Category Archives: Ministry

Can Francis Asbury Help You Become a More Effective Communicator? (Part 3)

16 Monday Sep 2013

Posted by in Christian Living, Methodist History, Ministry

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , ,

In his exceptional biography of Francis Asbury, John Wigger describes the characteristics that made the father of American Methodism an effective communicator. These four traits were:

This is the third post in a four-part series that considers each of the traits that made Asbury an effective leader. I will also consider whether these traits are relevant for contemporary church leaders. (You can view the previous posts by clicking the traits listed above.)

The third trait that made Asbury an effective communicator was his understanding and use of popular culture (7). If the second aspect of what made Asbury an effective communicator marked a difference between he and John Wesley, this is a trait that Asbury and Wesley shared. Wigger described the way this trait function for Asbury, particularly with regard to his relationship between John Wesley and Americans:

Asbury acted as a mediator between Wesley and common Americans. Wesley and Asbury came from significantly different backgrounds, but they shared a realization that the dominant religious institutions of their day were failing to reach most people. The great question they both addressed was how to make the gospel relevant in their time and place. The audience was never far from their minds (7).

One of the major challenges Asbury faced as a mediator between Wesley and the average American was which parts of popular American culture to embrace and which parts to reject. Asbury embraced the revivalistic atmosphere that was inseparable from early nineteenth-century camp meetings. As a result, American Methodism embraced the camp meeting early on, while many other denominations hesitated. Asbury initially took a firm stand against American Methodists holding slaves. However, he ultimately compromised on this stand.

The camp meeting and American slavery show the tension in engaging popular culture. Wigger ultimately argues that “this mediating impulse, transmitted from Wesley through Asbury, became a trademark of American Methodism” (7). It was certainly not without complication, but it is one of the reasons American Methodism grew exponentially during the decades that Asbury was the bishop of the newly created Methodist Episcopal Church.

Would this characteristic be significant for contemporary church leadership?

Yes, but the same tensions alluded to above are an unavoidable part of any engagement with popular culture. Wigger’s discussion of the broader implications of religious movements engaging the surrounding culture provides a helpful framework for thinking about the contemporary relevance of this aspect of Asbury’s leadership style:

All religious movements interact with the prevailing culture of their adherents. Popular religous movements like early American Methodism exist in a tension between religious values and the values of the dominant culture, alternately challenging and embracing the larger culture around them. To either completely accept or reject the larger culture is to cease to be either religious on the one hand, or popular on the other. Leaders like Asbury understand this tension and work within it (7).

Early American Methodism provides a fascinating example of a Christian tradition both changing the culture and being changed by it. Among other things, this example ought to chasten religious leaders or institutions that talk about cultural engagement in overly static or one-directional ways. If a person or institution succeeds in understanding and using popular culture, they will almost certainly be changed by that culture.

The very fear of being “converted” by popular culture has led some to avoid engaging popular culture at all. To use Wigger’s phrase, this is to cease to be popular. Wesley and Asbury were both unapologetically in favor of gathering a large audience.

The desire to be relevant (or sometimes for contemporary American Methodism to be popular once again) has led some to embrace popular culture with no hesitation. To the extent that this has happened in American Methodism, I think it is at least in part because there was a time that being American and being Methodist were nearly synonymous. Contemporary American Methodists who feel this temptation would do well to heed Wigger’s warning that to completely accept the larger culture is to cease to be religious, or more importantly, Christian.

Wigger argues that the success of any religious movement “hinges on maintaining contact with the culture around them” (7). I think he is right. The Church needs leaders who know Jesus, are committed to practicing their faith in consistent daily ways, can connect with ordinary people, and understand the culture around them and who seek the Holy Spirit’s guidance for how to best engage that culture.

[Note: I think Wigger’s description of culture could be a bit more nuanced. The idea that there is a popular culture (as opposed to a more complicated network of cultures that intersect in a variety of ways) that a community of faith decides to engage or not engage is a bit too straightforward.]

So what do you think? In order to be effective, does a leader in the church need to understand and use popular culture? Why or why not? How have you seen church leaders do this well? How do you think it could be done better?

Going from preachin’ to meddlin’: My guess is that most people tend towards one of the extremes Wigger discusses, either embracing or rejecting popular culture uncritically. Do you tend to embrace or reject popular culture? How might you be able to engage popular culture more faithfully for the glory of God?

If you are enjoying this series, be sure to subscribe to the blog so you don’t miss the next post. You can subscribe via e-mail by clicking here or via reader by clicking here.

