Category Archives: Methodist History

The Methodist Class Meeting for the 21st Century

29 Thursday Jul 2010

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

≈ 14 Comments

Tags

, , ,

Recently, I have had several opportunities to speak at churches about Wesleyan small groups. I have been encouraged by the desire that many pastors and laity have had to start something like a class meeting. On several occasions I have had further conversations with people about what it might look like for them to actually begin a class meeting. A common refrain I have heard when I have talked about the Wesleyan method for making disciples of Jesus Christ has been something like, “This all sounds great, but how would you actually do this today?”

Based on the things that people have said to me, I have been surprised at how easy it has been to convince people that the class meeting was of vital importance to the success of early Methodism. Rather than doubting the value of the class meeting, people seem to want concrete guidance on the steps to reclaiming this practice.

In light of this, I am going to write a series of posts called, The Methodist Class Meeting for the 21st century. This series will focus on topics such as: What were the nuts and bolts of the early Methodist class meeting? What are the primary obstacles to starting something like a class meeting? What ingredients are necessary for starting a healthy class meeting? How do you start a class meeting? How do you maintain the vitality of an established class meeting?

I also want to solicit your questions. Are there questions that you have about class meetings? I welcome both historical and practical questions. Feel free to either leave your questions as a comment on this post, or email me directly at deeplycommitted at gmail dot com.

I look forward to the conversation.

Can You Help?

13 Tuesday Jul 2010

Posted by in Methodist History, Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

I am working on a paper I will give at the upcoming meeting of the American Academy of Religion. The title of the paper is, “In the Shadows of Segregation: Methodist Seminaries and the Civil Rights Movement.”

I am generally focusing on Wesley Theological Seminary, Boston University, and Perkins School of Theology. One of the things I am trying to do in this paper is to talk to as many people as possible who were at these three institutions during the Civil Rights era, either as students or faculty/staff.

Here is where you can help: Do you know someone who was at one of these institutions during this period who would be willing to talk with me about their experience? If so, I would be grateful if you would contact me and let me know who the person is I should contact, what institution they were at and how they were involved in issues related to Civil Rights, as well as how I can get in contact with them.

You can email me directly at deeplycommitted at gmail dot com.

The paper is off to a good start. In fact, I had a great conversation with Dr. Phil Wogaman today who was at BU as both a Masters and PhD student in the mid to late 50s and then was subsequently on the faculty at Wesley in the mid 60s, becoming the academic dean in 1972. I am soliciting your help because you may have a connection or know something that I have missed so far. I figure this is just one more way I can cover as many angles as possible.

Empowering and Equipping Laity

22 Tuesday Jun 2010

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

≈ 10 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Expansion of Methodism in the early 19th c.

15 Tuesday Jun 2010

Posted by in Book Review, Methodist History

≈ 9 Comments

Tags

,

The explosive growth of Methodism in the early 1800s always fascinates and amazes me. In America’s God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln, Mark A. Noll argues that “the central religious reality for the period from the Revolution to the Civil War was the unprecedented expansion of evangelical Protestant Christianity. No other period of American history ever witnessed such a dramatic rise in religious adherence and corresponding religious influence on the broader national culture” (165-66). Noll further argues that this expansion was unprecedented and there was no reason why it should have been expected.

Within this remarkable growth, Noll finds that “the expansion of the Methodists requires special notice” (168). In 1813, a few years before Francis Asbury’s death, Methodist records indicate that there were 171,448 white and 42,850 African-American members in ‘full society’ served by 678 preachers. At this time there were also about 7,000 class meetings. Each class meeting was presided over by a class leader, which was a local layperson. To give a further idea of a) the seriousness with which Methodists held to their requirements for membership at this time; and b) the broad influence of Methodism, about one million people attended Methodist camp meetings each year. In other words, more than five times as many people went to these camp meetings each year than were full members of the Methodist Episcopal Church.

Noll concludes: “From nowhere, in a period of very rapid general growth in church affiliation and over a remarkably short span, Methodism had become the most pervasive form of Christianity in the United States” (169).

Of all these statistics, here is the one that I think is most interesting: there were 7,000 classes meeting throughout Methodism in 1813. That is an average of one class per 30.6 members in full connection. (This creates an interpretative dilemma, because John Wesley typically defined a class as a meeting of 7 to 12 people, not 30. However, this actually serves to confirm what I have read elsewhere – that classes in early 19th century American Methodism were actually quite a bit larger than they were in Britain during Wesley’s lifetime.) What may be more astonishing than the number of classes is that each class was served by a local layperson, who was responsible for the spiritual development of all of the people in their class, and there were ten times as many class leaders (about 7,000 class leaders) as there were preachers (678)!

There are so many different directions you could go in with these numbers. One thing that really strikes me, though, is that it seems that one of the key reasons for the growth of early American Methodism in the first years of the nineteenth century was that everywhere there was a Methodist church, there were several lay people who were spiritual leaders. People who loved their brothers and sisters in Christ enough to walk with them, to ask them how things were going in their life with God in order to support and encourage them.

I wonder if one of the most essential tasks for the United Methodist Church today is training and empowering laity for this kind of ministry. In many churches, there is likely one lay person for every thirty who has authority over an administrative task (such as chairing or serving on a committee). If we could survey every UM congregation throughout the connection, I wonder what the ratio would be of lay people who are asking other laity how things are in their life with God? I wonder what the ratio would be of lay people who are asking other laity if they are keeping the “General Rules” (do no harm, do good, and attend upon the ordinances of God – i.e. practice the means of grace). I wonder what the ratio would be of lay people who are asking other laity whether they are loving God with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength, and whether they are loving their neighbor as themselves.

