Our Precious Heritage

13 Tuesday Oct 2009

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

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?

One Thing Is Needful

18 Friday Sep 2009

Posted by Kevin M. Watson in Christian Living, Life, Methodist History, Ministry, Wesley

≈ 4 Comments

Try this mental exercise:

Imagine that an intelligent being, who had no previous experience with human beings or our world, were to observe human interactions and the way that we spend our time. What conclusions would that intelligent being come to about what is most important for human life, survival, and happiness?

Now imagine that the same intelligent being, instead of observing humanity in general, were to observe your life. What conclusions would this intelligent being come to about what is most important for your life, your survival, and your happiness?

One of my favorite sermons by John Wesley, “The One Thing Needful,” begins with this very mental exercise:

Could we suppose an intelligent being, entirely a stranger to the state of this world and its inhabitants, to take a view of their various enterprises and employments, and thence conjecture the end of their existence, he would surely conclude that these creatures were designed to be busied about many things. While he observed not only the infinite difference of the ends which different men were pursuing, but how vast a multitude of objects were successively pursued by almost every different person, he might fairly infer that for all these things were the sons of men placed upon the earth, even to gratify their several desires with sensual pleasure, or riches, or honour, or power. (I.1, p.34)

Wesley then notes “how surprised” this being would be “to hear their Creator declare to all, without distinction, ‘One thing is needful!’ But how much more when he knew that this one thing needful for me, their one business, the one end of their existence, was none of all those things which men were troubled about… Nay, that it was an end not only distinct from but contrary to them all – as contrary as light and darkness, heaven and hell, the kingdom of God and that of Satan!” (I.2, p.34)

The intelligent being, then, would assume that these people must have an infinite amount of time. In other words, they are not doing the “one thing needful” because they are guaranteed to have enough time to get to it. But Wesley wonders when this being realized that “all men were placed on a narrow, weak, tottering bridge, whereof either end was swallowed up in eternity…” how would it respond? He asks, “How would he express, how would he conceive the senselessness, the madness, of those creatures who, being in such a situation, could think of anything else, could talk of anything else, could do anything besides, could find time for any other design, or care, but that of ensuring the one thing needful!” (I.3, p.35)

So what is the one thing needful from Wesley’s perspective? He vividly describes it:

To recover our first estate, from which we are thus fallen, is the one thing now needful – to re-exchange the image of Satan for the image of God, bondage for freedom, sickness for health. Our one great business is to rase out of our souls the likeness of our destroyer, and to be born again, to be formed anew after the likeness of our Creator. It is our one concern to shake off this servile yoke and to regain our native freedom; to throw off every chain, every passion and desire that does not suit an angelical nature. The one work we have to do is to return from the gates of death to perfect soundness; to have our diseases cure, our wounds healed, and our uncleanness done away. (I.5, p. 36)

I find that this sermon is worth reading on a regular basis, because it so powerfully asks us if we have our priorities in check. Another way of getting at the same basic point that Wesley is making is that you can tell someone’s priorities by the way that they spend their time and their money.

Wesley believed that it was absolutely essential that God’s priorities were our priorities. And this was not just a platitude that he often repeated. As a result of his conviction that one thing is needful – being renewed and remade in the image of God – he used anything that he could find to help people constantly be reminded of what was most important. And so Wesley urged his followers to use the means of grace – to pray, read Scripture, receive Communion, and fast – and to watch over one another in love through various forms of communal practice. As many others have pointed out, the goal was not to create the ultimate bureaucracy, or to create anything for its own sake. Rather, the goal was to fan the flames that God had lit in people’s hearts and lives. The goal was to help every Methodist keep their eyes on God and to keep them attentive to nurturing and growing their relationship with God.

So, what conclusions would that “intelligent being” come to about what is most important in your life? Or for that matter, what do other people in your life think are most important in your life, based on the way that you are actually living?

It seems like we often think it is acceptable and normal to believe that our true priorities can’t be that easily seen. The idea is that if you want to know what my deepest priorities are, you would have to be able to talk to me and ask me, so I could explain them to you.

There may be some truth to this way of thinking. Convictions, ideas, and beliefs certainly do matter. But so does the way that we spend our lives. What are you spending your life on? What are you investing your life in? As we consider these questions, Wesley reminds us that there is only one thing that is needful.