Can Francis Asbury Help You Be a More Effective Communicator? (Part 2)

12 Thursday Sep 2013

Posted by in Christian Living, Methodist History, Ministry

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

, , ,

In his exceptional biography of Francis Asbury, John Wigger describes the characteristics that made the father of American Methodism an effective communicator. These four traits were:

This is the second post in a four-part series that considers each of the traits that made Asbury an effective leader. I will also consider whether these traits are relevant for contemporary church leaders. (You can view the previous post by clicking the first trait listed above.)

The second trait that made Asbury an effective communicator was, “his ability to connect with ordinary people” (6). John Wesley was not known for this characteristic. In fact, there are a few examples where Wesley’s interactions with people are shockingly insensitive. Asbury, however, was gifted at connecting with people he met throughout his travels, building relationships with them even during short stays.

My favorite part of this aspect of Asbury’s personality is that he was known for having a good sense of humor in a time when “Methodists didn’t generally consider joking and laughter compatible with religion” (Wigger, 6). Even better, Asbury’s sense of humor was self-effacing. Here is one particular story that Wigger relates that also shows that Asbury did not take himself too seriously:

Once, when Asbury was nearly sixty and had been a bishop for nearly two decades, he and the ‘venerable, portly’ preacher Benjaming Bidlack came to the home of a ‘respectable Methodist’ in the Genessee District of upstate New York. Seeing Asbury riding in front, the man mistook him for an assisstant and ordered him to dismount and open the gate for the bishop. Bidlack played along, and as he passed by, Asbury bowed low, offering to see to the bishop’s horse and bags. When their host realized his mistake, he was ‘mortified’ until he saw how much Asbury enjoyed the joke (6).

The way that Wigger concludes his summary of this second aspect of what made Asbury an effective communicator is particularly intriguing: “People found Asbury approachable and willing to listen to their concerns more than they found him full of inspiring ideas” (7).

Asbury was an effective communicator and leader, then, because he was able to connect with people. He could make them laugh. He could even enjoy a good laugh at his own expense. People listened to him because they liked him, largely because they sensed that he liked them.

Would this characteristic be significant for contemporary church leadership?

Of course!

People will rarely follow someone they do not like or they do not believe likes them. And leaders in the contemporary church will be far more successful in leading if they are able to relate to the people in the churches to which they have been sent to provide leadership.

Here are a few quick thoughts on how church leaders can connect with ordinary people:

1. For those who are seminary, stay in contact with “normal people” (whatever that means!). Seminary is great, but it can also unintentionally become a kind of bubble, where you forget that most people would not be interested in having a three hour conversation about various theories of the atonement, the difference between imputed vs. imparted righteousness, etc. My point is not that these things are bad. In fact, they are essentially to a seminary education. But seminary can unintentionally deform you from being able to relate to the “people in the pews.” And if people who are attending seminary because they have been called to local church ministry can no longer relate to the people they will be serving when the graduate, well, that is a problem.

2. Spend time with people on their turf. When I was pastoring a church in rural Oklahoma, a significant number of men from the church would meet for coffee every morning at the co-op. Driving up to a grain elevator, walking into a room with fertilizer bags, horse troughs, and hundreds of tools I had never seen before was initially a jarring experience! But I learned to love that time. I learned more about those men sitting on folding chairs around that plastic table than I ever did within the walls of the church. I also laughed more there than any other place in that town. They are precious memories! And looking back, I am amazed at the hospitality that these men showed in welcoming me into their favorite place to spend time together.

3. Relax and don’t have an agenda. Just spend time with people because they have been created in the image of almighty God. Listen to them. Hear what they are trying to tell you. If you do this, you will be invited into people’s lives in incredible ways.

4. Don’t take yourself too seriously. Leaders always win when they laugh at themselves. And they win when they share credit and build up other people.

5. Remember that more often than not people want to know whether you care and whether you can be trusted. This is a hard one for me. My instinct is to try to bowl people over by my ideas, by content. But Asbury’s example reminds us that before people can hear our ideas, they first need us to hear them – really hear them.

So what do you think? How important do you think it is for leaders in the church to be able to relate well to other people? What would you add to my list of ways that church leaders can better relate to others?

Going from preachin’ to meddlin’: This post assumes that Christian leaders do genuinely love the people God has sent them to serve. I have been surprised at how often I have encountered pastors who are not good at listening at all. It is an area where I can always find room for growth myself. Are you a good listener? Do you habitually, maybe without even realizing it, interrupt people? Before you try to get others to hear you, how can you learn to better hear them?

