Yesterday I received a copy of John Wigger’s new book American Saint: Francis Asbury and the Methodists. I am only 45 pages into the book, but so far I would highly recommend it. The book contains the scholarly apparatus that I expected from an Oxford University Press publication (i.e. it contains extensive citations and interaction with previous academic work). However, what has been a pleasant surprise is how accessible Wigger has made the book for educated lay audiences. For example, when he introduces Asbury’s involvement in class and band meetings Wigger gives a very helpful summary of what the class and bands were and how they functioned.

In this post, I wanted to highlight one particular discussion that occurs in the Introduction. Wigger argues that “Asbury wasn’t an intellectual, charismatic performer or autocrat, but his understanding of what it meant to be pious, connected, culturally aware, and effectively organized redefined religious leadership in America” (13).

Wigger fleshes out each of these four qualities. He shows that Asbury was remarkably pious, and that people actually came to a deeper appreciation for his piety the better they got to know him. Asbury also had a remarkable ability to connect with ordinary people, which was accented by his sense of humor. Wigger argues that Asbury served as a mediator between Wesley and common Americans. It was Asbury’s sensitivity to American culture, for example, that causes him to enthusiastically embrace camp meetings. Finally, Asbury was a gifted organizer. Wigger seems to see Asbury as the near perfect implementor of Wesley’s organization and discipline.

Wigger argues in the Introduction that these four characteristics came to influence religious leadership in America. As I read the Introduction, I wondered: If Wigger is right, can contemporary Methodists learn anything from Asbury’s example? Initially, it strikes me that the four qualities that Wigger has identified which made Asbury such an effective religious leader, would be just as important for effective Methodist clergy today. An emphasis on piety suggests that Methodists ought to “practice what they preach.” However, the need to be connected and culturally aware both recognize that our message is most likely to reach people when it is rooted in genuine love for the people we are communicating to, and when it is communicated in a way that considers their cultural context. Finally, though organization and discipline are never the ends, they are a very valuable means to the end of continued growth and progress in the Christian life.

What do you think? Are these four qualities of Francis Asbury’s leadership and ability to communicate a helpful model for leadership in United Methodism today?

A few weeks ago I read The Rise of Evangelicalism: The Age of Edwards, Whitefield, and the Wesleys by Mark A. Noll. I found this to be a very well written introduction to the beginnings and development of evangelicalism in Britain and America in the 18th century. Several times as I was reading the book I thought, “This would be a very good book for someone to read who wants to learn more about how John and Charles Wesley fit into the broader movement that they were a part of.” This was also one of the best written and enjoyable books I have read in awhile. This book is the first in a projected five volume series “A History of Evangelicalism: People, Movements and Ideas in the English Speaking World.” Volume 2, “The Expansion of Evangelicalism: The Age of More, Wilberforce, Chalmers, and Finney” by John R. Wolffe and Volume 3, “The Dominance of Evangelicalism: The Age of Spurgeon and Moody” by David W. Bebbington have both been published. Volume 4, “The Disruption of Evangelicalism: The Age of Mott, Machen and McPherson” by Geoff Treloar and volume 5, “The Global Diffusion of Evangelicalism: The Age of Graham and Stott” by Brian Stanley have not yet been published. Today I ordered volumes 2 and 3 simply on the strength of the first volume. For what it is worth, I would highly recommend “The Rise of Evangelicalism” to anyone generally interested in the history of evangelicalism, or who is interested in the relationship of John and Charles Wesley to other key eighteenth century evangelical leaders (most notably Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield).

I have created a new page that has put together in one place information about my book. The page can be found by clicking on the tab “Blueprint for Discipleship” or by clicking here.

This page has a summary of the book, a link to the Discipleship Resources listing for the book (which has the contents and an excerpt from the book) and the reviews which are on the back of the book (these reviews were by Elaine A. Heath, Scott J. Jones, William B. Lawrence, and Mike Slaughter). I also wanted to have a place to list reviews that were graciously submitted for the book by Ted A. Campbell, Douglas M. Strong, and Lovett Weems but were not included in the print version of the book. Finally, I wanted to have a place to link to reviews of the book that have been written by fellow bloggers. If you have written a review and I have not linked to it, please let me know.

I have come to see the process of writing and publishing a book as more of an effort to start a conversation, than an attempt to have the last word. The more I have thought about this, the more it has made sense to me. Books that have a lasting impact do so because they speak to people in ways that challenge them, cause them to ask questions, encourage them to go deeper, and maybe even see things in a new way. Whatever the result, it seems to me that a good book is able to start a conversation, even if the conversation is only between the person reading the book and the author.

