Edit: Interpreter magazine has revised the online article here and published a correction in the July-August 2017 issue here. I am grateful for the time the editors put into addressing my concerns about the initial article.

I was discouraged to read “One faith, different understandings” published in the May-June 2017 issue of Interpreter. I was interviewed for this article about two months ago. At the end of the interview, I asked to read a complete draft of the article before it was published. I said that I recognized the author was on a tight deadline and promised to respond within a few business days, or she was free to send it on for publication. I did not see or hear anything more about this article until I started receiving emails and messages from people asking me about my quotes in it this week.

This is particularly frustrating to me because I tried to be clear about my perspective when I received the interview request, which started with this question: “To begin, perhaps we can agree that the Methodist quadrilateral unites United Methodists. Describe the quadrilateral’s role in denominational life.” I responded to this email as follows:

Reading your questions, however, I may not be helpful to the direction you are going with your article. I see the quadrilateral as probably more of the problem to the disunity of The UMC than a way of providing unity. I think it became, in some ways despite Albert Outler’s wishes, a way of legitimizing coming to different – and at times mutually incompatible – understandings of theology and practice in one denomination. I would also be fairly adamant that the quadrilateral is not theology proper. Rather, it is a method for doing theology – and one that, again, virtually guarantees different conclusions (and that is almost always misused).

I have done some writing about the quadrilateral on my personal blog. These pieces may help you discern whether I would be of help to you in the story you are working on.

Experience in the so-called “Wesleyan Quadrilateral”

More on Experience in the so-called “Wesleyan Quadrilateral”

United Methodist Doctrine: That 70s Show?

Again, happy to talk if that is helpful to you. I also understand if you determine that my thinking on this would not help in the article that you are writing.

Two quotes in the article, in particular, suggest that I support the big-tent vision for United Methodism that started with Albert Outler at the beginnings of The UMC and is being aggressively advocated today by many United Methodist Bishops and other key denominational leaders.

The article begins by listing a number of random facts about United Methodism. These facts are followed by the question: “Do those differences have to be sources of division?” The article introduces me for the first time after asking this question. It states:

Within United Methodism are Christians rooted in mainline Protestantism, the Holiness Movement and everything in between, says the Rev. Kevin Watson, assistant professor of Wesleyan and Methodist studies at Candler School of Theology. Essentially every denomination connected to John Wesley and Methodism is “represented in the United Methodist denomination.” [I am leaving the lack of quotation marks etc. as they are in the article published online.]

Immediately after this, Tamara Lewis, who teaches at Perkins School of Theology is quoted, “The core of United Methodism even going back to Wesley is unity in diversity.” I do not share this understanding of our Wesleyan heritage, and said as much multiple times in the interview. (To be fair, Lewis may also feel that her remarks were taken out of context and used in a way that distort her meaning.) Either way, the transition between these two quotes gives no indication that I would disagree with the second, and seems to me to suggest that I agree with it.

Later the article states:

Throughout the church, Lewis said, theological differences on questions of homosexual leadership in the church or other interpretations and understandings of Scripture “do not have to divide Methodism as in splitting the church institutionally. I don’t think these questions have to make or break us if we follow Wesley’s lead.”

Watson likens the denomination to a big tent. “We keep moving the tent poles as wide as we have to make sure that anyone who is part of it or wants to be part of it can be,” he said.

In my description, I was saying that the tendency to keep moving the tent poles was a liability of United Methodism, neither a source of strength nor faithful to our Wesleyan heritage. I believe that for Wesley unity was the product of a firm commitment to a particular set of beliefs and practice (a doctrine and discipline). Wesley would not, and we should not, put institutional unity above a particular understanding of “holiness of heart and life.”

My words were not used in a way that accurately reflect the interview I gave, what I believe is true of our history, or what I believe is at stake for The United Methodist Church today. Since the print version of the magazine is already out, I am publishing my response here to clarify what I believe. I hope that Interpreter will publish a correction to this article online and in their next print issue.

Methodism in America is in the midst of change. It is not yet clear how exactly American Methodism is changing or whether change will lead to a bright future for my own denomination in particular (The United Methodist Church). But it does seem clear that it is changing.

During the three years I taught at Seattle Pacific University, I experienced life in a major U.S. city that is profoundly post-Christian. Moving from Seattle to the Atlanta metro area was a kind of culture shock, because cultural Christianity appears to be alive and well in many parts of the southeast. My sense is that within one generation the landscape of the U.S. as a whole will look much more like Seattle than Atlanta.

