Category Archives: Ministry

Holy Conferencing: What Did Wesley Mean? (Part 2)

18 Thursday Jul 2013

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

≈ 15 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

“Holy conferencing” seems to be one of the buzz words for contemporary United Methodism. This post is the second post on this topic. (It could be seen as the second of three posts, as an earlier post pointed out that Wesley himself did not use the phrase “holy conferencing.”) The first post discussed the contemporary use of “holy conferencing.” This post discusses what Wesley meant by the phrase “Christian Conference,” which is the phrase from Wesley that is usually connected to contemporary uses of holy conferencing.

What did Wesley mean by the phrase “holy conferencing”?

Well, he did not actually use the phrase. Nevertheless, most contemporary appeals to “holy conferencing” ground the phrase in the authority of John Wesley by suggesting that the phrase is synonymous with Wesley’s use of the phrase “Christian Conference.” So, this post is actually a discussion of Wesley’s use of the phrase “Christian Conference.”

In order to understand Wesley’s use of Christian Conference, it is helpful to think about how he uses the phrase as a general concept and how it functions as a practice. When Wesley talks about Christian Conference as a concept, he is generally talking about how Christians ought to converse with one another. However, when he talks about Christian Conference as a practice, it is located within his understanding of “social holiness” or communal formation. My argument here, then, is that Christian Conference should be understood to be a concept that is located within a particular understanding of communal formation. If you divorce the concept from the way it is located in a particular set of practices, you no longer have the full Wesleyan understanding of Christian Conference.

In order to understand Wesley’s use of Christian Conference, then, we will need to discuss the way he used the phrase as a general concept and the way he located it within a particular set of practices.

How did Wesley understand Christian Conference as a general concept? To start, I only found one use of the phrase in Wesley’s corpus. The passage where Wesley discusses Christian Conference is the “Large Minutes,” where it is listed as one of five instituted means of grace (meaning that it has a privileged position because it was instituted by Christ in scripture). The first four instituted means of grace are: Prayer, Searching the Scriptures, the Lord’s Supper, and Fasting. Here is what Wesley says about Christian Conference:

5. Christian Conference.
Are we convinced how important and how difficult it is to order our conversation right? Is it always in grace? Seasoned with salt? Meet to minister grace to the hearers?
Do we not converse too long at a time? Is not an hour at a time commonly enough?
Would it not be well to plan our conversation beforehand? To pray before and after it? (Wesley, Works, 10: 856-857)

This passage is interesting because it consists entirely of questions. It does not clearly define what Christian Conference is. We can only discern what it is by inferring what the questions imply. For the most part, this is relatively easily done with these particular questions. For example, Wesley believes that Christian Conferencing should usually be limited to an hour and it should be started and concluded with prayer. And yet, Wesley also seems to assume that there is clarity about the meaning of this phrase, so he doesn’t define it. Instead of talking about what Christian Conference is, he focuses on a few ways the practice could be improved.

The best passage that I am aware of where Wesley expands on this concept is in his sermon “The First-fruits of the Spirit.” (Thanks to Dr. Andrew C. Thompson for pointing me to this.)

5. They who ‘walk after the Spirit’ are also led by him into all holiness of conversation. Their speech is ‘always in grace, seasoned with salt’, with the love and fear of God. ‘No corrupt communication comes out of their mouth, but (only) that which is good; that which is ‘to the use of edifying’, which is ‘meet to minister grace to the hearers’. And herein likewise do they exercise themselves day and night to do only the things which please God; in all their outward behaviour to follow him who ‘left us an example that we might tread in his steps’; in all their intercourse with their neighbor to walk in justice, mercy, and truth; and ‘whatsoever they do’, in every circumstance of life, to ‘do all to the glory of God.’

6. These are they who indeed ‘walk after the Spirit’. Being filled with faith and with the Holy Ghost, they possess in their hearts, and show forth in their lives, in the whole course of their words and actions, the genuine fruits of the Spirit of God, namely, ‘love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, fidelity, meekness, temperance’, and whatsoever else is lovely or praiseworthy. They ‘adorn in all things the gospel of God our Saviour’; and give full proof to all mankind that they are indeed actuated by the same Spirit ‘which raised up Jesus from the dead’. (Wesley, Works, 1:236-237)

Note that Wesley uses many of the same phrases here that he uses in the questions in the “Large Minutes.” It is also significant that Wesley ties “holiness of conversation” so closely to the rest of a holy life. He wrote, “herein likewise do they exercise themselves day and night to do only the things which please God; in all their outward behaviour to follow him [Jesus].”

It is also significant that the discussion of holy conversation occurs within a sermon about “walking after the Spirit.” Holy conversation, then, is a part of a greater whole, where people are “filled with faith and with the Holy Ghost” and “possess… the genuine fruits of the Spirit of God.” Moreover, “holy conversation” is the result of being led by the Holy Spirit. It isn’t something that we bring with us to difficult conversations, it is something God does for us and in us.

So, how was this concept situated within the particular practices of early Methodism?

This is where, in my view, there is a clear divergence from the way that “holy conferencing” is most often used or understood in contemporary United Methodism, where it largely remains an abstract concept that generally applies to talking to other people, particularly about difficult topics.

