love for our neighbor. I pray that we will want to reach out because we have something worth sharing, something that people need, and that we will actually care about people outside of the church enough that we will want them to experience God’s love, to taste and see that the Lord is good! I yearn for revival to come upon us, to come to us – not as something that we have earned or forced into being, but as an utter gift of grace. Unmerited. Undeserved. But freely given so that we might have life, and have it abundantly.

Where Are the Methodists?

22 Monday Feb 2010

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

In a few recent posts, I have discussed (in by no means a thorough way) Eddie Gibbs’ book Churchmorph: How Megatrends Are Reshaping Christian Communities. In this post, I want to mention something that was missing from this book, namely, Methodism. As I recall, Gibbs mentions Methodism once in the book. He writes: “In more modern times, the Methodists in eighteenth-century England and the Salvation Army in the nineteenth century also stepped outside the structures of the established churches, reaching out to the segments of the populations that they were failing to influence for the gospel” (150).

Again, other than this quote, Methodists are absent from the book. Contemporary Methodist congregations are not mentioned, the dynamic method that was developed in early Methodism for ensuring that people progress in becoming disciples (something Gibbs clearly values) is not mentioned. Methodism is not seen as a valuable resource as the church “morphs.”

At one point Gibbs writes, “It is often only in retrospect that the realization dawns that an irreversible transition has taken place. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the churches of Europe similarly failed to recognize the extent and impact on every aspect of society of the changes accompanying the Industrial Revolution. Church leaders did too little too late, with the result that the cities that birthed the new industrial age grew at a phenomenal rate, while the migrant populations became largely lost to the church” (31)

What about the Methodists?!? (That is the note I wrote in the margin next to this passage.)

Surely Methodism would be able to shine some light on this story? And surely the exponential growth of American Methodism during the first fifty years of the newly constituted United States of America would have something to say, not only about church leaders recognizing transitions and ministering in the midst of them. American Methodism actually provides a more astonishing example, in that for a period of time it seems to have shaped and transformed the broader culture it found itself within.

And again, when I read his critique of contemporary theological education, I thought about how the apprenticeship model of early American Methodism could have served to illustrate what he was aiming for, as well as providing evidence that something like this really does work!

In some ways, I think some blame can fairly be assigned to Gibbs for not being more aware of the contribution of Methodism to the broad stream of European and American Christianity. However, I think the fact that Gibbs has broadly failed to see the potential of the Wesleyan tradition for the missional/emerging church is almost entirely the fault of those who are the heirs of the Wesleyan tradition. We are not very good at getting our message out, at least not beyond the walls of our own spheres of direct influence.

Here is an unscientific illustration:

Last Friday night my wife and I went to Barnes and Noble. If you have been in Barnes and Noble, you can imagine the book display that is right in front of the door. You almost literally have to walk around it to get to the rest of the store. Every Barnes and Noble has one. The best way I can think of to characterize the books that are on this first (and most visible) display are that they are newly released books which are being aggressively marketed to you, the person who has just walked in the door. I will admit that I almost always look at the books on this display, out of curiosity to see what the new “it” books are.

On Friday, two particular books on the display caught my eye: Brian McLaren’s A New Kind of Christianity and Beth Moore’s So Long, Insecurity. These books are both written by Christian authors. Beth Moore’s audience is a more conservative brand of evangelical Christianity and Brian McLaren’s is a more progressive/post-modern one. The point of this distinction is not to disparage either one, or to make a value judgment about either author or those who would pounce at the chance to read their books. My point is this: When was the last time you saw a book written by a Wesleyan or Methodist on the front table of a Barnes and Noble? Most likely never. The only person I can think of who may have written a book that would have been marketed enough to receive that kind of “prime real estate” is Adam Hamilton. In fact, he is the only Methodist whose books I have seen with any frequency in bookstores like Barnes and Noble.