And so I’ve found my mind wandering again and again to this question: What is the future of Methodism in America?

Before I enter fully into these thoughts, let me assure you that I am aware of what a speculative enterprise this is. I offer these thoughts as ultimately nothing more than one person’s thoughts about the kind of Methodism that will be most likely to thrive in twenty years or so.

1. American Methodism will experience a paradigm shift as the desire to pursue cultural respectability becomes obsolete. American Methodism will slowly recognize its loss of cultural respect, eventually acknowledging it and then grieving it. Ultimately, American Methodism will emerge on the other side with a much clearer sense of its own identity, mission, and purpose and will learn to live authentically from these, even though much of what American Methodism stands for will be alien and perhaps even offensive to the broader culture(s) it is situated within. Moreover, given broader cultural changes, American Methodism will recognize that it must form people into a new worldview, and not merely a few ideas and practices that serve as self-help strategies adorning mostly unchanged lives.

2. American Methodism will recognize that the Holy Spirit has already given the people called Methodists a theology that is ideally suited for a post-Christian context. Methodists will preach the Wesleyan understanding of grace in its fullness with renewed conviction and boldness. Methodists will insist that God’s grace is for everyone, no exceptions. And Methodists will maintain that God’s grace saves us through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ who cancels (forgives) all of our sins. And Methodists will also boldly proclaim the audacious optimism of God’s sanctifying (life-changing) grace, which can enable us to love God and neighbor to the complete exclusion of sin. American Methodists will be known for their passionate belief in entire sanctification and God’s ability to changes lives radically.

3. American Methodism will recognize that the Holy Spirit has already given the people called Methodists a practice that is ideally suited for such a time as this. In a post-Christian context, a thriving faith community must not only proclaim the gospel, with the accents just mentioned, it must visibly demonstrate its proclamation by embodying what God makes possible. American Methodism will embrace social holiness (communal formation, especially through transformation-driven small groups) as a part of its fundamental and foundational essential practices. Participation in weekly small groups like the class meeting and the band meeting will be seen as more important than attending a weekly worship service. It will be impossible to be a member of American Methodism in the future and not regularly attend corporate worship and a small group focused on God’s work in your life.

4. As American Methodism passionately preaches entire sanctification and makes an uncompromising commitment to social holiness, it will find God’s deepest blessings through being in ministry with all of God’s children, especially those who seem beyond hope from a worldly perspective. American Methodists will not send money and resources to help those who cannot help themselves, but will be in relational ministry with them as a natural expression of their practical theology. As one example, American Methodism will recognize that recovery ministry is not something that a church lets an auxiliary group anonymously do in their building, but is something that is a core ministry of the church. American Methodists will not see this as a ministry for “those people,” but will seek complete freedom from addiction to the ways of sin and death together, by the grace of God. And many will experience the fullness of God’s amazing grace.

5. The boundaries of American Methodism will be blurred by close connection and cooperation with global Methodism. Methodist missionaries will both come to and from America. American Methodism at every level will be changed through relationships with brothers and sisters from across the globe, especially Africa, Asia, and South America. American Methodists will place significantly greater weight on the Methodist aspect of their identity than the American. Methodists across the globe will be united by a common mission to spread scriptural holiness across the globe.

There are so many possibilities for the future of American Methodism. It is impossible to predict with certainly what will be. I do know that when I think about this possible future, I get extremely excited. Come, Holy Spirit!

Kevin M. Watson is a Professor at Candler School of Theology, Emory University. He teaches, writes, and preaches to empower community, discipleship, and stewardship of our heritage. Click here to get future posts emailed to you.

Last night Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton referenced her Methodist faith during her speech. Secretary Clinton said:

She made sure I learned the words of our Methodist faith: “Do all the good you can, for all the people you can, in all the ways you can, as long as ever you can.”

Is this an accurate expression of Methodist faith?

Immediately after she spoke these words a close friend said, “You’re about to be cited a lot.” And sure enough I started hearing from people via text message, Twitter, and Facebook. And my blog immediately got 1,500 hits due to people searching the phrase “Do all the good that you can.”