For Wesley, Christian Conference was grounded in his emphasis on the importance of Christian communal formation, or social holiness. Several of the questions where Wesley discusses Christian Conference as an instituted means of grace suggest that Wesley was thinking of something like the class and band meetings. Wesley believed that the class meeting served to “minister grace to the hearers” through talking about the state of each person’s soul. He also pointed to the need to limit the duration of the meetings. And the “Rules of the Band Societies” include instructions to begin and end the meetings with prayer.

Consider, for example, the following passage where Wesley discussed the benefits of the class meeting:

It can scarce be conceived what advantages have been reaped from this little prudential regulation. Many now happily experienced that Christian fellowship of which they had not so much as an idea before. They began to “bear one another’s burdens,” and “naturally” to “care for each other.” As they had daily a more intimate acquaintance with, so they had a more endeared affection for each other. And “speaking the truth in love, they grew up into him in all things which is the head, even Christ; from whom the whole body, fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every joint supplied, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, increased unto the edifying itself in love.” (Wesley, “A Plain Account of the People Called Methodists” Works 9: 262)

Scholars have argued that for Wesley Christian Conference and Christian fellowship are nearly synonymous. (Thanks, again, to Andrew Thompson for pointing me to this.) So, when Wesley talked about Christian Conference as an instituted means of grace, he most likely had in mind a way of conversing that occurred within a particular context, where something like “bearing one another’s burdens” or “speaking the truth in love” was happening for the sake of growing in holiness. The place where this kind of conversation was expected to happen in early Methodism would have been obvious: the class meeting and the band meeting.

My sense, then, is that the early Methodist classes and bands would have been in the back of Wesley’s mind when he talked about Christian Conference, and not merely generic polite conversation. This becomes even more plausible when it is noted that immediately following Wesley’s list of the instituted means of grace, Wesley lists the “prudential” means of grace (because they are prudent, even though not explicitly instituted by Christ). Under the prudential means of grace “As Methodists” Wesley asks: Do you never miss any meeting of the society? Neither your class or band?” (Wesley, Works 10: 857)

As I began working on this, I emailed Dr. Randy L. Maddox and asked him for his thoughts on Christian Conference. In his response he said, “When Wesley refers to Christian Conference as an instituted means of grace, I think the class meeting is the best example of what he has in mind. This is particularly the case if we assume his primary focus in ‘means of grace’ is sanctification” (quoted with permission).

But why is the class meeting listed explicitly as a prudential means of grace for Methodists, and not also as an instituted means of grace for all Christians?

Wesley clearly acknowledged that the class meeting was not prescribed by Jesus. However, he did believe that something like the class meeting was. So, Wesley did believe that the general idea of small groups focused on our lives as followers of Christ was a general principle for all Christians. The class meeting was simply the particular way that Methodists were living out this principle.

So, what did Wesley mean by Christian Conference?

Christian Conference was honest, direct, piercing conversation with other Christians that was intended to help the participants grow in holiness. These conversations were most obviously situated within the weekly class meetings and band meetings. This relates to the first post on the contemporary use of holy conferencing, then, because Christian Conferencing was not generally understood to be having a one-time polite conversation about a controversial subject. Rather, it was focused on the details of individual people’s lives, where they were experiencing God and growing in faith and holiness, and where they were not experiencing God or failing to grow in faith and holiness.

The goal of Christian Conference, then, is to “walk after the Spirit,” and to be “filled with faith and with the Holy Ghost.” The means to this end, then, was through weekly meetings for prayer and “watching over one another in love.”

Now that is a practice worth reclaiming!

Kevin M. Watson is Assistant Professor of Historical Theology & Wesleyan Studies at Seattle Pacific University. You can keep up with this blog on twitter @kevinwatson or on facebook at Vital Piety.

Holy Conferencing: What Is It? (Part 1)

10 Wednesday Jul 2013

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

≈ 17 Comments

Tags

, , ,

What is “holy conferencing”?

This phrase seems to be one of the buzz words for contemporary United Methodism. This post is the first of two posts on this topic. (It could be seen as the second of three posts, as yesterday’s post pointed out that Wesley himself did not use the phrase “holy conferencing.”) This post discusses the contemporary use of “holy conferencing.” The second post will discuss what Wesley meant by the phrase “Christian conference,” which is the phrase from Wesley that is usually connected to contemporary uses of holy conferencing.

At the 2012 General Conference of The United Methodist Church in Tampa, FL “holy conferencing” was the explicit rationale for three scheduled times when delegates would break into thirteen groups for “holy conversation.”

Following General Conference, in the September/October 2012 issue of Interpreter the feature article was “Holy Conferencing: Bringing Grace to Tough Conversations.” I have to admit I was predisposed to be critical of the article by the subtitle, which to me suggested that we are the ones who bring grace to tough conversations because of our mastery of the skill of holy conferencing. I’m not exactly sure what the subtitle intended to convey, but it would be too easy of a target for outsiders who already suspect that Methodists are peddling works righteousness.

Nevertheless, I take this article as a good example of what many United Methodists mean today when they invoke the value of “holy conferencing.”

