Category Archives: Methodist History

Wesley Didn’t Say It: Do all the good you can, by all the means you can…

29 Monday Apr 2013

Posted by in Methodist History, Wesley

≈ 134 Comments

Tags

,

John Wesley, credit: Daniel X. O’Neil

“Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as ever you can.”

Wesley did not say this.

You may have seen this quote in a nice frame on the wall of a Methodist Church, or even published in a book, citing John Wesley as its author. (For example, it was cited in Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations.) Despite the persistence of the quote being attributed to John Wesley, you will not find in anywhere in his writing.

You can add this quote to other quotes that are stubbornly connected to John Wesley despite the fact that there is no source that connects them to Wesley’s pen. I have written about several other quotes misattributed to John Wesley:

“I set myself on fire and people come to watch me burn.”

“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and, in all things, charity.”

“Personal and social holiness“

“Holy conferencing“

“Be present at our table, Lord…“

There are many things I have come to appreciate about twitter, but one of the things that I find the most frustrating is the persistence of misquotes of historical figures. And due to my own area of specialization, misquoting John Wesley gets to me the most. Wesley and others were frequently misquoted before social media, but with the advent of twitter misquoting Wesley seems to be more regular. Wesley said enough interesting, surprising, and even controversial things that we should not need to attribute things to him that he did not actually say. Historical accuracy matters.

Do you want to know if Wesley did actually say something that is attributed to him? Check out Did Wesley Really Say That? (Here’s How to Find Out).

In any event, regarding this particular quote, there is no evidence that Wesley said this. We should stop saying that he did.

Kevin M. Watson teaches, writes, and preaches to empower community, discipleship, and stewardship of our heritage. Connect with Kevin. Get future posts emailed to you. This post was updated on April 25, 2020.

Coming Soon: Reclaiming the Class Meeting

18 Thursday Apr 2013

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

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

photo (8)If I had to pick one thing that I believe would be most likely to be used by the Holy Spirit to bring renewal to the church, it would be a return to the early Methodist class meeting.

And that is why I have finally gotten around to writing a book that is designed to introduce people to what a class meeting is and to help create and sustain these groups. I have just submitted my manuscript and am excited to see this book in print.

Class meetings were groups of seven to twelve people who gathered together to discuss the state of their relationship with God. The question used in the eighteenth-century was, “How does your soul prosper?” Today it might be translated, “How is your life in God?” Regardless of how the question is phrased, the most important thing is that the group is focused on each person’s relationship with God.

In my experience, when people want to grow in their faith, they typically assume that they need to know more. The problem of a lack of formation is often perceived to be a lack of information. I agree that all of us could stand to learn more about our faith and there is a key role for catechesis.

However, following Jesus is ultimately a way of life, not a body of knowledge about him. Too often, Christians do not practice what they do know.

The key contribution that the early Methodist class meeting would make for contemporary Christianity is that it would help people learn to look for encounters with God in every part of their life. They have the potential to help Christians learn to interpret every part of their lives through the lens of the gospel.

Above all else, contemporary Christianity needs Christians who are Christian not in name only, but women and men who are passionate and confident in their faith in Christ and who can speak to the ways that they have seen and experienced God’s work in their lives and in the lives of others.

I believe that the Holy Spirit wants to use this form of communal Christian formation once again to help people have an active faith in Christ, not merely a passive intellectual faith. And I believe that if this practice were to be reclaimed, it would be used by the Spirit to bring renewal.

If you are interested in reclaiming the class meeting in your faith community, stay tuned! I will update the progress and availability of the book here and on twitter (@kevinwatson).

If you’d like to read more about the class meeting, check out the series of posts I wrote here.

Recent Wesleyan/Methodist Scholarship

04 Thursday Apr 2013

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

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, ,

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

New Releases:

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

From the book description:

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

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

From the book description:

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

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

Read my recent review here. From the book description:

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

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

From the book description:

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

Coming Soon:

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

From the Book Description:

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

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

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

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

From the book description:

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

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

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

Key United Methodist Beliefs

27 Wednesday Mar 2013

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

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , ,

“Belief matters.”