I wrote a blog post on April 29, 2013 that pointed out that Wesley did not actually say the full quote that is often misattributed to him:

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

It was interesting that my post got so much attention last night; however, because Hillary Clinton did not say that John Wesley said the quote. (Sadly, the official twitter account for The United Methodist Church did immediately publish a tweet misattributing the quote to John Wesley.) It is all too rare to see a public figure use this kind of well-worn quote with care and nuance for historical accuracy. Hillary Clinton did that in her speech last night. She absolutely got it right!

Perhaps more interesting than whether Wesley did or did not say something is whether the phrase is an accurate expression of “our Methodist faith,” to use Secretary Clinton’s words. There has seemed to be an assumption online that because I have stubbornly insisted that John Wesley did not say this quote that I also do not think it is a Wesleyan sentiment. So, does “Do all the good you can, for all the people you can, in all the ways you can, as long as ever you can” accurately express Methodist faith? Of course it does!

This quote is an accurate summary of Methodist commitment to public service. The key place that I would connect this explicitly to John Wesley and early Methodism would be the “General Rules,” (though there are many ways where Wesley expresses similar sentiments) which was a short document that outlined the basic commitments that someone was expected to live by when they became a Methodist. The three rules were:

1. Do no harm.

2. Do good.

3. Attend upon the ordinances of God. (This meant practice the basics of the Christian faith regularly like worship, prayer, reading the Bible, receiving the Lord’s Supper, and fasting.)

The full version of the second rule is remarkably similar to “Do all the good that you can….” The rule states: “Secondly, By doing good, by being in every kind merciful after their power, as they have opportunity doing good of every possible sort and as far as is possible to all men.” It continues with concrete acts of good: feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting those who are sick or in prison.

Outside of the context of a major political speech like Hillary Clinton gave last night, I would want to add that there is more to the second rule than acts of service to others. The second rule goes on to exhort doing good “to their souls, by instructing, reproving, or exhorting all they have any intercourse [conversation] with; trampling under foot that enthusiastic doctrine of devils, that ‘we are not to do good unless our hearts be free to do it.’ It also includes doing good “especially to them that are of the household of faith” and doing all of this with “all possible diligence and frugality, that the gospel be not blamed.”

Finally, the second rule concludes with this:

By running with patience the race that is set before them; ‘denying themselves, and taking up their cross daily’; submitting to bear the reproach of Christ, to be as the filth and offscouring of the world; and looking that men should ‘say all manner of evil of them falsely, for their Lord’s sake’.

Put differently, Methodists do all the good that we can in order to become more like Jesus. Methodists are not pursuing a general notion of goodness divorced from the particularities of the gospel. We are pursuing goodness as it is seen in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the only Son of God.

Do you want to learn more about the Methodist commitment to doing all the good that we can and how this fits into the Methodist faith? Check out A Blueprint for Discipleship, which is an accessible introduction to the basics of the Methodist commitment to following Jesus by doing no harm, doing all the good that we can, and practicing our faith by committing to basic spiritual disciplines. Get it here.

Kevin M. Watson is Assistant Professor of Wesleyan and Methodist Studies at Candler School of Theology, Emory University. You can keep up with this blog on twitter @kevinwatson or on facebook at Vital Piety.

Like many of you, I was waiting with great anticipation to hear what would come out of the Executive Committee of The Council of Bishops when it met last week. I have been praying regularly for United Methodist bishops, especially during this meeting. I cannot imagine how difficult being a United Methodist bishop must be in our current moment, especially as the bishops of United Methodism are as divided as the church they serve.

A statement was released by Bishop Bruce Ough, the President of the Council of Bishops, on July 25, 2016 about last week’s meeting and the Executive Committee’s plans for the immediate future of the Commission on a Way Forward. I was stunned when I read the second paragraph of the three-page statement:

We began by acknowledging the profound dissonance between what the Council had proposed to the General Conference in May and the reality within the church in July. The landscape has changed dramatically. The reported declarations of non-compliance from several annual conferences, the intention to convene a Wesleyan Covenant Association and the election of the Rev. Karen Oliveto as a bishop of the church have opened deep wounds and fissures within The United Methodist Church and fanned fears of schism.

This paragraph strikes me as particularly important because it frames the rest of the work that the Executive Committee did, especially in working to create the Commission on a Way Forward. The first time I read the statement the content of this paragraph raised so many concerns for me that it drowned out the rest of the statement.