The article does not itself provide a clear definition of holy conferencing, but instead defines it by quoting a variety of church leaders. The main place where the article does interact with the concept is in this passage:

“Holy or Christian conferencing is a practice John Wesley included, along with prayer, Scripture reading, fasting and the Lord’s Supper, as a way of experiencing God’s grace. The roots are biblical. Leaders assert that every Christian should practice it, within and beyond the walls of the church.”

This is a helpful quote because it makes both moves that are typical in discussions of holy conferencing. 1) Its roots are in John Wesley. 2) It is important because Wesley included it as an “instituted” means of grace. So, similar to many of the other buzzwords in contemporary United Methodism, the grounding for the practice is – at least loosely – the authority of John Wesley.

But the above quote doesn’t tell us much about what holy conferencing is. From the above we know it is something that Wesley included with other basic Christian practices as a way of experiencing God’s grace (which, again, is in tension with the subtitle of the article). And that we should practice it in and out of church because the roots are biblical. This sounds important! So, again, what is it?

Here are a few quotes from the article where various United Methodist leaders use holy conferencing as a concept:

“Holy conferencing became really important as we gathered at the table to listen to all the reasons of why we should or shouldn’t move forward… When there would be a conflict or some tension or a variety of opinions, we would commit to listen to each other and approach each other with grace as much as possible. We always remembered that we have a place to stand together even if we don’t end up in the same place at the end of the conversation.” – Rev. Trudy Robinson, First UMC Littleton, CO

“Holy conferencing developed out of recognizing who people were, with a theological commitment that each person is a child of God and deserves to be treated as one.” – Rev. Stephen Cady, Kingston UMC, NJ

“In our culture today, there’s so much divisiveness that it’s really important to call ourselves to that means of grace… People, particularly in the United States, understand how uncivil conversation and discussion have become. People desire something different. In general society, there’s a fair amount of conversation about civil discourse. As Christians, (we have) a number of (Scripture) passages and admonitions in terms of how we treat one another.” – Bishop Sally Dyck, Chicago Area of The UMC

“It’s not just an exchange of opinions… but a real attempt to move toward a common understanding of God’s will and intention towards Christians. It’s a holy thing to be undertaken with seriousness and integrity. It’s an opportunity to build on the trust that is already there and to allow people to seek together for the truth.” – Rev. Tom Lambrecht, vice-president, Good News

With the exception of the quote from Lambrecht, it seems like holy conferencing means being nice to each other when we disagree.

One gets a similar sense from the “Principles of Holy Conferencing” that are published as a sidebar in the same article. (Note: This is a condensed version of a longer paper Bishop Dyck wrote. The full paper can be accessed here.) Here are the eight principles:

1. Every person is a child of God
2. Listen before speaking
3. Strive to understand from another’s point of view
4. Strive to reflect accurately the views of others
5. Disagree without being disagreeable
6. Speak about issues; do not defame people
7. Pray, in silence or aloud, before decisions
8. Let prayer interrupt your busy-ness

This is a helpful list. And these principles are important to keep in mind when having difficult conversations. I have seen too many examples in person and (more often) online where these principles have not been practiced by contemporary Methodists. So, I think this is a well thought out and helpful guide to having difficult conversations. However, at the end of the day, it still looks like the focus is on being nice.

My sense from thinking about the use of “holy conferencing” in contemporary discourse over the past six months or so is that it is being appealed to so heavily because, during a time when there are areas of profound disagreement among Methodists, it is a way to find something we can agree on. We should be able to agree to be nice when we disagree with each other, to “disagree without being disagreeable.”

There are at least two problems with this approach. First, the areas of disagreement often go so deep that someone finds the clear statement of a particular position to itself be disagreeable. In other words, the use of “holy conferencing” presumes an ability to not take the beliefs and convictions of another as a personal attack. I am not sure we are currently in a place where people are always able to make a distinction between honest disagreement and intentionally being disagreeable, or intentionally hurtful.

The second problem with this approach is that it deemphasizes the importance of the beliefs themselves. At best, it does not provide a way to resolve any disagreement. The only solution offered is polite conversation. At worst, it implies that there are no right answers.

The use of holy conferencing seems naïve because the solution it appears to offer is that if enough people could just sit down long enough, be nice enough, and hear each other, agreement would come from clear and kind articulation of each perspective. I think this underestimates the depth of genuine disagreement that often exists. There also may be a subtle form of arrogance that believes that I can convince you that I am right if we can just talk about this long enough because you have never actually thought about this in a careful rational way (or, that my beliefs are in themselves rational and logical in some way that yours are not).

I do not think that is what people who are advocating for holy conferencing intend to be the outcome of this practice. I think they are rightly broken-hearted by the extent of disunity, even anger and bitterness, in contemporary Methodism. And so, leaders are rightly trying to come up with anything that will move Methodism in a better direction. From that perspective, I think polite conversation is a step in the right direction.

My concern is that what was likely initially intended as a step is coming to be seen as a solution. The process of coming to theological convictions seems to be valued above the convictions themselves.