How Can This Blog Help You Use Blueprint for Discipleship?

31 Monday Aug 2009

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

≈ 2 Comments

I have been considering different ways that this blog can be used as a further resource for those who are using A Blueprint for Discipleship: Wesley’s General Rules as a Guide to Christian Living in a small group setting this fall. I have considered a series that works through the book chapter by chapter. I have also wondered if it might be fruitful to accept questions from readers or group leaders and each week I could post a video response to the question. I am open to other possibilities as well.

If you will be using the book this fall, or if you have experience leading small group studies, how do you think this blog could best be used to make the experience that people who use the book have even better? I am very interested in your thoughts.

Surrendering the Legacy of Entire Sanctification

28 Friday Aug 2009

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

≈ 17 Comments

In The Holiness Revival of the Nineteenth Century, Melvin E. Dieter discusses the tension that developed as the holiness revival progressed amongst its Methodist adherents over “come-outism.” This term referred to Methodists who left (or came out of) Methodism to pursue a purer form of holiness fellowship or association. Dieter argued that there were many Methodists who were advocates of the importance of holiness and who felt that it was essential that this movement stay connected with Methodism. In fact, some seemed to have seen this connection as crucial to Methodism’s future vitality.

Dieter goes on to discuss a parallel debate within Methodism over whether entire sanctification was Wesleyan. According to Dieter, “critics of the revival often had charged that the preaching of the Christian perfection which became characteristic of the revival was un-Wesleyan because the context of American revivalism tended to create significant variations from Methodism’s standard teachings of the doctrine” (256).

Interestingly, though, this argument was actually not all that persuasive or effective. Dieter argues that the holiness movement was “so closely identified with traditional Methodism and Wesleyan doctrine and life that Methodist opponents of the revival were forced to distance themselves from Wesley and the standard authors of prevailing Methodist theology to resolve the struggle with the holiness elements within the church” (256). In other words, those who opposed the holiness revival recognized that they could not win the argument by appealing to Wesley’s authority, so they looked for other sources of authority, and even a new heritage.

The Methodist Episcopal Church and the Methodist Episcopal Church South, then, shifted strategies. Instead of looking back to their heritage and the tradition that they were living out of, they looked forward “to the new and greener pastures in more modern teachers and theologies” (256). And so Dieter argues:

The legacy of entire sanctification, with whatever modifications may have been made to it during the course of the American deeper life revival, was now being surrendered, in large part, to the holiness movement; it had become difficult for the tradition to survive within its original Methodist Episcopal Church and Methodist Episcopal Church South home. (256)

Oddly, or perhaps hopefully, the MEC and MECS did not entirely officially abandon its connection to the doctrine of entire sanctification. For example, this morning I verified that the historic examination questions for admission into Methodist ministry are included in every MEC Discipline from 1884 until union with the MECS and Methodist Protestant Church in 1939. These are the very questions that are asked today of every person who presents themselves for ordination in the United Methodist Church as an elder or deacon. The second, third, and fourth questions are: Are you going on to perfection? Do you expect to be made perfect in love in this life? Are you earnestly striving after it?

Yesterday, I asked the students in my United Methodist History class if any of them had ever heard a sermon preached on entire sanctification or christian perfection. Not one of the nineteen students present had. As United Methodists, we seem to be living in a strange tension. In many ways we seem to have surrendered the doctrine of entire sanctification to other Wesleyan holiness groups, while still officially holding to the teaching in our doctrine and Book of Discipline. Or perhaps we have not surrendered the doctrine, just our commitment to teaching and preaching it. Somewhere along the way the very thing that Wesley believed to be one of the very reasons God raised up the people called Methodists became an embarrassment to later generations of Methodists.

I wish more ordained United Methodists would become uncomfortable with the fact that they have publicly affirmed their commitment and expectation that, by God’s grace, they expect to be made perfect in love in this life. United Methodists should not become familiar with this teaching only if they go to seminary. It should be preached in every Methodist pulpit, as the result of every UM pastor’s wrestling with what Wesley did and did not mean by “perfection,” and their efforts to present this to their parishioners in a way that they can understand. May we reclaim this “grand depositum” that God has entrusted to those who faithfully live out of the Wesleyan heritage.