I have one relatively minor question:

Is there any doubt about the declarations of non-compliance from several annual conferences? It seems a matter of record that these declarations of non-compliance occurred. So, why are these framed as “reported declarations?” The word “reported” seems extraneous and muddies the water regarding the seriousness of what those actions mean for The United Methodist Church.

I’ll focus the remainder of my thoughts on the one major objection I had to the statement:

The statement lists three actions that “have opened deep wounds and fissures within The United Methodist Church and fanned fears of schism.” They are, in the order they appear in the statement:

The reported declarations of non-compliance from several annual conferences

The intention to convene a Wesleyan Covenant Association

The election of the Rev. Karen Oliveto as a bishop of the church

My first thought when reading this list was, “One of these things is not like the other one.” More specifically, one of these actions did not violate The Book of Discipline or express opposition to the theology or polity of The United Methodist Church.

The Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA) should not have been included in the list of actions that “have opened deep wounds and fissures within The United Methodist Church and fanned fears of schism.” Including the WCA in this list reads like a distracting and disparaging attempt to say that both extremes in The UMC are at fault for the current trajectory of United Methodism. But this is misleading.

The declarations of non-compliance and the election of Rev. Oliveto were actions taken by annual conferences and jurisdictions in direct opposition to the will of General Conference and the polity of The UMC as found in The Book of Discipline. Moreover, both acts were undertaken by bodies that constitute units of United Methodist polity.

The WCA is different in that it is not an annual conference or jurisdiction. Most importantly, the WCA has not taken any action in contradiction or violation of The Book of Discipline. From what I see on their website, they haven’t even had their first meeting, which will be in October.

I realize that there are deep disagreements related to gay marriage and human sexuality more broadly. These disagreements are genuine. People of good will can disagree with each other. I can see why Bishop Ough would want to avoid placing blame solely at the feet of one part of the disagreement because he and other bishops would worry that it would make a difficult situation worse.

And yet, the actions that have led to further strains on the fragile unity of The United Methodist Church since the Bishops’ plan was approved by the General Conference have come almost entirely from one direction. It does not help this fragile unity to ask those who started the WCA to share blame for “opening deep wounds and fissures within The United Methodist Church” with annual conferences and jurisdictions that have explicitly and intentionally violated United Methodist polity.

Since the end of General Conference, I’ve heard from a number of evangelical United Methodists who are working hard to keep people, both lay and clergy, from leaving United Methodism. Evangelical United Methodists are considering leaving not because of a lack of support for The United Methodist Church. Evangelicals are considering leaving because The United Methodist Church is not who it says it is. And they are considering leaving because they are tired of the dysfunction of United Methodism being blamed on them, even though their complaint is that the Discipline is not being upheld.

The creation of the Wesleyan Covenant Association did not create deep wounds and fissures in The UMC. Rather, the WCA formed because of these wounds and fissures, which have resulted from years of violation of The Book of Discipline and an unwillingness by some to hold those people accountable in order to preserve a meaningfully united Methodism.

Kevin M. Watson is Assistant Professor of Wesleyan and Methodist Studies at Candler School of Theology, Emory University. You can keep up with this blog on twitter @kevinwatson or on facebook at Vital Piety.

To this point, I have seen those who oppose Rule 44 described as extremists, arrogant, leading a misinformation campaign, being afraid of their feelings or the feelings of others, and having contempt for the heart. As one who is opposed to Rule 44, these feel like personal attacks that are inaccurate projections.

Proponents of Rule 44 argue that the proposed legislation is valuable because it will enable all delegates to have a voice and to hear each other’s stories with respect and love. But the most passionate supporters of Rule 44 are not engaging those they disagree with in this way. So, why would we expect this to change when we shifted from discussing Rule 44 to discussing even more personal and contested topics?

For the record, as a professor at Candler School of Theology I really enjoy hearing students, colleagues, and pastors share their stories of how God has worked and is working in their lives. The major thrust of my work to translate my academic work in service to the church has been seeking to equip local churches to engage each other in small groups where they can do life in the deep places and seek profound growth in their love for God and for each other. A major emphasis of my life’s work to this point has been seeking to help The United Methodist Church reclaim actual Christian conferencing. I do not oppose Rule 44 because I am opposed to people sharing their stories with each other. I just don’t believe that General Conference is the time or place where this essential work can be done effectively. To be clear: None of the descriptions mentioned at the beginning of this post accurately describe the reasons I oppose Rule 44.