William J. Abraham has argued that the quadrilateral was conceived as a way to create a big tent vision for Methodism when it could not agree on basic Christian doctrine. (See especially his Waking from Doctrinal Amnesia). So, instead of focusing on doctrine, Outler created a way of thinking about doctrine. The idea was that we may not agree on the outcomes, but we can agree on the method we use to come to our different conclusions.

Is “holy conferencing” another Act in this same play? Some of the quotes from the Interpreter article, in fact, emphasized that “standing together” was more important than “ending up in the same place at the end of the conversation.” Think about the imagery in that quote. The image itself shows how insufficient a vision this is. The goal is to stand together, even though we are not in the same place?!

Recall that the common rationale given for the importance of holy conferencing is that it was endorsed by John Wesley in the “Large Minutes” as one of five instituted means of grace (meaning that they were explicitly given to us by Christ). The other four instituted means of grace are: prayer, searching the Scriptures, the Lord’s Supper, and fasting. These are rich, robust practices that have been a part of the Christian life from the early church. Could Wesley have really meant by “Christian conference” that Christ instituted the practice of “standing together, even though we are not in the same place” as just as reliable of a way of encountering God’s presence as prayer, searching the Scriptures, the Lord’s Supper, and fasting? Surely not!

The next post will answer the question: What did Wesley mean by the phrase “Christian conference”? It will also consider the role of “Christian conference” for contemporary Christianity, suggesting that it is much more than being nice when we disagree.

In the meantime, what do you think about the way that “holy conferencing” is used in contemporary Methodism?

Kevin M. Watson is Assistant Professor of Historical Theology & Wesleyan Studies at Seattle Pacific University. You can keep up with this blog on twitter @kevinwatson or on facebook at Vital Piety.

Pray for Oklahoma

21 Tuesday May 2013

Posted by in Life, Ministry

≈ 1 Comment

[image from okumc.org]

A major tornado hit Moore Oklahoma, a suburb of Oklahoma City yesterday. As of this writing, 24 people have died, including 9 children. I cannot image the pain that the family and friends of those who have died are experiencing. And yet, looking at pictures of the area – particularly the two elementary schools that were destroyed – I can’t help but think that the loss of life could have been much worse.

Yesterday’s events have hit me particularly hard because these are my people. Most of my family and many friends live in Oklahoma. My parents, my wife’s parents, and my brother all live in Oklahoma. And many of them live quite close to the damage. I am also a clergy member of the Oklahoma Annual Conference. My home church is in the community next to Moore. I talked to several people yesterday about what was happening. It was a blessing to feel connected to colleagues in ministry in Oklahoma. But it was also really hard. I am serving in extension ministry as a professor at Seattle Pacific Seminary. It is hard to be so far away and feel helpless. My heart is breaking for Oklahoma.

You may be like me, feeling compassion and connection to this community through the news coverage, but also detached by your physical distance from Moore Oklahoma. I would like to ask you to consider joining me in doing two concrete things that will make a difference. First, pray. Pray a lot. Pray for the specific things that come to mind as you think about what this community is going through. Pray for families who have lost loved ones. Pray for families who are searching and hoping. Pray for the injured. Pray for rescue workers, for those who have lost their homes. Please pray. Second, give money. People who work for disaster relief agencies seem to be united that money is the best thing to give in the immediate aftermath of a natural disaster like this. I will be giving to The United Methodist Committee on Relief (UMCOR), because of their track record with disaster relief and because all of the overhead for UMCOR is covered through other giving. This means that 100% of what you give will be directed to helping the people who most need help right now. UMCOR has already set up a specific page for giving for the Oklahoma tornadoes. Click here to donate to tornado recover efforts through UMCOR.

Please pray and give generously.

Ordination: Communal Rite or Individual Right?

06 Monday May 2013

Posted by in Accountability, Ministry

≈ 9 Comments

Tags

, , ,

“Ordination is a communal rite, not an individual right.”

After reading this quote from D. Stephen Long’s Keeping Faith, I began mentally reviewing many of the conversations I have had with candidates for ordination. In my admittedly far from perfect mental scan of tweets, blog posts, and personal conversations, most (but not all) of the comments I could remember fit in the ordination as “individual right” camp. Viewing ordination as an individual right, and not a communal rite, can lead to a sense of entitlement and defensiveness, particularly if the person pursuing ordination feels like the church owes it to them.

But ordination is a communal rite and is not understood as an individual right.

And just in case the understanding of ordination as an individual right is more appealing to you than the approach of ordination as a communal rite, it may be helpful to point out that no denomination understands ordination as an individual right. Even in churches that have a congregational polity, it is the local church community that votes on whether to ordain the person. The individual is not the sole judge who claims their right, which the community is required to give.

So, what is going on? Why do so many people seem to feel entitled to be ordained, rather than viewing it as a process of communal discernment?

While I have two initial thoughts, my broader purpose with this post is to stimulate a larger conversation. I hope you will comment here. You can also connect with me and respond to this post on twitter @kevinwatson. Either way, I hope you will share your thoughts.

At this stage I will offer two thoughts. The first one is much more extended than the second. 1) People view ordination as an individual right more than a communal rite because the church has formed them to think about ordination in this way. 2) Ordination as an individual right may be a litmus test for a broader unwillingness of individuals to submit to the authority and wisdom of a broader community.