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

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

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

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

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

After the simple affirmation that belief matters, they continue:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Mis)Understanding Wesley’s Catholic Spirit

26 Thursday Jul 2012

Posted by in Christian Living, Methodist History, Wesley

≈ 25 Comments

Tags

“Though we can’t think alike, may we not love alike?”

This phrase is one of the most frequently cited and most frequently misused quotes by United Methodists. The phrase is typically used to argue that doctrinal agreement is unimportant compared to loving one another. It is the go-to quote for Methodists who argue that Wesley was not interested in correct beliefs. However, I am convinced that most people who use this quote have not actually read much of John Wesley, much less this sermon.

Consider for example the following quote from Wesley at the end of the sermon when he is describing what a “catholic spirit” is and is not. “It is not an indifference to all opinions. This is the spawn of hell, not the offspring of heaven. This unsettledness of thought… is a great curse, not a blessing; an irreconcilable enemy, not a friend, to true Catholicism.”

The confusion surrounding this sermon is understandable, because in the introduction to the sermon Wesley does say that differences of opinion or belief should never prevent Christians from loving one another. Here is the entire paragraph the well-worn quote is found within:

But although a difference in opinions or modes of worship may prevent an entire external union, yet need it prevent our union in affection? Though we can’t think alike, may we not love alike? May we not be of one heart, though we are not of one opinion? Without all doubt we may. Herein all the children of God may unite, notwithstanding these smaller differences. These remaining as they are, they may forward one another in love and in good works.

Wesley then frames the rest of the sermon around the brief exchange between Jehu and Jehonadab in 2 Kings 10:15. Wesley wrote: “The text naturally divides itself into two parts. First a question proposed by Jehu to Jehonadab, ‘Is thine heart right, as my heart is with thy heart?’ Secondly, an offer made on Jehonadab’s answering, ‘It is.’ – If it be, give me thine hand.’”

In answering the first question, “Is thine heart right, as my heart is with thy heart?” Wesley argues that differences of opinion are unavoidable. More interestingly, he argues that everyone thinks all of their opinions are true, but also knows that he is likely wrong about some of the things that he believes, “He knows in the general that he himself is mistaken; although in what particulars he mistakes he does not, perhaps cannot, know.” In essence, Wesley is arguing for epistemic humility. He wants people to acknowledge that as strongly as they hold their opinions, they could be wrong.

Wesley then turns to the various ways that people worship God. Wesley argues that, “everyone must follow the dictates of his own conscience in simplicity and godly sincerity.” And again, Wesley argues for a tolerance of a diversity of practice when it comes to different denominations, and different practices of the sacrament.

Then, Wesley asks “what should a follower of Christ understand” when he is asked “is thy heart right with God?” Then, for more than two pages Wesley asks questions that must all be answered affirmatively in order to receive the endorsement “thy heart is right, as my heart is with thy heart.” Here are a few of the questions Wesley asks:

Is thy heart right with God? Dost thou believe his being, and his perfections? His eternity, immensity, wisdom, power; his justice, mercy, and truth?

And that he governs even the most minute, even the most noxious, to his own glory, and the good of them that love him?

Dost thou believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, ‘God over all, blessed for ever’? Is he ‘revealed in’ thy soul?
Is he ‘formed in thy heart by faith?’

“Having absolutely disclaimed all thy own works, thy own righteousness, hast thou ‘submitted thyself unto the righteousness of God’, ‘which is by faith in Christ Jesus’?

Is God the centre of thy soul? The sum of all thy desires?

Art thou more afraid of displeasing God than either of death or hell? Is nothing so terrible to thee as the thought of ‘offending the eyes of his glory’? Upon this ground dost thou ‘hate all evil ways’, every transgression of his holy and perfect law?

The list of questions continues. Here, there are two things to notice. 1) Wesley is not dismissing either the importance of beliefs or of action. He actually seems very concerned to vet the person he is considering joining hands with, asking them a litany of questions. He is not shrugging his shoulders and saying, “I guess your truth is just different than my truth.” 2) The list of questions is filled with doctrinal assumptions! Among other things, the questions about the first person of the Trinity ask the person to affirm the classical understanding of the perfections of God. The questions about Jesus require the person to affirm the divinity of Christ, the necessity of justification by faith, and the new birth. There is at least an implicit affirmation of original sin and there is an assumption of agreement on hating sin and being determined to avoid transgression of his holy and perfect law.