If you are enjoying this series, be sure to subscribe to the blog so you don’t miss the next two posts. You can subscribe via e-mail by clicking here or via reader by clicking here.

Can Francis Asbury help you be a more effective communicator?

11 Wednesday Sep 2013

Posted by in Christian Living, Methodist History, Ministry

≈ 10 Comments

Tags

, ,

In his exceptional biography of Francis Asbury, John Wigger describes the characteristics that made the father of American Methodism an effective communicator. These four traits were:

    1. legendary piety and perseverance, rooted in a classical evangelical conversion experience.

    2. ability to connect with ordinary people

    3. ability to understand and use popular culture.

    4. organization of the Methodist church.

Over the next four posts, I will consider each of these traits that made Asbury an effective leader. I will also consider whether these traits are relevant for contemporary church leaders.

The first trait that made Asbury an effective communicator was, in Wigger’s words, “his legendary piety and perseverance, rooted in a classical evangelical conversion experience” (5). Like John Wesley, Francis Asbury was nearly obsessed with growing in love of God and neighbor.

Asbury was also constantly traveling from one place to another, staying with thousands of different people over the course of his life. As a result, he had virtually no privacy at all. As his biographer puts it, “It is all the more revealing, then, that the closer people got to him, the more they tended to respect the integrity of his faith” (5) Even those with whom he had the deepest disagreements still recognized the sincerity and depth of his faith in Christ.

Asbury was an effective communicator and leader, then, because people could see that he was really “walking the walk.” People often listened to him because they knew he was a man who spent time in prayer and searching the Scriptures.

Would this characteristic be significant for contemporary church leadership?

I think it would be. And it would be significant for helping build relationships with non-Christians, not just leading other Christians. Over the last past decade, there has been quite a bit of conversation about the perception by non-Christians that Christians are hypocrites. (I’m thinking of unChristian by David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons, for example.) The earnestness and sincerity of a Christian leader who had “legendary piety and perseverance, rooted in a classical evangelical conversation experience” might help them gain credibility with non-Christians who are wary that Christian leaders are selling something that they don’t use themselves.

The words of Jesus in Matthew, on the other hand, provide a reasons for caution. In the sermon on the Mount, Jesus warns those who are pursuing righteousness, to “Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ in front of others, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven” (Matt 6:1).

Asbury’s piety was visible because he basically had no private life. But today, privacy is such a high value that even people who travel frequently to speak in churches and at conferences rarely stay with families from the group that is hosting them.

A piety that is showy and boastful will not bring credibility. Nevertheless, it is important that Christian leaders “practice what they preach.” And Methodists should emphasize the importance of regular practice of the means of grace (prayer, searching the Scriptures, receiving communion, fasting, etc.).

So what do you think? Will a faith that is visible through basic practices in someone’s life tend to lead others to have a higher esteem for that person’s faith? And if so, how can Christian leaders appropriately make their own practice of their faith more visible or public?

Going from preachin’ to meddlin’: This post assumes that Christian leaders are spending both quality and quantity time in prayer, searching the Scriptures, etc. But this is not necessarily a safe assumption. Are you spending consistent and meaningful time with God?

What Does the Bible Say about Sanctification?

03 Tuesday Sep 2013

Posted by in Christian Living, Holiness, Ministry

≈ 9 Comments

Tags

, , ,

When I teach Wesleyan theology, I usually ask how many people have heard a sermon on sanctification. I have rarely had a student raise their hand. The lack of preaching on sanctification, or holiness, may lead some to assume that the Bible doesn’t say much about the topic. But that is not the case!

photo courtesy of yahwehistruth.com

Here are ten passages (in no particular order) from Scripture that relate to sanctification or holiness:

1. Therefore, with minds that are alert and fully sober, set your hope on the grace to be brought to you when Jesus Christ is revealed at his coming. As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance. But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: “Be holy, because I am holy.” (1 Peter 1:13-16)

2. Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful is He who calls you, and He also will bring it to pass. (1 Thessalonians 5:23-24)

3. Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5:48)

4. Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified. (John 17:17-19)

5. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here! (2 Corinthians 5:17)

6. Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God – this is true worship. Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is – his good, pleasing and perfect will. (Romans 12:1-2)

7. For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people. It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age. (Titus 2:11-12)

8. Make every effort to live in peace with everyone and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord. (Hebrews 12:14)

9. Consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am the LORD your God. Keep my decrees and follow them. I am the LORD, who makes you holy. (Leviticus 20:7)

10. “He himself bore our sins” in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; “by his wounds you have been healed.” (1 Peter 2:24)

And a bonus passage that I couldn’t leave out:

What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. If we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin – because anyone who has died has been set free from sin. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. (Romans 6:1-11)

This is by no means a comprehensive list. There are many more passages on holiness in Christian Scripture. But these passage say a lot about the importance of sanctification for Christianity.