The tragedy of this is that our message is both so profound and so relevant. It may be that I am just so smitten with my own tradition and heritage that I am overestimating its worth. But (not surprisingly) I doubt it. We have been entrusted with the gospel, and there have at least been times in our history when Methodists have gotten their message out to large audiences, and it has not only engaged people outside of the church but it has led to lives being renewed and transformed.

I yearn for the day when those who are heirs of the Wesleyan tradition communicate it so effectively that books like Eddie Gibbs can no longer be written without wrestling with where Methodists fit into the conversation. That Eddie Gibbs can ignore us is not his fault. It is ours.

Successful Small Groups? Location, Location, Location

19 Friday Feb 2010

Posted by in Book Review, Christian Living, links, Ministry

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

,

In a previous post, I shared a few thoughts on Eddie Gibbs’ Churchmorph: How Megatrends Are Reshaping Christian Communities. Since finishing the book, I have continued to chew on two things, a profound insight and (at least to me) a glaring oversight. These two things are unrelated enough that I think they merit their own posts. So, in this post I will lift up the insight, and in the next I will mention what I think was overlooked.

The profound insight relates to small group dynamics and is found in the following passage:

Why does the typical suburban small group not establish a spiritual relational closeness to Christ when the home-atmosphere setting is conducive to fostering a corresponding social relational closeness? Those small groups that best facilitate both kinds of relational closeness to Christ are most likely to consist of individuals whose lives intersect during the week outside of church-related activities, and in which a high level of trust has developed, allowing members to let down their guards and remove their masks. Unfortunately, with many suburban small groups the same degree of disconnect from their wider social context is evident in their group as it is in the worship service and centralized program gatherings, and they do little to foster relational closeness. Although the group members are meeting in decentralized locations, they continue to perpetuate an inwardly focused mentality. (93-94)

The insight that I find profound is the focus on interaction outside of church-related activities as important to the success of small groups in enabling people to become more like Christ. To put this in United Methodist language, Gibbs seems to be arguing that small groups will be most effective in “making disciples of Jesus Christ” when they are intentionally structured so that members lives will intersect as frequently as possible.

This has some support in early Methodism. The first class meetings were divided up based on location. So, if you were in a class meeting in London in the early 1740s, the other people in the class would have been those Methodists who lived the closest to you. In other words, early Methodists were in classes with their neighbors.

I am not certain that Gibbs’ argument is correct. However, I think it is a very interesting hypothesis, and it seems that trying to bring people together who will be most likely to interact outside of the hour that they are together worshipping and the hour they are meeting in their small group would seem to have enormous potential for making it as likely as possible that the group would become a place where people “watch over one another in love” (to use Methodist language again).

What do you think? Does this seem like a helpful insight? What are the qualities that you have found to make a small group most likely to succeed in helping people to become more like Christ?

(In the next post I will talk about my biggest disappointment with Churchmorph and why it is a cause for concern for those in the Wesleyan tradition.)

Preach It, Eddie!

30 Saturday Jan 2010

Posted by in Book Review, Christian Living, Ministry

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

,

In today’s mail my copy of Eddie Gibbs’ Churchmorph: How Megatrends Are Reshaping Christian Communities finally arrived. I ordered it for a directed study I am enrolled in this semester with Dr. Elaine Heath called “Spiritual Formation through Community.” I am really looking forward to working with Dr. Heath this semester, as I have already benefited from several previous conversations with her.

I want to share the following quote I just read from Gibbs’ book:

“Evangelization is not an end in itself, but rather an invitation to a life of discipleship. Unfortunately, discipleship has become an elitist concept, referring to those who are ‘really serious’ about their faith commitment. Much evangelization has focused on the decision itself to the neglect of the change of allegiance that such a decision entails. Addressing this disconnect entails first the need to address, as a matter of urgency, the challenge of undisciplined church members” (48).

Amen!

I particularly resonate with the unfortunate reality that discipleship has come to be seen as something for an elite few, rather than as the norm for every person who has received the gift of forgiveness and new birth through faith in Jesus Christ. I hope he says more!