I oppose Rule 44 because I believe it is based on a deeply flawed understanding of what Christian conferencing is. The initial role out of Rule 44 made it pretty clear that Rule 44 was one of the most visible attempts to bring Christian conferencing to General Conference. I realize that the Commission has walked this back since, but based on my experience with Faith and Order and the Council of Bishops, I believe I am correct that this was the initial intent of Rule 44. Moreover, I have seen multiple people online defend Rule 44 for precisely this reason. I do not believe there is a way at this stage to separate the inaccurate understanding of Christian conferencing from Rule 44 (ie, the impression that enacting Rule 44 would be reclaiming Christian conferencing). And though it may seem irrelevant to some, I remain sincerely convinced that getting Christian conferencing right is extremely important. If it is an instituted means of grace, as Wesley understood it to be, it is the same category as Holy Communion. We would all be appalled if Holy Communion were described as all of the food that is consumed at General Conference. We should be similarly concerned when Christian conferencing is described by the Commission on General Conference as everything that happens at General Conference because it trivializes the meaning and significance of this precious means of grace.

I also oppose Rule 44 because I am convinced that it will not work in practice. We tried something similar in 2012 and it was experienced as harmful to some who participated. With current tensions and the way the debate is framed, there is just no chance that topics like human sexuality can be engaged honestly and forthrightly without someone feeling offended, silenced, or hurt. I have heard from several people who have experience with the initial attempts to introduce Rule 44. Opinion is divided on whether the practice is in fact helpful in accomplishing its own ends. Tyler Best has just written about his experience as a small group leader of Rule 44 (were it enacted). He provides concrete evidence that General Conference is too complicated and too tense of an environment to pull off the best intentions behind Rule 44.

I remain opposed to Rule 44. I realize that my way is not the only way of thinking about this and that you may disagree with me. I do not demand that you agree with me. I would ask that you recognize that I simply disagree with you and that you not attribute more sinister motives to me.

For previous posts I’ve written on this topic that develop my understanding of what Christian conferencing is and why I oppose Rule 44 click here, here, and here.

Edit: Needing a 2/3 majority to pass, Rule 44 failed to receive approval by the General Conference of The United Methodist Church. The vote took place on May 12, 2106 with 356 voting in favor of adoption and 477 voting against adoption.

One of the many highlights for me from the 2015 New Room Conference was picking up a copy of Andrew C. Thompson’s brand new book The Means of Grace: Traditioned Practice in Today’s World. The book is a substantive yet highly accessible introduction to the basic habits or practices that Wesleyans have insisted are essential for growing in Christian faith and maturity. John Wesley referred to these basic practices as means of grace.

The book begins with a chapter that defines grace and discusses its integral role in the Christian life. The book is organized according to John Wesley’s s understanding of the means of grace as instituted, prudential, and general. Thompson discusses these as what we learn from Christ (instituted), what we learn from our context (prudential), and what we learn by contemplation (general).

The book is appropriately weighted towards the instituted means of grace, those practices that are based on the teaching and example of Jesus. A full chapter is dedicated to each of the instituted means of grace: baptism, searching the Scriptures, prayer, the Lord’s Supper, fasting, and fellowship (or Christian conference). Each chapter provides a strong introduction to the Biblical foundation of the particular practice, as well as its connection to Wesleyan spirituality and our daily discipleship. A particular strength of the book is Thompson’s comfort with both the theological significance of each of these practices and his ability to suggest practical ways to more fully integrate each practice into the rhythms of daily life.

Part II of the book focuses on the prudential means of grace, or what we learn from our context. A chapter is dedicated to “Classes, Bands, and Arts of Holy Living” (my favorite chapter!) and Works of Mercy. Part III focuses on the general means of grace, or what we learn by contemplation. And the book concludes with a summary of the significance of the means of grace for Christian discipleship and an exhortation to enter into a disciplined practice of this disciplined way of life. Thompson concludes by reminding us that the means of grace are intentionally ordinary practices that are “meant to be used in everyday, ordinary life. The promise that they hold for us is that they will show us the way from an ordinary to an extraordinary kind of life” (138).

Thompson is uniquely qualified to write this book because he is both a scholar and a pastor. Moreover, both his scholarship and his pastoral work focus on a thoroughly Wesleyan approach to Christian discipleship.