Have you heard a someone preach on holiness, sanctification, or even entire sanctification? What is your favorite Scripture passage on sanctification? And by all means, include passages on sanctification that I left out in the comments below!

Sin and the Christian life: A response to Rachel Held Evans

14 Wednesday Aug 2013

Posted by in Christian Living, Ministry

≈ 49 Comments

Tags

, , ,

In a recent blog post, popular writer and blogger Rachel Held Evans addressed the relationship of sin to the lives of Christians. Before I summarize my understanding of her argument, and why I disagree with her, I want to say that I really appreciate Rachel’s demeanor online. From my reading of her writing she is a good model of a Christian blogging and using social media. She avoids sarcasm, mischaracterizing positions she disagrees with to score cheap points, or writing misleading or inaccurate things simply to get hits. Rachel Held Evans is a gifted writer who comes across as doing the best that she can to fairly represent the various perspectives that she engages in her writing. I will do my best to accurately represent her position and to respond to her with charity and fairness. Ultimately, my concern is not to get in an argument with Rachel, but to articulate why holiness matters and is an essential part of the Christian life.

I think the best entry into the main argument of her post is the very beginning. She wrote:

How’s that working out for you?

The “go and sin no more” thing?

Because it’s not going so well for me.

I’ve known Jesus for as long as I’ve known my name, and still I use other people like capital to advance my own interest, still I gossip to make myself feel important, still I curse my brothers and sisters in one breath and sing praise songs in the next, still I sit in church with arms folded and cynicism coursing through my bloodstream, still I talk a big game about caring for the poor without doing much to change my own habits, still I indulge in food I’m not hungry for and jewelry I don’t need, still I obsess over what people say about me on the internet, still I forget my own privilege, still I talk more than I listen and complain more than I thank, still I commit acts of evil, still I make a great commenter on Christianity and a lousy practitioner of it.

But Jesus pours out his mercy, staying the hand of my accusers again and again and again. I go, stepping over scattered stones, forgiven, grateful, and free.

I go, but I do not sin no more.

In the post, she primarily interacts with the story of the woman caught in adultery from the Gospel of John (8:1-11). Here is what strikes me as her key interpretation of this passage:

It’s one of just two times in his recorded ministry that Jesus said this – “go and sin no more” – and I don’t believe for a second he expected this woman to do such a thing… at least not forever, at least not for good.

And the application of the story seems to primarily be that the woman will learn not to pick up a stone to throw at someone else the next time they commit a sin. She concludes by saying that “We’ve missed the point when we turn this story into a stone.”

The article is well worth reading in its entirety.

I think Rachel gets several things right. I really appreciate her humility and honesty in admitting that she is an imperfect person who needs Jesus and his mercy. And for that matter, I really appreciate the way her faith and relationship with Jesus come through so clearly. I like that the post is incomprehensible without Jesus. And I agree with her that we miss the point of the story if we “turn it into a stone,” to repeat the beautiful phrase she concludes her post with. And perhaps most importantly, I think this is one of the best articulations of the impossibility of Christians living the kind of life Jesus calls them to live that I have recently come across. It is a beautiful articulation of the dominant American Christian belief that sin is inevitable.

I, however, strongly disagree with her post for a number of reasons.

First, Rachel appears to me to make sin necessary because she finds that she regularly sins. But she provides no reason for why it follows that because I often commit various sins; therefore, I must sin – that it is necessary and inevitable for Christians to sin.

I don’t believe it does follow. This is one of the reasons I cringe at the way that experience is used in contemporary popular Christian discourse. Christians too often survey their own experience, their preferences, their habits, or the people they know and whether they seem sincere. They then read those experiences back into the gospel. And so our experiences come to norm the gospel; the gospel does not have authority over our lives and experiences.

The consequences of such a move are disastrous for Christian discipleship, which insists that Jesus is lord and not us.