People often read this sermon to suggest that Wesley thinks people with different understandings of sin should just agree to love each other. I’m not sure that pays sufficient attention to what Wesley is actually saying in this sermon. Another way of saying this is that I don’t think Wesley’s understanding of “opinions” would have included disagreements about sin. Wesley was a man of his time and thought that sin was clearly spelled out in scripture.

Wesley then shifts his attention to what it means to join hands. For him it is not pretending to embrace one another’s opinions or modes of worship. Rather, “Hold you fast that which you believe is most acceptable to God, and I will do the same.”

Here is how Wesley describes joining hands. Wesley expects someone who joins hands with him to:

Love him “as a friend that is closer than a brother; as a brother in Christ.” He further asks, “Love me with the love that ‘covereth all things’, that never reveals either my faults or infirmities; that ‘believeth all things’, is always willing to think the best, to put the fairest construction on all my words and actions…”

Pray for him.

Provoke him to love and good works. In this Wesley includes, “O speak and spare not, whatever thou believest may conduce either to the amending my faults, the strengthening my weakness, the building me up in love, or the making me more fit in any kind for the Master’s use.”

Love him not in word only, but in deed and in truth.

Finally, Wesley turns his attention in the last part of the sermon to his understanding of a “catholic spirit.” Interesting he begins, “There is scarce any expression which has been more grossly misunderstood and more dangerously misapplied than this.” He then offers three statements of what a catholic spirit is not.

First, it is not “speculative latitudinarianism”, an eighteenth century term that referred to “an indifference to all opinions.” For Wesley, this is “the spawn of hell, not the offspring of heaven… an irreconcilable enemy, not a friend, to true catholicism. He continues:

Observe this, you who know not what spirit ye are of, who call yourselves men of a catholic spirit only because you are of a muddy understanding; because your mind is all in a mist; because you have no settled, consistent principles, but are for jumbling all opinions together. Be convinced that you have quite missed your way: you know not where you are. You think you are got into the very spirit of Christ, when in truth you are nearer the spirit of antichrist. God first and learn the first elements of the gospel of Christ, and then shall you learn to be of a truly catholic spirit.

Second, a catholic spirit is not “practical latitudinarianism” or an indifference to public worship and the way it is conducted.

Third, a catholic spirit is not “indifference to all congregations.”

There are many different directions that one could go in from here. I suspect I have already largely exhausted my allotment of words that most of you want to read, so I’ll try to wrap up with a few brief observations:

1) Wesley is making the case for charity and a hermeneutic of generosity towards others. He is realistic in his acknowledgement that people will not agree about everything. I also suspect that he takes the call to love one another more seriously than most people who appeal to this sermon do. (I.e., do we really love those we disagree with like they are our brothers and sisters, or best friends? Do we spend serious time on our knees in prayer for them, begging God to bless them and pour himself into their lives in new ways?) The sermon reminds me of the room for growth I have in loving those with whom I disagree. And it reminds me that it takes work, it is not something to merely be vaguely affirmed.

2) I don’t think this sermon supports the “Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors” motto that some love and some love to hate. Saying that Wesley is arguing for open-mindedness in this sermon is much too simplistic. He is actually saying that Christians should be close-minded in their own beliefs, but generous and charitable with those with whom they disagree. Put differently, Wesley is arguing for certainty in the specifics of one’s faith that comes from careful thought and examination of the options and not a devaluing of the role of doctrine in order to have a bigger tent.

3) Speaking of big tents. My reading of this sermon is that Wesley would find a big tent vision for Methodism a liability and not an asset. For example, when he acknowledges disagreements about the sacraments, he does not seem to me to be arguing that the folks who disagree should try to worship in the same church. On the contrary, he seems to assume that they would not be a part of the same faith community, but they could still be a part of the church catholic. It makes me wonder if Wesley might view our experiment at unity within diversity as an attempt for one church to be the whole church catholic and if he might think that attempt itself lacked both humility and sense, particularly because we are so obviously not a full expression of the church catholic. A cursory reading of Wesley’s letters, for example, will provide multiple examples of Wesley defining which beliefs are acceptable within the movement he was the leader of and which ones meant that mutual cooperation was no longer possible. Wesley regularly enforced doctrinal/dogmatic uniformity among early Methodist preachers.