As a scholar, Thompson wrote his ThD dissertation on Wesley’s understanding of the means of grace at Duke Divinity School, studying with two of the giants in the field of Wesleyan/Methodist Studies, Richard P. Heitzenrater and Randy L. Maddox who have written two of the basic texts for United Methodist ordinands on the history of Methodism and John Wesley’s theology. Thompson also taught the required courses in Methodist history, doctrine, and polity at Memphis Theological Seminary for four years prior to being appointed by his bishop to one of the largest local churches in his home Annual Conference. Simply put, Andrew could not be better prepared intellectually for writing this book. And yet, Thompson also has a deep commitment to the local church and clear giftedness for local church ministry, as is evidenced by his recent transition to the senior pastorate. Thompson’s commitment to the local church and to helping laity grow in faith in Christ is clear throughout The Means of Grace.

I highly recommend this book to anyone who is looking for a deeper understanding of the Wesleyan approach to Christian living. The practices this book introduces have been tried and consistently found to be used by God to draw people more and more deeply into the life that God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share with each other. There is simply no more reliable path to Christian maturity.

You can get a physical copy or e-copy of The Means of Grace directly from the publisher here, or from amazon here.

[Disclaimer: Andrew Thompson is a personal friend and The Means of Grace is published by the publisher of one of my books. However, I have received no compensation for writing this review. I chose to write this review because I think this is a great book and I hope you will read it!]

A conversation from a few years back has been on my mind today. This conversation began on twitter a few years ago (hence the hashtag) when many Methodists began talking about a desire to see renewed interest in Wesleyan approaches to Christianity. The conversation has been mostly dormant for awhile.

The last post I wrote specifically contributing to the #andcanitbe conversation discussed my hopes for the conversation. I hoped:

1. To see God show up in amazing ways, to see broken and hurting peoples’ lives changed by the amazing grace of God.
2. To see an articulation of the gospel in a particularly Wesleyan accent with clarity and conviction for a broader audience.
3. To have the conversation be focused on God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – not on ourselves.
4. To see the Holy Spirit 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 cacophonous.

I am thinking about this conversation today, hoping to see new interest in it. I still desire a sustained conversation about a visible and coherent Wesleyan voice. Over the past few weeks, several posts were written exploring the ongoing value of the Creeds for those in the Wesleyan tradition. (Click here for my contribution, which has links to many posts written by others.)

One of the challenges that is raised when Methodists express an interest in doctrine and the Creeds is that they are inevitably exclusive. The concern is that once you set boundaries for things that people must believe, a boundary is drawn that can be used to force people out of the community. I think this is a legitimate concern. I do not, however, think that this has been the besetting sin of United Methodism. If the extremes regarding doctrine are doctrinal indifference or doctrinal rigidity, the UMC veers much farther towards doctrinal indifference in practice than it does toward a harsh and exclusive use of doctrine.

Moreover, doctrinal indifference is ultimately a greater threat to the Christian faith than is doctrinal rigidity. Unity (sharing a common faith) is literally impossible without doctrine. The gospel cannot be passed down from generation to generation without some basic agreement on who God is, what the gospel is, what the salvation is that is found in Jesus Christ, etc.

Another concern that is expressed when United Methodists are seen to be too passionate about doctrine is that doctrine distracts from the more important task of living our faith. This concern, it seems to me, is ultimately incoherent. What faith are we living out? How should we live it out? Questions like these are inevitably answered based on beliefs. The best understanding of the relationship between right thinking (orthodoxy) and right living (orthopraxy) is that they are related and dependent on each other. I cannot live the kind of life I am called to live as a follower of Jesus Christ without doctrine. And these very beliefs are not only intellectual ideas divorced from action, they are beliefs that compel the one who holds them to act.

Morally indifferent Christians don’t need to be freed from theology – they need better theology.

United Methodism is desperate for clarity about what we believe and how it informs the way we live. A very helpful initial step was the publication of Key United Methodist Beliefs. Unity for Methodists should be found in both doctrine and practice as both are essential for any people who take on the name Methodist.

One of the ways that United Methodists are united around doctrine is in our doctrinal standards. What if the UMC gave serious attention to our doctrinal standards, seeing them as helpful to formation and not to be feared? What if instead of keeping them at bay, we focused on what we can affirm and how we can be formed by them?

I still desire a sustained conversation about Methodist beliefs. What do you think would be the best way forward?