Campus Ministry

18 Tuesday Aug 2009

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

≈ 1 Comment

For those who are not either college students, or campus ministers, campus ministry can sometimes be easier to take for granted than to actively support. Yet, it seems to me that it would be very difficult for a committed Christian to make an argument that campus ministry is irrelevant or unimportant.

Ashlee Alley and Creighton Alexander have given us the opportunity to actively support United Methodist campus ministries through prayer. Yesterday began forty days of prayer for United Methodist campus ministries as they begin a new year of ministry with college students across the country.

You can read Ashlee’s post about it here.

You can find the prayers each day here, or follow them on twitter here.

Will you join me in praying for United Methodist campus ministries?

Strong Convictions of Sin: Earnestly Inquiring after a Savior

27 Monday Jul 2009

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

≈ 3 Comments

Saturday was a good mail day. The copies of volumes 2 and 3 of A History of Evangelicalism arrived (The Expansion of Evangelicalism: The Age of Wilberforce, More, Chalmers, and Finney, and The Dominance of Evangelicalism: The Age of Spurgeon and Moody). I was prepared to be let down by volume 2, because I enjoyed volume 1 so much, and volume 2 is not written by the same author (vol 1 is written by Mark Noll and vol 2 is writte by John Wolffe). However, I am really enjoying The Expansion of Evangelicalism. The purpose of this post, however, is not to review the book. It is to point to a thought that I had as I was reading the second chapter which describes revivals which occurred in Britain and the United States from 1790-1820.

Wolffe cites several primary sources that report the ways that folks experienced the revivals that they were a part of. As I was reading a few of these brief quotations, I began to feel as if I had read all of this before. Yet I knew I hadn’t, because Wolffe was writing about revival in a part of Britain (Scotland) that I have not studied much. (As Wolffe notes, the revivals in Scotland “owed nothing to Methodism which… remained a small movement with barely 1,000 members and did not expand at all during the 1790s” (53). Wolffe cites Alexander Stewart’s account of these revivals in Scotland:

“Seldom a week passed in which we did not see or hear of one, two, or three persons, brought under deep concern about their souls, accompanied with strong convictions of sin, and earnest enquiry after a Saviour” (54).

This process of becoming concerned about one’s spiritual state, then becoming convinced of one’s sin, seems to have led to “earnest enquiry after a Saviour.” Part of the reason this sounds familiar to me is because it does seem to be a common refrain for people who were describing the revivals of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. This was the language that they spoke. John Wesley used similar language in the “General Rules” when he wrote, “There is only one condition previously required in those who desire admission into these societies, ‘a desire to flee from the wrath to come, to be saved from their sins.'”

It seems to me that part of the reason that there were periods of revival in Britain and North America during this period was because there was general agreement on the basics of the Christian message, at least among those who were involved in the revivals. Traveling preachers who could not agree on other things, were able to agree that it was essential to wake people up to the reality of their standing before God and to lead them to sorrow for their present state. All of this was so that these preachers could point people to the hope of salvation, to the one who is both able and willing to save.

In public settings, from field preaching, to camp meetings, and other venues, there seems to have been a broad consensus and a deep passion for the importance of convincing people of the basic truth of this message. Historians have pointed to other factors that contributed to the potency of the evangelical revivals, but this seems, at least, to be one key factor.

Today, there seems to be broad consensus that renewal, even revival, would be a wonderful thing for United Methodism to experience. A difficult question facing United Methodists, however, may be: Are we able to agree on what the basic message is that we should hope to share with those who have not heard the good news? Indeed, it seems that we even sometimes disagree about whether or not we should even try to share our faith.

For those who yearn for renewed vitality in our denomination, we may have something to learn from our spiritual forebearers. They seem to have had passionate and convicted answers to these questions: Why is salvation important? What do I need to be saved from? What do I need to be saved for? How can I be saved? It seems to me that an important initial step to our efforts to find renewal and reverse the recent pattern of decline in our denomination will be to decide what our message to a broken and hurting world is and to share it with excitement, passion, and conviction.