I want to be sure that I am not misunderstood here. I am in no way trying to throw Rachel’s honesty about her own struggle with sin in her face. I also struggle with sin. My own list of sins would be long and at least as devastating. I have a lot of room to grow. And I am in no position to throw stones at her or anyone else.

Second, it does not follow, however, that because we are both failing to currently live lives free from sin that sin is necessary or inevitable for Christians. This analysis doesn’t even make sense outside of the particularities of Christian living. It would strike me as ridiculous, and my guess is it would seem ridiculous to Rachel as well, if, instead of critiquing the idea of ceasing to sin, she had written a post defending the use of grammatical errors in published writing. The fact that people do often make mistakes in writing does not make that the norm for good writing. It is a failure and we can and should do better. Rachel exemplifies this in her own writing, as it is consistently of excellent quality.

As the well-worn cliche goes, “practice makes perfect.”

Related to this, to make an argument that sin is necessary for those who are “in Christ” would require a much more thorough survey of the writings of the New Testament. Rachel seems to have a hermeneutic of suspicion or at least skepticism towards the teachings of Jesus that is suspect. I am not sure Jesus saying, “Go and sin no more” is on the same level as Jesus saying to pluck out your right eye or cut off your hand if they cause you to sin. And even here, Jesus seems to be using hyperbole to emphasize the incompatibility of sin with the holiness of God.

Rachel’s analysis is not able to wrestle with the strong and repeated calls for followers of Jesus Christ to grow in holiness, not by their own inherent awesomeness – but by the grace and power of God.

Finally, and most importantly, I think Rachel unintentionally offered her audience cheap grace and not the audacious, ridiculous, almost unbelievably amazing grace that is offered to every person created in the image of God. The hope that Christians can have, on Rachel’s account, it seems to me is to not be condemned even though they are unfaithful. And to learn to not condemn others when they are unfaithful.

And yet, I find even Rachel’s own account confusing. One of the most potent lines of the piece is “I go, stepping over scattered stones, forgiven, grateful, and free.”

But she isn’t free, not really. Because she believes she will inevitably continue being a “lousy practitioner” of Christianity.

This is not the fullness of the gospel. The gospel proclaims that Jesus was the Son of God, he was crucified, died, and raised again on the third day. Jesus faced the very worse that sin and death could do. He entered fully into the reality of death. And he conquered sin, even the grave!

On this side of the resurrection, Christians have no basis for saying that sin is necessary. Christians have no basis for saying that sin is inevitable. On what grounds is it necessary for those who have been forgiven of their sins and been given new life by the grace of God to continue doing things that put distance between themselves and God? Does it happen? Yes. Does it happen a lot? Sadly, yes. Does this mean that it is God’s will? No. Does it mean that it has to happen? No.

In the list of sins that Rachel included in her post, which ones are unavoidable? Does she really believe that God’s grace has not given her any power over the discrepancy in her life between talking about caring for the poor and actually caring for the poor? Think about actual sins that you have committed. Do you really believe that in the moment that you committed them that you were powerless to do anything else?

When I look back on selfish actions in my own life, it is always clear to me that these actions were avoidable. They were bad decisions that I made. Decisions that make Jesus weep.

Here is what it comes down to: Which do you believe is more powerful: sin or God? If you believe that people are not able to “go and sin no more,” then you believe that sin is more powerful than God. If you believe that God is more powerful than sin, which I think is the conclusion Christians must come to, then you may need to take a closer look at the reflexive excusing of the reality of sin in the lives of those who have taken on the name of Christ that is prevalent in contemporary American Christianity.

Christians are able to stop sinning, not because of their own goodness, but because of the grace and power of God. It isn’t something that we can do for ourselves, but it is something that God is able and willing to do in us and for us.

Rachel is right. Jesus does pour out his mercy, he does stay the hand of our accusers. And by grace, we are forgiven. And by grace through faith, we can be free. Really free. Christians believe in the one, to use the beautiful lyrics of Charles Wesley, who “breaks the power of cancelled sin, sets the prisoner free.”

Rachel has offered her audience part of the gospel, forgiveness of our sins by faith in Christ. But she has withheld the other part, which is at least as good of news: we are not only forgiven, but the power that sin had on us has been broken. She has mistakenly put forgiveness and holiness in tension with each other. Jesus offers us both forgiveness and the freedom to live faithfully.

We do not free ourselves. Those who are in Christ are set free.

And Jesus says to those he has released, “Go and sin no more.”

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 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.