Occasionally I will see someone argue passionately that United Methodism is not a creedal church. The energy behind this argument has always surprised me, as I’ve tended to see the Creeds as unifying, not just among Methodists but even more broadly among much broader sections of the Body of Christ. The argument that United Methodism is not a creedal church is usually based on John Wesley’s omission of Article VIII “Of the Three Creeds” in his revision of the Anglican Articles of Religion for the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1784.

I have been heartened to see in the past week a number of posts discussing the positive role of the Creeds for United Methodism. David Watson started by asking whether John Wesley’s faith was a creedal faith? Joel L. Watts then wrote a post on the Wesleys living by the Creeds, and added to it here and here. Andrew Thompson discussed Wesley’s view of the Creeds in conversation with his understanding of the Trinity. Drew McIntyre suggests that it is good news that Christians do not have to work out everything we believe for ourselves. And Steve Rankin argued that the Pietist concern for a lived faith was not in contrast to a concern for orthodoxy, rather it was a concern that orthodox faith be experienced and lived.

The conversation online has prompted me to spend a bit more time looking into what has been said about Wesley’s omission of Article VIII.

The first thing to be said is that there seems to be consensus among Wesleyan/Methodist scholars that Wesley would have affirmed the doctrinal core of the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds. At a basic level, Wesley was creedal because he was a Christian. And, more specifically, he was creedal because he was Anglican.

So why did he omit Article VIII? In United Methodist Doctrine: The Extreme Center, Scott Jones (now a bishop in The UMC) pointed to three possible explanations for the various Articles Wesley omitted. 1) He may have disagreed with part of the Article. 2) He may have thought the statement was important but could have been better stated. 3) He may have thought the content was unnecessarily repetitive, and so did not need to be included – though he agreed with the content. Jones argued that “Wesley’s removal of the article ‘Of the Creeds’ could indicate any of these three reasons. Without clear evidence, it is impossible to say why he removed the articles he did or made the changes he made” (48).

While there is not a clear answer as to why Wesley removed the Article on the Creeds from the Anglican Articles of Religion, it is equally clear that Wesley did not entirely reject the Creeds, or their use in worship. He included the Apostles’ Creed in the Sunday Service and in the liturgy for baptism, which were sent to American Methodists at the same time that he sent the newly revised Articles of Religion.

The best piece I have seen to date on Methodism and its relationship with the Creeds is a piece written by Geoffrey Wainwright, who is now emeritus professor of Christian theology at Duke Divinity School, titled “Methodism and the Apostolic Faith.” The chapter is in Methodists in Dialog. Wainwright considered the World Council of Churches and its study on the Apostolic Faith. He argued that the Apostolic Faith study is “marked by four characteristics that need to be restamped on contemporary Methodism. The study is: (a) creedal; (b) Trinitarian; (c) ecumenical; (d) homological, that is, in the service of confessing the faith.” (189)

Regarding the creeds and Methodism, Wainwright argues:

As Methodists, we need to recover our creedal inheritance… It is true that Wesley omitted Article VIII (“Of the Three Creeds”) in his selection of the Anglican Articles for American Methodism (we know that he particularly disliked the damnatory clauses of the so-called Athanasian Creed), and that he removed NC [the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed] in his abridgement of the Prayer Book communion order in The Sunday Service. He had, however, no quarrel with the substance of the NC, as we shall see; and he retained the Apostles’ Creed in his American service book. The ‘inheritance of the apostolic faith’ and ‘the fundamental principles of the historic creeds’ are part of the constitutional basis of the British Methodist Church. The Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds figure in the current liturgical books of Methodism on both sides of the Atlantic and in many other parts of the world. We should make better use of them, both in the recitation of them, as a ‘performative act’ of our faith, and in the evangelistic and catechetical tasks of explicating the faith. (191)

Later in the essay Wainwright counters the assertion that orthodoxy was unimportant to Wesley:

Apart from a few ill-formulated sentences scattered in his writings, Wesley did not minimize orthodoxy of belief. When he writes, for instance, that ‘orthodoxy, or right opinions, is at best a slender part of religion, if it can be allowed to be any part at all,’ it must be remembered, first, that Wesley was prepared to ‘think and let think’ only in those matters of theological ‘opinion’ that did not ‘strike at the root of Christianity’; and second, that orthodoxy in the stricter sense of doctrine was, for Wesley, not so much unnecessary as insufficient – if it was not believed, experienced, and lived. (195)

I have to admit that as a scholar, it is a bit discouraging to see that someone of Geoffrey Wainwright’s expertise and renown addressed one of the persistent myths among some Methodists so carefully and with such precision – and yet, the myth has continued. Wesley did believe that orthodoxy was essential. He just did not believe that it was sufficient.

