Category Archives: Ministry

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)

The Class Meeting and Covenant Discipleship

02 Monday Apr 2012

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

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think?

On the Class Meeting

27 Tuesday Mar 2012

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

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Being a First-Time Visitor

29 Monday Aug 2011

Posted by in Christian Living, Life, Ministry

≈ 13 Comments

Tags

Hello, my name is Kevin Watson. Welcome to deeply committed. I am the author of this blog and I am thrilled that you found your way here. (This seemingly random introduction will make more sense if you keep reading.)

One of the strangest parts of moving from Dallas, TX to Seattle, WA has been the experience of being a first-time visitor in church. For various reasons, I have not been in this position since seminary. And it was different even during seminary, because I was often visiting a church as an assignment or as part of my seminary training. The point of this post is to share a bit of my experience from the past two weeks in order to help church leaders view their churches through the eyes of a first-time visitor.

The first thing I would say about visiting a church for the first time is that it is hard! I like routines and the comfort of feeling like I know what is going on. None of that really applies when you are a first-time visitor at a church.

Here are a few, not necessarily connected, thoughts about the last two weeks:

Neither church was United Methodist. We visited these two churches in order to get a sense of the kinds of churches that my soon to be students at Seattle Pacific University will likely be attending and to get a feel for the types of churches that are generally in the area where we live. It was interesting to visit non-United Methodist Churches. A clear emphasis of both churches was on the importance of small groups, though neither of them appeared to have something I would consider a close analogy to a 21st century class meeting. Nevertheless, it was a humbling reminder than many parts of the Body of Christ are currently doing a better job of practicing Wesleyan communal Christian formation than United Methodism. In fact, the sermon at one of the two churches was on the importance of connecting and small groups were clearly highlighted both before and after the sermon as a vitally important part of the life of the particular community of faith. Without going too far, this church emphasized the importance of connecting through small groups, and providing an accessible and clear way to become involved in small groups as strongly as they could have.

My impression was that both churches that we visited were sincerely trying to be hospitable and welcoming to new visitors. I did not sense that either church was a closed group that would just assume that my family was not there. On the contrary, I think that both churches had successfully cultivated a culture where people wanted new life and would have been genuinely pleased if my family were to join the church. At one of the churches, as soon as someone realized we were new to the church, we were given a small gift bag with a book, pen, water, and breath mints (so much you could over-read into that!) in it.

The same church also had a nice set up of coffee, muffins, bagels, and other breakfast foods. There was no sign anywhere that there was any expectation that you would pay for these things. I think it is a mistake when churches put something next to food and drinks that makes it obvious you are supposed to pay for them. In my view, this severely undercuts the act of hospitality in having food and drink available. (Maybe I was just hungry and glad I could feel comfortable eating even though I didn’t have cash on hand…)

Here are a few things I noticed that would have made the experience more positive for my family:

We were a bit early to one church, and when we arrived in the Sunday School area no one was there. To be fair, someone showed up within thirty seconds of our arrival. But, it was a bit disconcerting to show up where we were told to take our daughter and find an empty room.

Andrew Forrest, the pastor at my family’s church home in Dallas, started doing two things in church that I appreciate after the past two weeks even more than I did before. The first time Andrew speaks in the worship service, he always introduces himself. He says something very concise and simple like, “Hi, I’m Andrew Forrest. I’m the pastor here at Munger Place. If you’re a first time visitor we are really glad you are here…” To people who attend every week, this may seem unnecessary. But what I have discovered the past two weeks is that if someone who is speaking in the worship service does not introduce themselves, and you are new to the church, you have no way of knowing who is talking to you. It isn’t the end of the world, but it is a bit confusing and a subtle way that a person can feel outside of what is going on in worship. (See, now the first sentence makes complete sense… right?)

The other thing Andrew started doing a few months before we moved was give an idea of how long the worship service was. To be honest, at first I thought this was a bit silly and unnecessary. However, the past two weeks have changed my mind. Both of the services we attended were different lenths, and they were both different from the typical length of the worship service at Munger Place. Again, it wasn’t a major issue, but because we have two little ones who are on schedules as far as when they eat and sleep, etc. Melissa and I did start to get a bit anxious when the service started to go beyond the time that we assumed it would be. It didn’t end up being an issue either week, but our minds would have been put at ease if someone had simply said something like “our worship service typically lasts x.” (Having said that, I think there needs to be room for the Holy Spirit in worship. The point is not to be legalistic, but just to give new visitors a sense of what is going to happen.)

Related to this, both churches gave us something when we entered the sanctuary. However, it was not an order of worship. I don’t really care if a church gives you a detailed scripting of what is going to happen. However, I do think when churches give you no sense of the layout of the worship service, it is all the more important to give verbal clues to the congregation of what is happening, what is next, etc. At one of the churches, the worship leader ended a song and then said, “Ok, we are going to take a break now. Make sure you say hi to someone” and then walked off stage. My wife and I had no idea what was happening, because we have never been to a church before where there is a break in the middle of the service. It would have helped if he had said a bit more, with new folks in mind.

One more positive: Both churches had thoughtful set ups for children. People knew where our kids could go (better still, at one church the greeter took us there and introduced us to the adults who would be with our kids). There was also a good sign-in system that gave us confidence that our kids would not be handed off to someone else at the end of the worship service. These are things I must admit I did not think about before having children. One of the reasons I mention this, then, is in case some of you who read this do not have children. It might be helpful to ask some parents of young children what would be important to them if they were to visit a new church, and if they attend your church they would be great people to ask how your church could be more welcoming to families with young children.

A final thought: I realized that a good website is essential for a church that wants to have new visitors. This is probably obvious to most of you who are reading this. However, even in writing this post I am realizing that we would probably not have even visited either church if the website had not made us comfortable that there would be a place for James that we would be comfortable with, etc. If you are in an urban setting and you don’t get many visitors, you may want to think about the quality of your website. If your website looks unprofessional, many people will not even visit the church. Another way of thinking about this is that in 2011 there are no true first-time visitors who come into your church. Rather, your first-time visitor is the person who visits your website and decides whether they want to come “back” by coming to an actual worship service.

There you have it, a few thoughts from a few weeks of being a genuine outside in two different churches. What would you add to what I’ve said? What do you think is important for the church to keep in mind when it thinks about new visitors?