Ultimately, while it is probably technically true that contemporary Methodists do believe just about anything, I do not think one can use this sermon as justification for either deemphasizing doctrinal commitments or for a community of faith that lacks clarity about what its own vision for what faithfulness looks like.

(You can read the full text of Wesley’s sermon “Catholic Spirit” here.)

Kevin M. Watson teaches, writes, and preaches to empower community, discipleship, and stewardship of our heritage. Connect with Kevin. Get future posts emailed to you.

Online Class Meetings

25 Wednesday Jul 2012

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

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conducting an online class meeting:

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

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

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

Peter Cartwright on Class Meetings

10 Tuesday Apr 2012

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

,

The following extended quote is from The Autobiography of Peter Cartwright. Cartwright was a nineteenth century Methodist and politician in Illinois. (He ran against Abraham Lincoln for a seat in the US Congress in 1846, and lost.) Towards the end of his autobiography, Cartwright reflected on the importance of the class meeting for American Methodism. His account reveals not only his sense of the significance of the class meeting for nineteenth century American Methodism, but also the key emphases of the class meeting.

Class-meetings have been owned and blessed of God in the Methodist Episcopal Church, and from more than fifty years’ experience, I doubt whether any one means of grace has proved as successful in building up the Methodist Church as this blessed privilege. For many years we kept them with closed doors, and suffered none to remain in class-meeting more than twice or thrice unless they signified a desire to join the Church. In these class-meetings the weak have been made strong; the bowed down have been raised up; the tempted have found delivering grace; the doubting mind has had all its doubts and fears removed, and the whole class have found that this was ‘none other than the house of God, and the gate of heaven.’ Here the hard heart has been tendered, the cold heart warmed with holy fire; here the dark mind, beclouded with trial and temptation, has had every cloud rolled away, and the sun of righteousness has risen with resplendent glory, ‘with healing in his wings;’ and in these class-meetings many seekers of religion have found them the spiritual birthplace of their souls into the heavenly family, and their dead souls made alive to God.

Every Christian that enjoys religion, and that desires to feel its mighty comforts, if he understands the nature of them really, loves them and wishes to attend them. But how sadly are these class-meetings neglected in the Methodist Episcopal Church. Are there not thousands of our members who habitually neglect to attend them, and is it any wonder that so many of our members grow cold and careless in religion, and finally backslide? Is it not for the want of enforcing our rules on class-meetings that their usefulness is destroyed? Are there not a great many worldly-minded, proud, fashionable members of our Church, who merely have the name of Methodist, that are constantly crying out and pleading that attendance on class-meetings should not be a test of membership in the Church? And now, before God, are not many of our preachers at fault in this matter? they neglect to meet the classes themselves, and they keep many class-leaders in office that will not attend to their duty; and is it not fearful to see our preachers so neglectful of their duty in dealing with the thousands of our delinquent members who stay away from class-meetings weeks, months, and for years? Just as sure as our preachers neglect their duty in enforcing the rules on class-meetings on our leaders and members, just so sure the power of religion will be lost in the Methodist Episcopal Church.O for faithful, holy preachers, and faithful, holy class-leaders! Then we shall have faithful, holy members. May the time never come when class-meetings shall be laid aside in the Methodist Episcopal Church, or when these class-meetings, or an attendance on them, shall cease to be a test of membership among us. I beg and beseech class-leaders to be punctual in attending their classes, and if any of their members stay away from any cause, hunt them up, find out the cause of their absence, pray with them and urge them to the all-important duty of regularly attending class-meeting. Much, very much, depends on faithful and religious class-leaders; and how will the unfaithful class-leader stand in the judgment of the great day, when by his neglect many of his members will have backslidden, and will be finally lost?