First, as I have been thinking about this quote and processing it with others, I have found myself seeing this as a basic issue of formation. Thinking back to my initial engagement with the ordination process, I don’t remember having hardly any expectations of the process beyond an initial desire to serve God and feeling that the local church was the best place to begin to work this out. I was almost completely ignorant of what the process entailed. In fact, in my first conversation with my pastor, I don’t think I knew there was a process. I was formed into a particular understanding of what ordination is and how it works.

One of the main things I initially learned was that I should expect that not only would I discern whether I felt that God was calling me to ordained ministry, but that my denomination would likewise discern whether God was calling me to ordained ministry in their midst. Where ordination is a communal rite, discernment is a two-way street.

I am concerned that many are being taught to expect that the ordination process will be, and for various reasons must be, one where the gifts one already feels one has are simply affirmed and celebrated by others. I wonder if an unintended consequence of the emphasis on being inclusive and accepting has led some people to view ordination as an entitlement. The thought process could go like this: If I feel like I want to be ordained, you must accept my sense of calling and include me in the order of ordained clergy, otherwise you are being exclusive. When this is seen in its most extreme form, even to examine someone’s calling is seen as invasive, unnecessary, and a problematic use of power by the church.

There are at least two problems with an understanding of ordination that demands that it be given as an individual right. First, people who should be ordained have room to grow and improve in the gifts and grace that have been given to them, no matter how gifted they are. Candidates for ordained ministry should be prepared to accept constructive criticism. They should expect to learn more about themselves and to grow in their sense of calling as a result of the process. Everyone, even experienced pastors, has room to grow. And discerning that one is not called to ordained ministry should actually be viewed as a successful outcome, not as a failure. Second, some people should not be ordained. And they may not always agree with the decision of the church. If ordination is the culmination of a discernment process by both the individual considering ordained ministry and the church that will ordain them, both parties must continue to affirm that they are headed in the right direction.

Before moving on to the second thought, I feel compelled to acknowledge that Boards of Ordained Ministry are not infallible. They make mistakes. And sometimes the criticism they give is not constructive, or honest. Making distinctions about when Boards of Ordained Ministry get it right and when they get it wrong gets messy quickly. And yet, as long as our polity understands ordination as a communal rite and not an individual right, we ought to try to correct mistakes and improve the process, rather than resist the authority that is rightly invested in the community.

My second main thought is that ordination as an individual right may be a litmus test for a broader unwillingness of individuals to submit to the authority and wisdom of a broader community. A few pages after the quote from D. Stephen Long that prompted this post, he wrote something that is an even more aggressive challenge to the contemporary idolatry of the individual:

We Methodists find the rites and ceremonies of our church to be so important that openly breaking them should issue in a rebuke, even if that rebuke must be given to a pastor, superintendent, or bishop. The rites and ceremonies belong to the whole church. When a pastor, superintendent, or bishop changes those rites and ceremonies because of her or his individual conscience, she or he violates the trust that the church places in her or him to guard and preserve the faith. (59)

My guess is that Long’s call for individuals to submit to the whole church, (including even their conscience!) would be contested by many. A key question, though, would be whether the disagreement is precisely an assertion of individual rights over that of the community.

What do you think? How do you think ordination is perceived by most people discerning a calling to ordained ministry? Is Long right that ordination should be understood as a communal rite and not as an individual right?

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.

Arrogance vs. Confidence in the Truth of the Gospel

10 Wednesday Apr 2013

Posted by in Christian Living, Ministry

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

Does absolute certainty about the truth of the gospel mean that one is arrogant and lacks humility? Can people know for certain that they are God’s beloved children?

These questions were on my mind after reading a tweet from Donald Miller this morning. And I have been wrestling with his words all day. Here is what he wrote:

Many follow leaders who sell confidence rather than truth. Arrogant people assume they’re right. Humble people understand many perspectives.

This comment has stuck with me today because I think it summarizes how many people today feel about the relationship between truth and certainty and tolerance and humility.

I have no idea what prompted Miller to tweet this, and to be fair, twitter is a very limited platform for nuance. It is entirely possible I will take the rest of this post in a direction that Miller would not disagree with. My purpose is not to slam Miller or even argue with him. He has simply provided stimulus for my further thinking about the ways we think about truth, confidence, arrogance, and humility.

The first sentence of the tweet seems to suggest that leaders should sell truth and not confidence, or that it is bad to sell confidence rather than the truth. I think the most charitable reading of this would be that Miller means that some leaders sell confidence even in the face of the truth, or that they are pushing certainty even if the truth is more complex. If this is correct, I would say that I agree. The goal of a pastor, for example, should not be to peddle certainty. Rather, it should be to introduce people to a relationship with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Certainty can sometimes be a hindrance to this relationship.

So, if my reading is right, there is much that I agree with about this statement.

But, I think there is also a subtext here. And I think the subtext is actually of greater urgency to address. That is, I don’t think there are many people who would defend pushing certainty over and against the truth.