After the publication of A Blueprint for DiscipleshipI have had the opportunity to have some very interesting conversations with many different people. In fact, some of them were with those of you reading this post. The initial conversations I had about the book were with several bloggers who not only read the book, but wrote thoughtful and engaging reviews of it. I had a few further conversations with church leaders whom I had asked for feedback. In these interactions I was humbled by some of the very kind things that people said about the book. While everyone likes to receive compliments, I have also really appreciated the constructive criticism that I have received. In every interaction I have had so far, even when there has been disagreement, I have felt that the desire on both sides was to better understand one another, and more importantly to better understand the contribution that Methodism’s Wesleyan heritage has to make to our approach to discipleship. And I am grateful that to this point every conversation I have had about the book has been civil and respectful. I do not take this for granted, because it is all too common to see people who disagree with someone use ridicule, scorn, or humiliation to ridicule their opponent in order to win an argument.

I hope that this will be a place where the conversation can continue. If you have read Blueprint and you have questions, comments, or criticisms please drop me a line. I cannot promise to respond to everything that I receive, but I would like to be able to continue the conversation. As I am able, I will post questions that I receive, offer my answer, and invite your responses. So, please feel free to email me at deeplycommitted (at) gmail (dot) com. If you do not want your email made public, please tell me that you do not want me to publish your email on my blog.

I look forward to hearing from you.

One of my pet peeves is quickly becoming people who check out library books and then mark them up as if they were their own copy. If you want to underline and make notes in a book, buy a copy of the book! I have occasionally had to wade through a book that has not one, but two or three people’s notes and comments in the margins.

Well, today I picked up a copy of the Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley and immediately noticed that someone had filled up the last page of the book and the back cover with hand-written notes. For me, that is almost as bad as it can get. As steam was coming out of my ears, and I was mumbling who do these people think that they are that anyone else would want to read their thoughts on Wesley’s works… I opened the front cover to see if it had been defaced too.

Inside the front cover I found a sticker, which reads: “From the Library of Albert C. Outler (1908-1989).”

Ok, so I guess Dr. Outler has a right to write in his own books… and I have to admit I am very interested in reading his thoughts on the Journals and Diaries of John Wesley.

Interestingly, his comments relate to the introduction written in vol. 18 by W. Reginald Ward. And he certainly seems to have had some strong opinions about the content of the introduction.

Anyway, I will count this as a “cool find” and as one more reason I love being a Ph.D. student. (Less charitable observers may consider this entire post simply further evidence that I am a “nerd.”)

In a recent post, John Meunier has asked whether United Methodism’s efforts to reclaim the Wesleyan tradition are misplaced. Meunier argues that United Methodists narrowly focus on doctrine, when Wesley’s genius comes from his willingness to innovate and create in order to help Christian’s in their efforts to become deeply committed disciples of Jesus Christ.

After leaving a comment on Meunier’s blog, I have continued to think about his post. Meunier does argue that the root of Methodism is not Wesleyan doctrine, but Wesleyan practice. However, he also argues that the point is not to reclaim specific practices. He writes:

But – and this is where I probably go way off the path – recapturing Wesleyan practice is not about adopting his innovations. It is not about going back to field preaching or societies and band meetings. Those were well tuned to his setting. Our settings are not his.

We might end up in some of the same places that Wesley did, but we should not start there.

Thus, for Meunier, the root that contemporary United Methodism should seek to graft itself onto (to use Meunier’s imagery) is Wesley’s “spirit and zeal.”

My point from here on is not to start an argument with Meunier. (I enjoyed reading his post and it has stuck with me enough to cause me to post for the first time in a week!) But his post has caused me to wonder, are there Wesleyan basics that are worth reclaiming?

While I am all for spirit and zeal, it seems to me that we need something more substantial if Wesley has anything to offer which is worth reclaiming today. There are, after all, plenty of examples of spirited and zealous people whose steps we would not want to walk in. Thus, it seems that we rightly judge someone’s spirit and zeal by its content. In other words, what was Wesley zealous about?

This question could quickly distract me from what I want to get to in this post, so I am going to briefly say a few things to set the table: First, Wesley was passionate about the good news of Jesus Christ. He wanted to help as many people as possible come to know and trust in Jesus Christ and what he has done for them. This, as Meunier rightly points out, does not make Wesley distinct, other than being distinctly Christian. I also agree with Meunier that it is worth looking more carefully at Wesley’s approach to living out the Christian life. In other words, instead of just asking: What did Wesley believe? We should also ask: What did Wesley do? Or, how did Wesley practice his beliefs?

So, what was the distinctly “Wesleyan” content of Wesley’s passion?

Here are two Wesleyan distinctives that immediately came to mind for me. Interestingly, one involves practice and one involves doctrine.