Great Article at UM Portal

12 Friday Jun 2009

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

≈ 8 Comments

Thanks to Steve Manskar for drawing my attention to a wonderful article on the emergent movement and United Methodism at the United Methodist Portal. The article particularly highlights the difference between the missional focus of emergent as opposed to the attractional model of many churches which offer emergent worship as a way to attract a particular demographic.

The second half of the article makes a fantastic comparison between early Methodism and what is happening in some emergent settings. Taylor Burton-Edwards is a key voice in the article, discussing his understanding of what Wesley was doing in early Methodism and what seems to have potential for Methodism today.

There are some things in the article that seem to be a bit overstated. There is, for example, a quote from Burton-Edwards that Wesley was ‘absolutely horrible as a pastor.’ This is, of course, a very subjective claim that depends on what one considers to be the traits of a “horrible” or “magnificent” pastor. From the work that I have been doing for Dr. Ted Campbell on the next volume of Wesley’s Letters for the Bicentennial Edition of Wesley’s Works, I cannot help but be amazed at the sheer volume of Wesley’s correspondence. There were certainly times when he seemed to be very blunt and tactless. Yet, he also frequently encouraged people to continue doing the work God had called them to, and to continue moving toward holiness. My guess is that the stark contrast between “absolutely horrible” pastor and “tremendous community organizer” is more the result of editing for the article, than Burton-Edwards’ view of John Wesley.

The article also states:

Mr. Burton-Edwards believes the whole system began to bog down and lose its distinctive edge when Methodists started forming congregations in America in 1784. Wesley’s rules required active participation in both the class meeting and the society meeting. But by 1850, there were essentially no class meetings left in the church.

Again this doesn’t seem quite right. The time period that is identified is almost exactly the period when Methodism saw its most explosive and dramatic growth. While there do seem to be many different things going on during this period of seventy years, some of which led to the decline of Methodism – there also seems to have been something about the way in which American Methodists formed congregations in the last years of the 1700s that has some explanatory power for why Methodism grew at such an astonishing rate. This is simply a way of saying that it seems odd to say that Methodism lost its distinctive edge during the time that it was spreading throughout America. Despite this qualm, I think Burton-Edwards is onto something crucial when he points to the decline of the class meeting in the 19th century as a loss of something particularly distinctive of Methodist identity.

This article raises many interesting questions, and it provides intriguing answers to many of these questions that are worth exploring further. I am excited to see this kind of analysis by United Methodists and eagerly anticipate more from Burton-Edwards, David Reid (who wrote the article) and the UM Reporter.

(By the way, I would like to partially remedy one major oversight of the article. It mentions that Taylor Burton-Edwards has started a blog for emergent United Methodists, but it does not provide a url or a link to the blog. The blog is emergingumc and the url is http://emergingumc.blogspot.com. I would encourage you to go there and join in the conversation if these issues are of interest to you.)

Thoughts from Oklahoma Annual Conference

01 Monday Jun 2009

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

≈ 8 Comments

Annual Conference has occasionally been difficult for me to attend. I have sometimes been much too cynical and easily disillusioned. I have occasionally thought that we were like kids fascinated with the explosive power of fireworks when we are surrounded by dynamite.

This post, however, is not intended to be a lament. It is meant to be a testimony. Last week, I saw felt the Spirit of God at work throughout Annual Conference. I prayed during my drive to Annual Conference each morning. This was truly a means of grace for me. As a result, I arrived at Annual Conference each morning expecting to see God at work in some way during the day. Here are a few glimpses of where I saw God at work:

On Monday, I felt the privilege of being able to vote on those who would be commissioned and ordained at this Annual Conference. I was reminded of the blessing and responsibility that comes with being a member of the order of elders in ordained ministry in the United Methodist Church. I was also convicted by hearing the ordinands answer the same questions that I answered just last year. I was reminded that I made these same vows last year. And I was reminded that these vows are ongoing. We did not promise to do this until we were ordained. Rather, we took these vows as part of our entrance into ordained ministry with the expectation that we would uphold them as long as we are in this order. I found myself looking around and thinking about all the people at the clergy session who had previously made these vows, praying that we were all reminded of the promises we have made before God and one another.

(One slight suggestion: I love the questions about Christian perfection. We should not only keep them, but should take them more seriously. I think one way of more honestly answering these questions would be to respond “Yes, by the grace of God.” Rather than simply saying, “Yes.”)