(By the way: If you are not familiar with Elaine Heath’s work, you should check it out. Her books have been rolling off the presses over the last year! I am particularly excited about Longing for Spring: A New Vision for Wesleyan Community, which she co-authored with Scott Kisker. She has also recently published The Mystical Way of Evangelism: A Contemplative Vision for Christian Outreach. I am also looking forward to reading her work on Phoebe Palmer titled, Naked Faith: The Mystical Theology of Phoebe Palmer. Professor William J. Abraham writes in the Foreword to the book, “Elaine Heath’s work breaks extraordinary new ground in the interpretation of the theology of Phoebe Palmer… This is wonderfully accessible, ground-breaking scholarship on the great mystic of Methodism.“)

The Crisis of Cynical Younger Clergy?

28 Wednesday Oct 2009

Posted by in Christian Living, Life, Ministry

≈ 21 Comments

Tags

,

A recent conversation has continued resurfacing in my mind. The short version is that someone’s reaction to meeting a younger clergy person was that they seemed kind of cynical. The person who made this comment is someone who I find to be charitable and not quick to find fault with others. So, the comment stuck with me.

Since this very brief conversation, I have found myself wondering if that is a criticism that is too often true of younger clergy. As a younger clergy person, I know it has been true of myself at times. I am not sure why this is the case, but for many of us who are in our twenties and early thirties who are seminary students and pastors, we tend to be quicker to find problems than to look for solutions. And we tend to be contemptuous or scornful of those we disagree with.

Sometimes the conversations that leave me feeling the most drained and hopeless for the future of the church are with groups of younger clergy. And this is something that too often I have found to be true of younger clergy across the theological spectrum (I am referring here primarily to the younger United Methodist clergy I have interacted with). Sometimes it seems that what we primarily have in common is our age and our ability to see the negative in nearly any situation.

In some ways, this should not be all that surprising. We are the generation that has made the Daily Show and Steven Colbert our preferred news source. Both of these shows are satires that are dripping with sarcasm, and often seem to appeal to their audience based on a kind of “inside joke” mindset. In other words, you get these jokes and understand the hypocrisy, because you are smarter than the people Stewart and Colbert are talking about. (See, there I go being cynical and quick to find fault…)

However, my experience with younger clergy is not that we are all cynical all the time. (Of course I am painting with very broad brush strokes here. There are many clergy who are younger and do not fit the stereotype I am developing here.) Cynicism, it seems to me, comes out most clearly when groups of younger clergy come together. Though we can be very cynical in groups, every younger clergy person I have talked to is passionate about the church and has ideas for how to strengthen and improve it.

Ultimately, I don’t know why cynicism tends to be particularly pronounced when younger clergy come together in groups (and I may simply be wrong about this generalization). I wonder if part of it is that it is a collective expression of frustration that the church seems to be so desperate to have younger clergy, but then does not always seem to be very good stewards of the younger clergy that they do have. In other words, there may be some reason for cynicism. It can be difficult to hear people talk about the crisis of younger clergy and at the same time feel like nobody is noticing or listening to the younger clergy who are in the church.

However, the point of this post is not to justify cynicism among younger clergy. I am writing to challenge myself and any younger clergy who might read this to consider whether cynicism is a virtue, or whether we might want to consider trying to look at things in more positive and productive ways.

Going back to the beginning of this post, I think one of the reasons my friend’s comment has stayed with me is because I suspect that cynicism amongst younger clergy is more of a hindrance than an asset. I believe the church absolutely needs us to provide leadership. However, I also believe the church needs us to have hope in what God wants to do in the places that we are called to serve. There are certainly reasons to be dissatisfied, and I am not arguing that we should ignore or overlook problems. Instead, I am arguing that noticing problems should prompt us above all else to look for solutions.