The deeper concern that I have is this: Can Christians be confident of the truth of the gospel, can they assume they are right – can they be absolutely certain that they are right – about who Jesus is and his significance for human flourishing without being arrogant?

I think this question is of deep significance for the current cultural moment in American Christianity. There seems to me to be pretty significant pressure on Christians to hold their truth claims loosely, otherwise they are by definition intolerant, arrogant, and/or closed-minded.

The second sentence in Miller’s tweet states: “Arrogant people assume they’re right.”

While this is a beautifully written sentence, it strikes me as nonsense. Is it assuming that you are right that makes you arrogant? If so, who doesn’t assume they are right? And what is the value of a person who assumes that they are wrong in order to avoid being arrogant? If you think you are wrong about something, you should change your mind so you think rightly about it. And then you should assume you are right until you are convinced otherwise. In other words, I think arrogance is something much different than thinking you are right. Someone who carefully considers an issue and comes to a strong conclusion is not by definition arrogant. If they were, conviction and arrogance or belief and arrogance would be the same thing. Believing something was true would by definition be arrogant.

Charity requires me to assume that this is not what Miller means, particularly because there is still one more sentence to his tweet. (But, though I do not think this is Miller’s position, I do think that many people feel this way when they encounter someone who has strongly held convictions. So, again, I think it is pointing to something deeper going on in our cultural moment.)

The final sentence of Miller’s tweet is: “Humble people understand many perspectives.” So, I think Miller means that arrogant people assume they are right, without understanding opposing points of view (and probably without even considering them). This understanding of arrogance, a sense of superiority that leads one to believe they are right without even weighing the evidence, fits well with my own understanding of arrogance. And I think it should be rejected.

However, again, I think it is absolutely essential to affirm that someone can be humble and confidently affirm that the gospel is true. In other words, a person could understand many perspectives on Jesus and strongly reject all of them as inadequate in favor of a firm conviction that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. In other words, I think some people would see the conviction that Jesus is the only way to the good life as by definition arrogant. I don’t think it is.

N.T. Wright describes part of what I am trying to get at in his book Simply Christian:

One of the regular tactics the skeptic employs at this point is relativism. I vividly remember a school friend saying to me in exasperation, at the end of a conversation about Christian faith, ‘It’s obviously true for you, but that doesn’t mean it’s true for anybody else.’ Many people today take exactly that line.

Saying ‘it’s true for you’ sounds fine and tolerant. But it only works because it’s twisting the word ‘true’ to mean, not ‘a true revelation of the way things are in the real world,’ but ‘something that is genuinely happening inside you.’ In fact, saying ‘It’s true for you’ in this sense is more or less equivalent to saying ‘It’s not true for you,’ because the ‘it’ in question – the spiritual sense or awareness or experience – is conveying, very powerfully, a message (that there is a loving God) which the challenger is reducing to something else (that you are having strong feelings which you misinterpret in that sense). This goes with several other pressures which have combined to make the notion of ‘truth’ itself highly problematic within our world” (26-27).

But here is the key reason that this tweet got my attention. I believe that one of the most basic things pastors should be doing is teaching that by the power of the Holy Spirit we can know, with certainty, that Jesus is who the church says he is and that we are God’s beloved child. John Wesley described this sense of certainty as assurance. In his sermon “The Witness of the Spirit, I” he expanded on Romans 8:16, “it is that very Spirit bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God.” Wesley described the witness of the Spirit as follows:

The testimony of the Spirit is an inward impression on the soul, whereby the Spirit of God directly ‘witnesses to my spirit that I am a child of God’; that Jesus Christ hath loved me, and given himself for me; that all my sins are blotted out, and I, even I, am reconciled to God…

The Spirit of God does give a believer such a testimony of his adoption that while it is present to the soul he can no more doubt the reality of his sonship than he can doubt of the shining of the sun while he stands in the full blaze of his beams. (274, 276)

This is good news! But, if we separate truth from certainty (within or without the church) we have a problem. I believe the church needs more leaders who help people find deep, abiding confidence in the truth of the gospel. I believe the church needs leaders who can be agents of the Holy Spirit, to help people find certainty in the truth of the resurrection and the whole new way of living that is made possible in the grace soaked world in which we are currently living. The church could use more people who boast in the resurrection and the transforming power of the Holy Spirit.

I’d love to see this tweet in the future:

The church has many leaders who help people embrace passionate faith in Christ. They are certain Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. And they are desperate for every single person to hear and embrace this news.

But, alas, it isn’t 140 characters.

[I’d love to connect with you online. Feel free to follow me on twitter @kevinwatson.]

The Gospel in a Wesleyan Accent #andcanitbe

13 Wednesday Mar 2013

Posted by in Christian Living, Ministry, Wesley

≈ 14 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

How do you preach the gospel in a Wesleyan accent? This has been on my mind quite a bit over the last month. My last two blog posts were about this to some degree. In the first post, I discussed my sense of the current state of United Methodism, arguing that what we are in favor of is not good enough. One of the key arguments of that post was that United Methodism’s common discourse is thin and impoverished doctrinally. Another way of putting it is that there seems to me to be deep disagreement about what we are for. It is more clear that we are confident that we can change the world than that we believe that we are desperately dependent on the Triune God to do anything that matters.