1. The Doctrine of Christian Perfection or Entire Sanctification. Wesley stubbornly defended this throughout his life. He believed that it was possible, by God’s grace, to be made perfect in love in this life. He believed that because it was by grace Christians should expect it as they are and without delay. This is a doctrine that has entirely gone out of favor in United Methodism, and is only formally preserved in a few places, such as the historic questions for ordination. It is fairly scandalous to realize that every United Methodist elder has said that they do expect to be made perfect in love in this life, by the grace of God. But how many of them have ever preached or taught or defended the Christian perfection? The laughter that is far too common when this question is asked testifies to our lack of integrity when we answer this question. Yet, it seems to me that Wesley’s understanding of entire sanctification is the driving force behind much of his practice. He believed that it is possible to make progress in the Christian life to the point of loving God and neighbor entirely. It might not be an exaggeration to say that if we disconnect ourselves from the doctrine of entire sanctification, we disconnect ourselves from Methodism, at least in any form that Wesley would have endorsed.

2. The Practice of Watching Over One Another in Love. Wesley believed that Christians grow in grace when they watch over one another, when they hold each other accountable for doing the things that help them receive God’s grace and for not doing the things that cause them to move away from God. And, indeed, early Methodism bears witness that this was the case.

While I agree with Meunier that reclaiming the exact forms of Wesley’s practice is not the point, I am all for creativity and innovation when it is motivated by the desire to see people renewed in the image of God. But I also have to admit that as I continue to think about this I also wonder if we have come up with anything better? Part of Wesley’s genius, it seems to me, is that the Methodist method is focused specifically on its purpose and is not loaded down with contemporary practices that are tied to the times. Take the class meeting. The class meeting largely involved two things: 1) giving an account of whether you had kept the General Rules of the United Societies (do no harm, do all the good that you can, and attend upon the ordinances of God – i.e., practice the means of grace), and 2) answering some form of the question: How is it with your soul?

Do we really want to argue that either of these is not important? The renewed interest in the General Rules suggests that, at some level, we do think the General Rules are helpful for Christian discipleship. And it seems to me that it would be difficult to make the argument that we should not be interested in whether people are paying attention to how God is working within them.

It seems to me that in order for their to be a tradition worth reclaiming, there have to be some basics that can be reclaimed. If Methodists value their Wesleyan heritage, they should start by reclaiming the doctrine of entire sanctification and the practice of watching over one another in love that helped this doctrine to become reality.

What are your thoughts? Do you agree that there are Wesleyan basics that are worth reclaiming? If so, are there other basics that you would add?

Sorry for the silence lately. Things were already busy, but with us moving last week there was no time left for blogging. (And we don’t have internet access yet.)

One of the people who has written a review of A Blueprint for Discipleship: Wesley’s General Rules As a Guide for Christian Livingasked if I was planning on linking to reviews on my blog. In case you are interested, here are the reviews that have been written so far, listed in the order that they were posted:

Eric Manuel at Rockford UMC.

Ben Simpson at Performing the Faith.

Joseph Yoo at Step by Step

Matt Judkins.

Jeremy Smith at Hacking Christianity.

Bill Brown at Thoughts on the Journey

If you have written a review and it is not on this list, please leave a comment and I will be sure to link to you.

Check out Andrew Thompson’s view of church reform at Gen-X Rising.

When I purchased http://deeplycommitted.com I thought I needed to set up a new feed account through feedburner for the new url. That appears to be incorrect as my old feed still has many subscribers and my new feed has very few. I also think the two feeds are confusing search engines and etc. So, this evening I am going to kill the feed for http://deeplycommitted.com and update the subscription links so that they are back to the old feed. I am posting this before I do this because if you subscribed to the new feed (meaning if you subscribed sometime after mid November 2008 ) you will no longer be subscribed and you will need to re-subscribe. I have already updated the feed subscription links so as soon as you get this, you can update your subscription and you should not miss a post.

Also, if you have not yet subscribed to deeply committed… there is no time like the present!

You can subscribe to the correct feed by clicking the “subscribe in a reader” link at the top right of this page.

If you don’t know what a reader is or don’t want to set one up, you can also subscribe to deeply committed by email (which means that new posts will automatically be sent to you as an email) by clicking “subscribe to deeplycommitted.com via email” in the upper right of this page.

When I purchased https://deeplycommitted.wordpress.com I thought I needed to burn a new feed for that url. So I set up a new feed and changed the subscription links on my blog to go to that new feed. I am now starting to wonder if that was a mistake. I did that about two months ago and the new feed has 3 subscribers (one is my own, to make sure it is working right…) and the other feed has changed and grown some. I also noticed on google reader that it said the number of subscribers to the feed was unknown. I am starting to think that the new feed is confusing reader accounts and feedburner.

Do any of you have a strong grasp of how this works? Should I delete the newer feed and change the subscription links back to the older feed? Or should I just leave it alone and hope that over time it gets worked out? Thanks for any advice you can give!