What do you think?

Prooftexting Wesley

12 Friday Mar 2010

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

≈ 12 Comments

Tags

, , ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

——

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where Are the Methodists?

22 Monday Feb 2010

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is an unscientific illustration:

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

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

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

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

Bishop Will Willimon Likes Blueprint for Discipleship

16 Friday Oct 2009

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

≈ 1 Comment

I am grateful to have received the following comments from Bishop Willimon about my book A Blueprint for Discipleship: Wesley’s General Rules as a Guide for Christian Living:

“Methodism’s General Rules are one of our most neglected, and sometimes
abused resources. Thanks to Kevin Watson, we now have a powerful
recovery of these great treasures of the Wesleyan tradition. With great
respect for the riches of our past, Kevin gives us some specific,
practical ways in which our churches can move forward by first looking
back. Wesleyanism provoked a grand rejuvenation of the church through
the ordering of ordinary lives by a vision of the transforming power of
the living Christ. Kevin’s book continues and even augments this grand
spiritual revolution that is Wesleyan Christianity.”

Will Willimon, North Alabama Conference, the United Methodist Church

You can read other endorsements and see more information about the book here.

You can buy the book from amazon.com, Discipleship Resources, or Cokesbury.

Our Precious Heritage

13 Tuesday Oct 2009

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

≈ Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where are you at this morning?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And now it is our turn.

It is your turn.

Will you follow?

Organizing from the Bottom Up

05 Monday Oct 2009

Posted by in Accountability, Book Review, Methodist History, Ministry, Wesley

≈ 6 Comments

In a book I am reading for one of my classes this semester, Inventing the “Great Awakening” by Frank Lambert I came across the following quotation:

“Beginning with a few Oxford students, Wesley embarked on a lifetime task of organizing Christians from the bottom up, banding small groups of Christians together in religious societies for the purpose of deepening their faith and then putting it into action through charities and evangelism” (85)

This sentence has stuck with me. I have not often thought about the pastor’s task being one of bottom up organization. But it seems to make quite a bit of sense. This also seems to be a way of agreeing with people who argue that it is too late for the UMC as an institution to return to Wesleyan practices, such as an equivalent of the class meeting. Lambert has given me an image that helps me to think about restoring an authentically Wesleyan approach to discipleship in the local church, and it is beautifully straightforward! If Lambert is right, one of the key roles of Wesleyan preachers and lay leaders was organizing Christians in small groups “for the purpose of deepening their faith and then putting it into action.”

In a sense, the beauty of early Methodism was that the weight of the institution was behind this. In other words, paradoxically, the idea to organize for the purpose of deepening faith that would lead to action came from the top down. The powers that be commanded a bottom down approach to discipleship!

Today the situation has changed. We live in a time of increasing bureaucratization of the UMC, and the institution does not demand this bottom up approach to discipleship. Yet, while the full weight of the institution may not be behind the necessity of small group formation, it is also not actively forbidding or hindering it. This means that every pastor or active lay person who wants to return to the riches of our Wesleyan heritage does not have to wait on the powers that be to give the green light. It also means that we should not use the behemoth that is the institutional UMC as an excuse for failing to organize Christians wherever we find ourselves in order to better position them to be transformed by the grace of God and practice their faith.

In other words, Lambert’s image of bottom up discipleship is a hopeful one for me, because it suggests that the only thing keeping people at the local church level from experiencing the blessing of “watching over one another in love” is a failure of people at the level of the local church to do it. And while that is not an insignificant obstacle, it certainly seems to be a far smaller one than trying to change everything that is wrong with the UMC – broadly speaking – before actually turning our attention to the people that are coming to our churches, seeking to live faithfully and experience the fullness of life in Christ.

What do you think? Is the idea of a bottom up approach to discipleship promising for the contemporary UMC?

Wesley: A Guide for the Perplexed

29 Tuesday Sep 2009

Posted by in Book Review, Methodist History, Wesley

≈ Leave a comment

Last week I had the opportunity to meet and visit with Dr. Jason Vickers, who is professsor of theology and Wesley studies, and the director of the Center for Evangelical United Brethren Heritage at United Theological Seminary in Dayton, Ohio. I really enjoyed the conversation with Dr. Vickers and appreciated his making the time to meet with me.

His visit also gave me the push I had been needing to finally get to a book that had been on my shelf for nearly a year, his Wesley: A Guide for the Perplexed. And I have to say that this book was a delight to read. It is concise (the text is just over 100 pages) and well written. The main reason for my enthusiasm, however, is that the book does an excellent job of both summarizing several previous arguments in the field of Wesley Studies and then showing a new way of resolving these old debates. Vickers argues that Wesley’s English context was not nearly as secularized as it has often been viewed to have been, arguing instead for the “Anglican stabilization thesis.” Vickers further argues, in my view quite convincingly, that there is “a logical consistency running through Wesley’s ecclesiastical, political and theological commitments” (5)

Because of the skill with which Vickers is able to summarize many of the key issues in understanding John Wesley’s actions – particularly his decision to ordain ministers for American and Scotland, this brief book is an indispensable resource for students of Wesley studies. I would highly recommend it to anyone who is a student of John Wesley and wants to better understand the scholarly debate surrounding his relationship to his context.