A few days later I wrote another post noting that the Wesleyan message is almost entirely invisible in print and social media in comparison to other expressions of Christianity. The conversation from the initial question I raised has taken on a life of its own, particularly with the use of the hashtag #andcanitbe on twitter. (To be clear, I did not come up with the idea for the hashtag and I do not have any control over what is happening with this conversation, which I’m sure is obvious to anyone who uses twitter – nobody controls what happens there! Please do feel free to follow me [@kevinwatson] and contribute to the conversation.)

Those two posts were more related for me than I initially realized. I am starting to wonder if one of the most significant factors in the decline of the United Methodist Church is an inability to agree on and articulate a clear and compelling theology. Some see this as an asset of contemporary Methodism – there is plenty of room to agree to disagree. But I wonder what the fruit is of this “big tent” vision of Methodism. Relating this to my second post, I suspect that the Wesleyan message is invisible because those who claim to be Wesleyan do not themselves agree on what the Wesleyan message is?

As the #andcanitbe conversation has gained some momentum, I have been asking myself what my hopes are for this conversation. Here are my current hopes:

First, I want to see God show up in amazing ways. I want to see broken and hurting peoples’ lives changed by the amazing grace of God. This is really central to everything else for me. I want to be a part of something where I can say, “God did that” and where everyone knows that is absolutely the case. Not that we did something cool for God, but that the almighty One dwelt among us in tangible ways.

Second, for #andcanitbe more specifically, I hope that the conversation will result in an articulation of the gospel in a particularly Wesleyan accent with clarity and conviction to a broader audience. I really appreciated the phrase Matt Judkins (@matt_judkins) used early on. He spoke of the need to identify “core unifying commitments” of the Wesleyan tradition. I would love to see a result of this conversation be a network of spirit-filled women and men who have clarity about the key unifying beliefs and practices for contemporary Christianity. I would begin by naming the following as core beliefs: sin and the need for repentance and forgiveness; justification by faith; the new birth and assurance; and sanctification by faith, even unto entire sanctification. Another way this has been put is:

All need to be saved.
All may be saved.
All may know themselves to be saved.
All may be saved to the uttermost.

And it will not surprise those of you who are familiar with my work that I think a crucial core practice of any expression of the gospel in a Wesleyan accent would be Christian conferencing (by which Wesley meant small group accountability structures, like the class meeting and band meeting and not “polite conversation,” which is how some UM leaders are increasingly redefining it). There are, of course, other practices that are crucial as well.

Arguing that core unifying commitments are crucial may be a difficult sell in a tradition that not too long ago was best known for slogans like “you can be anything and be United Methodist” or which defined its distinctiveness not by any particular theological commitments, but by a method of reflecting theologically (the Outlerian Quadrilateral). Thankfully, fewer people today seem to want to be known as the church that has no beliefs. Yet, the UMC has recently presented itself to the world with slogans like “open hearts, open minds, open doors” and by suggesting the need to “rethink church.”

For my part, I am increasingly convinced that an inability to clearly and passionately articulate a common message is a liability, not something to be celebrated. I would even go so far as to say that a clear message that people are burdened to share with as many people as possible is of more urgency than openness.

Third, I would like the conversation to be clearly focused on the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and not on ourselves. Being in the Pacific Northwest and at Seattle Pacific University where I am around non-UMs at least as often as I am around UMs has made me more aware of the ways that United Methodists (myself included) often talk and act as if we are the center of the ecclesial universe. I have particularly found myself questioning whether the things that people sometimes assert as unique about Methodism would not also be claimed by most of the Church. All that to say, I am less interested in being a part of something that focuses on defining how Wesleyans are different from others, than I am in working to more effectively proclaim the gospel with a Wesleyan accent.

Finally, while I think unity matters, I am not arguing for homogeneity. My sense is that if the Holy Spirit brings renewal to United Methodism, or the broader Wesleyan tradition, the Spirit will bring together a variety of voices from miraculously different backgrounds, who feel a common leading to articulate a message that is theologically in harmony and not a cacophony. In other words, I expect that if God does show up in miraculous ways, one fruit will be that people who have not been working together will start working together. People would become deep partners in ministry with people they have never met before and would not have met if God had not sovereignly brought them together. A sign of revival would be the Holy Spirit bringing people together from different cultures, races, ethnicities, and genders. I am thinking of Pentecost. I am thinking of early American Methodism. I am thinking of Azusa Street. And I am thinking of Revelation 7:9-17:

After this I looked, and there was a great crowd that no one could number. They were from every nation, tribe, people, and language. They were standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They wore white robes and held palm branches in their hands. They cried out with a loud voice: ‘Victory belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb.’ All the angels stood in a circle around the throne, and around the elders and the four living creatures. They fell facedown before the throne and worshipped God, saying, ‘Amen! Blessing and glory and wisdom and thanksgiving and honor and power and might be to our God forever and always. Amen.’ Then one of the elders said to me, ‘Who are these people wearing white robes, and where did they come from?’ I said to him, ‘Sir, you know.’ Then he said to me, ‘These people have come out of great hardship. They have washed their robes and made them white in the Lamb’s blood. This is the reason they are before God’s throne. They worship him day and night in his temple, and the one seated on the throne will shelter them. They won’t hunger or thirst anymore. No sun or scorching heat will beat down on them, because the Lamb who is in the midst of the throne will shepherd them. He will lead them to the springs of life-giving water, and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.’