In other words, I don’t believe that the gift that God has given this generation of younger clergy for the church is the gift of being able to point out problems with the church. Rather, I believe that our gift is to boldly look for solutions, with faith that God will provide. I have seen signs of younger clergy making positive contributions to the life of the church, and I know that we are just getting started. I hope and pray we will not be distracted by the reality that the church we are serving is not perfect. Instead of diagnosing what is wrong with the last step that the church took, or is taking, perhaps we can begin to seek to discern what the next step is.

What do you think?

Our Precious Heritage

13 Tuesday Oct 2009

Posted by in Christian Living, Methodist History, Sermons, Wesley

≈ Leave a comment

This past Sunday, October 11th, 2009, I was blessed to be able to preach at McFarlin United Methodist Church in Norman, Oklahoma. The text of that sermons follows:

Well, this morning there is good new and there is bad news. The bad news is, by my count, since becoming a full-time Ph.D. student, I have not preached a sermon in 68 weeks. Which is the longest amount of time I have gone without preaching, since I preached my first sermon about seven years ago. That means I’m probably a little bit rusty. And it means that you are faced with a preacher with a lot of ideas, who hasn’t had the opportunity to share them with a captive audience in a long time. But there is good news. The good news is that I have now found a captive audience, and you are it!

“Come, follow me.” These three words, it seems to me are at the heart of this morning’s Scripture reading. The difficulty is in deciding how we should understand these words, in light of all the other words that surround them in our passage from Scripture. In other words, the question that faces us is this: Should we hear Jesus’ words – “Come, follow me” – as good news or bad news? Are they an invitation or a command? Do they give us an opportunity, or do they reveal a threat?

If we are honest, many of these words sound like bad news, or a threat of evil things to come:

Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor.
The man’s face fell.
He went away sad…
How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!
With man this is impossible.

But then again, other parts seem like good news, which perhaps reveals the promise of a tremendous opportunity:

Jesus looked at him and loved him.
All things are possible with God.
No one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age and in the age to come, eternal life.

So, how should we understand Jesus’ words in this morning’s Scripture reading? Are they good news, or bad news?

It seems to me that if we are honest, people have come to different conclusions about this question.

Many have followed in the footsteps of the man in this story who asked “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” When he heard Jesus’ answer, “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” To him, this was received as bad news, like an unfair command. The cost of discipleship was simply too high. So, when he heard Jesus’ words, we are told that his “face fell.” And “he went away sad, because he had great wealth.”

In fact, it seems like the majority report may even be that this passage is bad news. In recent Christian history, it seems that most Christians, upon reading passages like this one, have asked, “Can Jesus really mean what he seems to mean?” And the answer is almost always no, he couldn’t have really meant that.

Like the Pharisees so often did when they interacted with Jesus, we look for ways to poke holes in the places where his words threaten us. We look for reasons to relativize or water down his statements. Sometimes the creativeness and ingenuity we bring to this task makes the Pharisees look like amateurs!

And yet throughout the history of the Church, there have also been many men and women who have had a very different reaction. Rather than seeing Jesus’ words as bad news and looking for a way out, they have focused on Jesus’ invitation – “Come, follow me.” For them, this has been such good news that they immediately followed.

In 1771 a 26 year old English traveling preacher heard Jesus’ call – “Come, follow me.” As a result, he said good bye to his mother and father and boarded a ship bound for the British Colonies in America. Over the next 45 years he travel a quarter of a million miles through the American wilderness, visiting nearly every state once a year. He stayed at approximately 10,000 households and preached 17,000 sermons.

At one point he contracted malaria and he was frequently ill as a result of having congestive heart failure and other ailments. His feet were often swollen, making it painful to even stand in order to preach. He may not have expected this, but as it turned out, he never left America. And as a result, he never saw his family again.

This man’s name was Francis Asbury, and with the possible exception of John Wesley, he is widely regarded as the most important figure in American Methodism. So, what could have possibly led him to go to such lengths? To sacrifice so much?