If we were somehow able to interview John Wesley and he understood the temporary theological context of United Methodism, I think he would eagerly identify himself as a creedal Christian. Wesley gave authority to the earliest centuries of Christianity in a way he did not give to later centuries. He would not have intentionally rejected the very statements that would most clearly connect him to the early Church and its faith.

I am committed to basic orthodoxy, as expressed with particular precision in the Creeds, because it is unifying and because beliefs inform actions. I care about orthodoxy because it is necessary for orthopraxy.

I’m reading through the essays in Doctrine and Theology in The United Methodist Church (Kingswood, 1991). I have been interested to read several serious critiques of the 1972 statement of “Our Theological Task” by various theologians at United Methodist seminaries, which show how much they valued the role of solid doctrine in the church, even if they did not always agree on what constituted good doctrine.

I don’t have time at the moment to develop this into a full post. But I did want to take the time to share several powerful quotations from a few essays originally published in 1974 and 1975. Many of the problems identified with the 1972 statement appear to be ongoing issues of concern for United Methodist doctrine.

The first quotation is from Leroy T. Howe, who taught practical theology at Perkins School of Theology, on the way in which the quadrilateral seems to him to be “infinitely permissive”:

Finally, though not indifferentist by intent, in practice the quadrilateral seems to be infinitely permissive. It is difficult to conceive of even a single serious theological proposal which, upon application of the four guidelines, one could exclude unambiguously from consideration as beyond the range of permissible utterance within the Christian community. By arbitrarily defining the degree of force one or another guideline is to have in a particular discussion, one could establish almost any belief as Christian. (56)

The next quotation is from Schubert M. Ogden, who was a theologian at Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University, on the need for doctrinal standards:

The mission to which the Christian church is called ineluctably implies the obligation of self-discipline in all aspects of its life and witness, including the doctrine disseminated by its preaching and teaching. A sign in the world of God’s universal salvation which is not as clear and transparent as human frailty allows is not the visible church of Jesus Christ – just as salt which has lost its savor is ‘no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trodden under foot by men’ (Matt. 5:13). Contrary to what one might assume from the prevalent conception of the church, the point of putting a pinch of salt in a dish is not to turn the whole dish into salt, but so to permeate the dish with its savor as to make the dish itself tasty to eat. But, then, the salt is of no use without its saltiness – any more than the church is of any use to the world it is sent to serve without that sound doctrine which the establishment of doctrinal standards and their responsible enforcement throughout the church alone make possible. ‘You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its savor, how shall its saltiness be restored?’ (51)

The final quotation is from Robert E. Cushman, who taught systematic theology at Duke Divinity School, on whether the “Liturgy and the Creed” have been sufficient for Christian piety:

The fourth postulate functions as the conclusion of the series. It first appeared and offered itself as a judgment of alleged historical fact, viz., that the Methodist fathers ‘declined to adopt the classical forms of the confessional principle.’ It now appears in the succession of scantily supported theological postulates as the conclusion: ‘No creed or doctrinal summary can adequately serve the needs and intentions of United Methodists in confessing their faith or in celebrating their Christian experience’ (p. 79). This is, indeed, far-reaching in import and amply supplies the rationale for the view that our doctrinal standards are merely landmark documents. It also appropriately justifies the exordium, viz. ‘The United Methodist Church expects all its members to accept the challenge of responsible theological reflection.’ If there is no finally reliable past in standards, perhaps hope may yet make a future! So be it, but the concluding postulate, standing as an unsupported ipse dixit, smacks rather more of academic sophistication than of the living piety of generations of Christians who have found in the venerable language of the Liturgy and the Creed more than enough light to illumine their darkness, indeed more than they used. (72)

This collection of essays reminds me of the importance of doctrine for the life of any Christian group. It also reminds me of the ongoing need the church has for women and men who have been called by God to serve the church through scholarship that forms the next generation of pastors and provides thought leadership for the contemporary church. This is not a new book, but it is one that is worth reading (or rereading), as it has ongoing relevance for United Methodism.