Now that, I want to be a part of! Come Lord Jesus.

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.

A Lament for the 2012 General Conference

06 Sunday May 2012

Posted by in Christian Living, Ministry

≈ 16 Comments

Tags

, ,

Confession: Sometimes I feel like one of the things that United Methodists are best at is shallow optimism. In looking at the events of our most recent General Conference, I am not sure I am willing to put a positive spin on things, or accept the attempts some made in the immediate aftermath of General Conference to put it in a positive light. While I can certainly understand why delegates would want to find meaning in the way that they have poured themselves out over the last two weeks, I’m not sure we have much to be proud of. I’m not sure anybody won. And I’m pretty sure The United Methodist Church lost. And yet I sense that people are already putting a positive spin on things. Something about the catharsis of a stressful ten day meeting ending seems to make people feel better about the meeting itself, even in the face of the apparent evidence.

For my part, I wish we could be honest: we are sick and we do not appear to have the necessary resources to heal ourselves.

There were many ways our inability to heal ourselves was illustrated during the meeting in Tampa, FL, but none display the communal brokenness more clearly than efforts around restructuring the church. Coming into this General Conference, there seemed to be widespread recognition that the denomination was at a crossroads. We are in serious decline and the time to act is now, lest it be too late to make meaningful change. I may have missed it, but I do not recall hearing or reading any arguments that suggested that everything is great and there is no reason to worry. So, people of good will and gifted ability invested countless hours and resources in trying to identify ways forward and make the case for the necessity of the agreed upon way forward. The results are before us and they give us no grounds for having hope in ourselves.

The General Administration committee was so divided that it voted down every single substantive proposal that was before it and did not bring anything to the floor of General Conference.

A heroic effort was made to bring a compromise plan directly to the floor of General Conference. A compromise was hammered out and brought to the full conference. It passed, though few seemed very enthusiastic about it. The general idea, among those who voted for it, was that something was better than nothing.

And then, halfway through the last day, Judicial Council announced that the plan was unconstitutional and unsalvageable.

During the dinner break, another heroic effort was made to find a way forward. The final proposal was tabled, never to be retrieved.

Look, I was not in Tampa. So I may be missing something. And I mean no disrespect whatsoever to those who poured themselves out for so many days. I believe that each person at General Conference took their job as a delegate with utmost seriousness and I am grateful for their work. I believe men and women were scratching and clawing, trying to find a way forward, trying to do something to turn this thing around. But it does not look like that happened.

I am almost embarrassed by how closely I followed this General Conference. I even made my students in all three undergraduate classes I am teaching this quarter watch part of a session live.

One of the things that continues to amaze me is how wide a disconnect their sometimes seemed to be between what actually happened as the result of a conference and what we act like happened.

At Methodist Conferences, I am often reminded of the children’s story with the emperor who has no clothes on. You know the one. It is pretty straightforward, the emperor has no clothes on, but everyone tries really hard not to notice. Sometimes we put so much effort into putting our best face on things that it feels like we are saying that decline is a sign of vitality, that spiritual malaise is a sign of holiness, and that mistrust and division are reasons for a hopeful future.

When I am the closest to Jesus, I am the most aware that I cannot do in myself what God in Christ wants to do in me. I have found that growth in my life is usually related to my awareness of my own brokenness and my need for salvation. I cannot save myself.

From where I sit, in sackcloth and ashes, it sure looks to me like what is happening in the church that I deeply love is not a new thing being done in the name of the Lord, but walking through the valley of the shadow of death. Does anyone really think that all is well in The United Methodist Church? Is this what spiritual vitality looks like? In our present state, do we resemble the Body of Christ? The harder we try to whip ourselves into a frenzy and pretend that everything is great and that God is doing a new thing in our midst, the more it feels to me like The United Methodist Church has no clothes on.

And from my perspective, the worst possible news would be that this is what health looks like!

When I look at The United Methodist Church, I do not know what God is up to. I am pretty sure that collectively, despite our best individual efforts, we are making a mess of things.

We cannot save ourselves. Based on the results of our best efforts, we have no basis for hope.

There is always hope in Christ, individually and for The Church. But I don’t know what God’s will is for our part of The Church. I hope that better days are coming. But I wonder if there is more of a role for lament, for weeping, and for repentance than we are currently making room for. I wonder if the most appropriate posture that we could have in the wake of General Conference is one of confession and repentance. I wonder if we need to be silent and weep instead of trying to wrap a pretty bow on what was a pretty disappointing meeting.

Early in this General Conference, someone said “If it’s going to be, it’s up to me.” If that is true, the 2012 General Conference should teach us that “it” isn’t going to be, because we can’t pull it off. If we learn nothing else, may God help us to turn away from self-reliance and self-confidence and turn toward the living God, who brings life after death.

God, help us! We cannot help ourselves.

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)