(Source: The Autobiography of Peter Cartwright. (New York: Carlton and Porter, 1857), 519-520)

The Class Meeting and Covenant Discipleship

02 Monday Apr 2012

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

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

,

As readers of this blog and other pieces I have written are aware, I see the early Methodist class meeting as not only an ancient relic of days or yore, but as a practice that can and should be reclaimed by Wesleyans (and so does the seminary where I teach, where all students participate in a class meeting during their first year). There is one piece of this that comes up frequently in conversations about reclaiming the class meeting that I have not yet directly addressed – the relationship between the early Methodist class meeting and Covenant Discipleship (CD). I believe that there are some important differences between the class meeting and CD. Yet, I have been hesitant to speak directly to the similarities and differences between the class meeting and CD for several reasons.

First, I am a big fan of David Lowes Watson’s work. In many ways, I am standing on his shoulders. The renewed interest in the class meeting is largely a product of the time and energy he has invested as a scholar and a churchman in describing the class meeting, and in seeking to find ways to help contemporary Wesleyans reclaim this practice. His Early Methodist Class Meeting remains the standard book on the class meeting in early Methodism. And his vision for CD groups remains the most constructive proposal for how people can be equipped to return to a form of accountable discipleship (Steve Manskar also has a great book by that name and is doing wonderful things to keep Wesleyan discipleship before the broader UMC). In countless conversations I have had about the class meeting, people have spoken of their participation in CD groups and the valuable role they have played in their lives.

I am also hesitant to critique CD, because I think it is valuable. I am not interested in being seen as someone who is an opponent of CD. The differences that I see between CD and the class meeting are not serious objections or major flaws to CD itself. In other words, I am glad that people participate in CD groups. Further, I don’t want to fall into the trap of doing nothing because it isn’t perfect or exactly the way that I would do it.

CD almost always comes up in conversations about reclaiming the class meeting, particularly in several recent conversations I have had. I do have some concerns about how easily people assume that the two are synonymous. Because of my interest in reclaiming the classing meeting, I have decided it is time to spell out my concerns about CD as a contemporary version of the class meeting. Nevertheless, I want to stress that I offer this as a sympathetic critique.

I attended Wesley Theological Seminary in from 2002 – 2005. During my first year as a student at Wesley, we were required to participate in a weekly CD group. We were also required to form a weekly CD group as a part of our field education/internship experience in our second and third years. These experiences were generally positive for me, particularly the group that I was a part of during my internship. However, as I began to study the class meeting in its own rite, I increasingly began to feel a sense of unease about the assumption that CD was the same thing as the class meeting.

My sense is that a major assumption that went into the development of CD was that the General Rules functioned as a clear structure or guideline for the time that was spent in the class meeting. In other words, the content of the class meeting looked something like each person in the meeting being asked whether they had avoided doing harm, had done all the good that they could, and had practiced the means of grace. If this were the primary activity of the class meeting, CD would be a fantastic translation of the class meeting that provides a practical acknowledgment that the contemporary UMC is so diverse theologically that there is no longer an agreed upon list of sins that should be avoided (i.e., we no longer agree on what should be included under the first General Rule). A major positive of CD is that it allows individual groups to create a customized list of General Rules. It helps groups to reclaim a rule of life. And this is a valuable thing to reclaim!

However, I do not believe that the General Rules provided the major structure for the early Methodist class meeting. My sense is that they were in the background and that people were clearly expected to keep them, and would be called out if they were clearly violating one of the General Rules. But I do not think the major activity of the class meeting was giving an account of how you had kept the General Rules in the past week, which I take to be the main function of CD. Rather, I think the major activity of the class meeting was answering the question that is listed in the General Rules itself, to talk about one’s experience of God, how one’s “soul prospers.”

The General Rules begin with a description of people who came to John Wesley “deeply convinced of sin” and “earnestly groaning for redemption.” As Wesley began to meet with this group, and it began to grow, the first “United Society” was formed in London. These societies consisted of people “having the form and seeking the power of godliness, united… that they may help each other to work out their salvation.”

The class meeting, according to Wesley in the General Rules, arose in order to “more easily” keep track of whether people in the societies “are indeed working out their own salvation.” And class leaders, again, according to the General Rules, were to meet with the people in their classes each week in order to do three key things:

“1. To inquire how their souls prosper.
2. To advise, reprove, comfort or exhort, as occasion may require.
3. To receive what they are willing to give toward the relief of the preachers, church, and poor.”