On Tuesday I had dinner and a wonderful conversation with Brandon Blacksten. Brandon was in the youth group when I was working with the youth at McFarlin Memorial United Methodist Church when I was in college at the University of Oklahoma. He has just finished his first year of seminary at Vanderbilt and is a candidate for ordained ministry in the United Methodist Church. I will resist putting words in Brandon’s mouth, but I left our conversation refreshed and thankful for the interaction.

I was also very apprehensive about the debate about the proposed constitutional amendments. The actual discussion and debate, I thought, went very well. It seemed to me that people were trying to understand and love those who seemed to be on opposite sides of some of these issues. (I would also highly recommend the format that was used at our Annual Conference. We had round table discussions and spent about 15 minutes discussing the amendments – they were clustered into four groups. After the table discussions people were able to speak to the entire gathering for or against the amendments. We agreed to allow 3 one minute speeches in favor and 3 against each amendment. As I recall, only one amendment actually had three people speak for it and three against it – the amendment concerning membership that would affect paragraph 4 in the Book of Discipline. This format seemed to give everyone a chance to speak their mind, but also to avoid it becoming an unnecessarily polarizing and divisive occasion. The entire process took about two hours. I think this is as close as you could come to genuine Christian conference when there are 32 Constitutional Amendments under consideration. The folks who planned this discussion did a wonderful job.)

There were several other conversations that were means of grace to me. More than any Annual Conference I had previously been to, at this Annual Conference I was frequently part of conversations which challenged me, inspired me, gave me hope, and made me realize that there are many, many people in Oklahoma who I am thankful to be in ministry with.

If your Annual Conference is coming up and it is often a negative or neutral experience… I would encourage you to find a meaningful amount of time to pray each day. As obvious as this insight is, it had a profound impact on my Annual Conference experience. This does not mean that I have put my hope in the Annual Conference to save the United Methodist Church. But it does mean that I was reminded that God is still able to work within the United Methodist Church, just as God is still able to work without the United Methodist Church.

Doing is Harder than Knowing

18 Monday May 2009

Posted by Kevin M. Watson in Christian Living

≈ 1 Comment

In my recent article for the Covenant Discipleship Connection, I wrestled with a thought that I have had rattling around in my mind for awhile now: Doing is harder than knowing. This may seem obvious. But it seems to go against many of the experiences I have had in the church and the academy. From an early age I remember hearing things like, “knowledge is power.” Which like most cliches, has a good deal of truth to it. In church, the idea often seemed to be that the key to mature Christianity was mastering the content of the Bible.

Lest you misunderstand me, I am not suggesting that either reading the Bible or education are unimportant. What I am suggesting is that we sometimes overemphasize the importance of knowledge and underemphasize the importance of putting what we have learned into practice. This may be most obvious in Christianity. We often seem anxious to learn more about our faith, believing that the reason we are not “better” Christians is because we don’t know enough. We sometimes seem to think that the reason we are not more faithful is because we don’t know what faithfulness is.

And yet it seems to me that it is not all that difficult to know what faithfulness in the Christian life looks like. Jesus said that the greatest Commandment was to love God and neighbor. John Wesley outlined an approach to keeping these commandments known as the “General Rules.” In the General Rules, Wesley had three rules that he believed would guide Methodists towards deeply committed discipleship. First, those who want to love God and neighbor should do no harm. Second, they should do all the good that they can. And finally, they should attend upon the ordinances of God, or practice the means of grace. These practices are: praying, reading scripture, receiving the Lord’s Supper, fasting. Wesley also often talked about the importance of watching over one another in love for growth in the Christian life.

In many ways, that is what someone who is already a Christian needs to know about how to practice their faith. Knowing what to do is not all that hard. Doing this, however, is much more difficult.

Charles Wesley argued for the importance of “uniting… knowledge and vital piety.” This, it seems to me, is a key emphasis that Methodists ought to reclaim, and with a sense of urgency. The information that we give and receive in our churches, should always lead to transformation. The goal of the Christian life is not to know what to do. The goal of the Christian life is to allow ourselves to be transformed by God’s grace so that we do what we know we should – so that our beliefs are consistent with our actions.