In 1771 on his way to America Asbury reflected in his journal about why he was going to America. He asked himself if he was going to gain honor? He answered, “No, if I know my own heart.” Was it to get money? He answered, “No.” So why was he going? He declared simply that he was going “to live to God, and to bring others so to do.”

As a result of his labors, one scholar has argued that Francis Asbury would have been the most recognized figure in America during his lifetime. In fact, Asbury’s British correspondents could address a letter simply as “Francis Asbury, America” and he would get it.

Asbury’s life was one of dedicated perseverance in his endeavors to follow Christ, wherever it would lead him and to invite others to do the same.

In many ways, Asbury was not remarkable. He was born into a pretty average family, he had a less than impressive education. And historians argue that he wasn’t even that great of a preacher, (which makes me feel a little bit better).

And yet more than 200 years later we are talking about him today. We have named churches and seminaries after him.

Why?

One way of understanding Francis Asbury’s importance is to consider the extent to which he faithfully followed Jesus. And, as Asbury revealed in his journal on his way to America, his goal was not just to faithfully follow Jesus, but to bring others to follow Christ as well.

And in many ways, this is the heritage that John Wesley, Francis Asbury, and our spiritual forebears have left to us. And their genius was that they did not just have ideas about how to follow Christ, but they actually had a plan for how they thought they could help bring these ideas into reality. They were certain that Christ’s invitation to “Come, follow me” was good news! They were convinced that there was no better direction that they could go in that in the direction that God was calling them.

And for John Wesley, who was the principle architect of Methodism, the goal was to share the message of Jesus’ invitation to “Come, follow me” with all the world. And so Wesley and the early Methodists preached a powerful message which sought to awaken people to the reality of their sins and their need for the grace of God. Wesley passionately believed that God’s offer of grace was made to all. And so Wesley and the Methodists often talked about the necessity of the new birth. (And in doing this, they were simply repeating Jesus’ words, when he said “you must be born again.”) But Wesley was not content to only lift up part of the message of Scripture. He sought to claim and proclaim the fullness of God’s offer of salvation.

Wesley believed that Christians are born again so that they can be cleansed from sin, so that they can be sanctified or made holy. As Wesley read and studied the Scriptures, he came to the conclusion that the goal of Jesus’ ministry was not just to save people from this life for the next life. Wesley’s study of Scripture led him to conclude that God wanted to forgive us and heal us.

In other words, when God finds us addicted and in chains to sins, Jesus most definitely offers us forgiveness from our sins. But he also offers us freedom from our sins. He wants to not only free us from the consequences of our sins, but he wants to free us for joyful obedience, service, and a life lived in the presence of God.

For some, this can be very hard to believe. We protest that we are not perfect, we all make mistakes. And this is certainly true. We do make mistakes. But Methodists do not believe that we have to do things that separate us from God. In fact, Methodists believe that God’s transforming grace is stronger, more powerful than our tendency to sin.

And if you think about it, the idea that God wants to save us not just from the consequences of our sin, but God also wants to free us from the power of sin, is not as strange as it may at first appear. Imagine if you went through the nightmare of watching your child become enslaved by an addiction to drugs or alcohol. Imagine living in fear that their addiction would cost them their life. Of course you would be willing to forgive your child for all the things that they had done that hurt you.

Now that I am a parent, I can’t imagine being in that situation. But I know if I were ever in that situation I would want to do so much more than to just forgive my child. I would do everything I possibly could to help them find freedom from their addiction. I would do anything and everything to help them to overcome what had them in chains, because for parents who are actually in this situation it can be a matter of life and death. Because forgiving someone who is a drug addict might not save their life, but helping them overcome their addiction could.

We would expect any parent to do whatever they could for their child if he or she were to become stuck in self-destructive lifestyles. If that is what we would expect of mothers and fathers, how much more should we expect this from our heavenly Father? How much more should we expect this of Jesus Christ? In Ephesians, after all, Paul invites us to try to “grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge.”

Methodists believe that God wants to do two things in our lives: God wants to forgive us of our past sins, and God wants to transform and heal us so that we are released from the power of sin. For Methodists God is always bigger and more powerful than sin.