This list suggests to me that the primary activity of the class meeting was conversation about the state of each person’s life with God. Wesley’s narration of the beginnings of the United Societies is filled with language that points to the search for a direct experience of God being one of the key emphases of early Methodism in general, and of the class meeting in particular.

To put this differently, I think CD can much more plausibly be viewed as a contemporary adaptation of the Anglican Religious Societies for the 21st century, than the Methodist class meetings. The Religious Societies would come up with a list of rules that they would commit to keep and be accountable to, just as in CD. In the class meeting, one was accountable to the General Rules, but this was in the background and only came to the foreground if there was a pressing reason for this to happen (like someone violating one of the rules).

I became more convinced of the difference between CD and the early Methodist class meeting when I began formally studying the popular Methodist experience of communal formation as a PhD student. To the best of my memory, I do not recall ever reading an account of a class meeting that stated explicitly, or suggested that the rhythm of the class meeting was taking turns discussing the member’s faithfulness to the General Rules. There were examples of people being asked if they were keeping the means of grace, etc. However, these questions were part of a broader conversation that centered on the search for an experience of justification by faith and the witness of the Spirit of one’s adoption as a child of God. The overwhelming sense I had after reading popular Methodist accounts at the Methodist Archives was that people were desperately seeking an encounter with the living God.

Ultimately, I think there is a serious mistake that comes in equating CD with the class meeting. CD is focused on a covenant that you and the group are held accountable to. Unless my experience in these groups was a complete aberration, (and my reading of texts about CD was way off base), a person who is involved in a CD group will not necessarily ever be asked about how they are doing in their walk with God. Based on the way it is conceived, it would seem that CD itself could become yet another way of insulating ourselves from asking difficult questions about what is actually happening in our lives with God. (I’m not saying that this is what typically, or even frequently, actually happens in CD groups.) Based on the way CD is designed, it would seem to be possible to do all of the things in a CD covenant and not grow in your love and knowledge of God, or even have someone ask you about this vital aspect of your life.

Someone recently said to me that it is very difficult for many contemporary Methodists to know where to start in answering a question like, “How is it with your soul?” I think this person is right. We have largely lost the language for speaking of a living breathing relationship with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It was suggested that CD could be a way of backing into these kinds of conversations. I think that is possible, and I know many people who would testify that their relationship with God is stronger because of their involvement in CD. However, I think most people avoid conversations that are uncomfortable or feel risky, rather than accidentally stumbling into them.

Ultimately, I think Covenant Discipleship does more work than is necessary. It is more complicated than it needs to be. I do not see a reason why the class meeting cannot be picked back up as it was generally left off (well, historians could do some needed quibbling here). There is no reason why people who want to be faithful Christians cannot begin to gather together in small groups to talk about how things are going in their lives as followers of Jesus Christ, to support each other and to encourage each other to grow in grace.

I think the best way to reclaim the language of a lived experience of God is by trying to speak it, even if by fits and starts. Ultimately, reclaiming the early Methodist class meeting may be scary and intimidating, but it does not need to be complicated.

What do you think?

On the Class Meeting

27 Tuesday Mar 2012

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

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

,

I recently wrote a post for Seedbed on “How to Reclaim Wesleyan Class Meetings.” Check it out if you are interested.

For those of you who are finding your way to my blog for the first time because of the Seedbed article – Welcome!

A year and a half ago I wrote a series of posts on the Wesleyan Class Meeting for the 21st century that may be of interest to Seedbed readers who want to learn more. For convenience, here are the titles of the posts in that series:

1. The Origin and Development of the Class Meeting.
2. The Potential Contribution of the Class Meeting for 21st c. Wesleyans/Methodists.
3. The Target Audience of Class Meetings.
4. Top Ten Ways to Guarantee Your Class Meeting Will Fail (Intended to be humorous).
5. Is the Class Meeting too Judgmental and Exclusive?
6. The Role of the Class Leader.

A good friend of mine from Munger Place, a church plant from Highland Park UMC in east Dallas, described his experience being a contemporary class leader in an excellent and insightful series of posts that gives a valuable perspective into the lay experience of the class meeting. His posts can be found here:

1. My experience with classes and the role being in a small group has played in my faith journey.
2. The impact leading a class meeting has had on my Christian faith.
3. The impact of classes on my church.
4. The potential impact of class meetings on The UMC.

Finally, I have received questions in various online forums about the difference between the early Methodist class meeting and contemporary Covenant Discipleship groups. I am working on a post to describe the similarities and differences of these two groups as I see them.

As always, if you would like to subscribe to this blog and automatically receive future posts, you can subscribe by email by clicking here or in a reader by clicking here.

Love Feast

16 Friday Mar 2012

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

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

,

On February 18, 1750 John Wesley wrote in his Journal:

“Today, likewise, wherever we assembled together, God caused his power to be known, but particularly at the love-feast. The honest simplicity with which several spoke, in declaring the manner of God’s dealings with them, set the hearts of others on fire, and the flame spread more and more, till, having stayed near an hour longer than usual, we were constrained to part.” (Works 20:321)

Recently, I have been experiencing the way that God does seem to cause his power to be known when people speak with “honest simplicity” about the ways they have experienced God’s work in their lives. Yesterday, I was able to be a part of a love feast with Seattle Pacific Seminary students. We took an hour and a half in the middle of finals to share some light food and talk about how we have experienced God over the past few months.

The best part was that Wesley’s testimony to the power of the love feast in the above account came to life for me in a new way. As we shared with each other, I gained an experiential understanding of what the early Methodists experienced at this love feast when the Holy Spirit “set the hearts of others on fire, and the flame spread more and more.” And I think all of us left feeling like we had been renewed by our encounter with the living God.

In fact, I have been experiencing God’s presence in my life in new ways over the last month or so. I have been blessed several times in the last month with a tangible experience of God’s presence as I have been a part of conversations where people spoke with honesty and simplicity about “the manner of God’s dealings with them.” I have left each of these conversations with a deeper awareness of God’s goodness and his steadfast love for me.

Through these conversations I have experienced my own brokenness more deeply than ever and my deep need for the healing that only God can bring. In one conversation, a dear friend reminded me of two qualities of God: gentle and jealous. I was reminded that God is gentle, that he is so tender and careful with us. God loves us deeply and perfectly at every single moment of our lives. He has never been disappointed in us.

And yet he is jealous. God wants all of us. He wants us to be wholly given to him and the purposes that he has for our lives.

This is why, as I tweeted a few days ago, I still believe entire sanctification is the grand depositum that God has given to the people called Methodist. The gospel is the good news of what God has done for us in Jesus Christ through the crucifixion and the resurrection. Christianity is the promise of salvation, of healing, of rescue to the broken, the hurting, the perishing. But just like the church cannot get to Easter Sunday without Good Friday, we cannot get to the hope for new life in Jesus Christ without recognizing our own brokenness. We cannot save ourselves, we need a savior. And thanks be to God, we are offered salvation through the person and work of Jesus.

I am convinced that the fullness of the gospel is not only hope for life after death. The fullness of the gospel is not a few strategies for improving your life at work or at home. And though I love The United Methodist Church and desperately want it to have a future that is filled with God’s presence, the fullness of the gospel is not survival.

The fullness of the gospel is that at every point of need in our lives God has already acted to meet the need. The fullness of the gospel is that salvation is freely offered to every single person. The fullness of the gospel is that sin is no longer necessary, because the Great Physician is ready to heal us of all that is not in accordance with his purposes. The fullness of the gospel is that we can experience forgiveness for all that we have done that we should not have done and that we can actually live the kind of life that God created us to live.

When I was in high school I read a quote by Henry David Thoreau that has haunted me every since I first read it, “The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.” I think Thoreau is probably right. This would be very bad news, if this were all there news there is. But thanks be to God it isn’t. The good news is that we do not need to live lives of quiet desperation, it is not necessary or inevitable. We can live fully and obediently in God’s presence today!

As Paul says in a moving passage at the end of Romans 8, “I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Rom 8:38)

Anything contrary to God’s purposes in our lives is no longer necessary. Which is not to say that it no longer has a hold on our lives. We cannot release ourselves. But God can and thanks be to God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit that he is both able and willing.

These are some of the ways my heart has been set on fire as I have heard others share God’s “manner of dealing with them.” Thanks be to God for love feasts!