Methodism’s approach to the Christian life did not stop at ideas. One of the driving passions of Francis Asbury’s ministry was to make sure that the Methodist approach to Christian living was kept in place and consistently practiced.

The early Methodists put tremendous time and energy into ensuring that Methodist discipline was preserved and practiced. (I will be talking more about that at this evening’s presentation.) The most important piece of early Methodist discipline was the weekly class meeting, which was a small group that met weekly to watch over one another in love. The key question was “How is it with your soul?” For many years, this institution was a basic requirement for membership. To be a Methodist, you had to be in a class meeting.

The combination of the Methodist belief in the power of God’s amazing grace and their disciplined approach to the Christian life was potent. Largely because of these two qualities Methodism in America went from being a tiny, little known sect in 1776 to the largest denomination, by far, in 1850.

One of the major reasons for this miracle seems to have simply been that people heard Jesus’ call on their lives as good news. To them it was a generous offer, a wonderful invitation. And so they followed. Many early Methodists followed Francis Asbury’s example and traveled throughout the American wilderness, spreading the gospel. Countless others followed Jesus, not out of their communities, but by living as deeply committed disciples right where they were. In every Methodist church women and men responded to Jesus’ invitation. Some became preachers, but many more became lay leaders in their churches, leading small groups where they checked on one another and did everything they could to “watch over one another in love.”

Our spiritual ancestors were men and women who loved each other so much that they refused to accept less than God’s very best for one another. They refused to settle for anything less than the radical, transforming love of God.

But this morning we are given a sobering reminder from the Scriptures that not all who hear the call of Jesus Christ to “come, follow me” respond with joy, or even obedience. Some reject it. Some have decided that they will not give up the joys of this life, no matter the cost. And they leave the presence of Christ with fallen faces and in despair. Some, like the young man in this morning’s Scripture reading, value money and affluence more than the riches and abundance of life with God in Christ. Others may have become apathetic, and it is difficult for them to believe that there can be anything more. These people hear the call of Christ as bad news.

But this is not our heritage as Methodists. Decline, apathy, and resignation are not in our spiritual DNA. I believe we can find hope when we look back and remember our heritage, when we remind ourselves of all those who have gone before us, who have responded to Christ’s call – even when it came at great personal cost.

So, what does God see when God looks at us today? When God examines our hearts? Does God see women and men who would walk away sad because of obstacles that keep them from being willing to follow Christ? Or does God see men and women who are seeking God’s call on their lives, expecting to hear it, and ready to come and follow?

The first Methodists were known to be people who responded to Christ’s call. And we are the ones who have been entrusted with this precious heritage. It is a heritage that provides plenty of examples both of the possibility of following Jesus and of the benefits.

Where are you at this morning?

Sometimes following where God is leading you can be difficult, even terrifying. We may even want to turn and run away. The obstacles may seem too great, too insurmountable, too impossible.

We may be tempted to ask, like the disciples asked Jesus, “Who then can be saved?” Who, when, when it comes at great cost, can really follow you?

When we ask this question, may Jesus’ words ring in our ears: “With people this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.”

Jesus is not asking us to first figure everything out and then come and follow. He is asking us to take one step closer. He is not asking us if we can see how the pieces fit together. He is asking us to take another step. He is not asking us to predict the future. He is asking us to move closer to his plan for our lives.

This morning, we are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses, many who spent their lives laying the foundation that we are now standing on. They have tasted and seen that the Lord is good. They know that there is nothing better than living for Christ. They know that Jesus came so that they might have live, and have it abundantly. And they know that Jesus came so that we might have abundant life. They know that it is a blessing, a privilege, and a joy to follow when Christ calls. And they want us to know, feel and experience that too.

Jesus has spoken three words. “Come, follow me.”

We have seen those who have gone before, and have chosen to follow.

And now it is our turn.

It is your turn.

Will you follow?