03 Saturday Jan 2009
Posted in Book Review, links, Wesley
I just stumbled onto this promotional video for Reclaiming the Wesleyan Tradition: John Wesley’s Sermons for Today
By the way, if any of you were not aware that I co-authored this book and have come across it somewhere else, I would love to know how and where you came across it. I would also be very interested in hearing if anyone has used it as a small group study (which is what we had in mind when we wrote the book) and how it was received.
16 Tuesday Dec 2008
Posted in Book Review, links, Wesley
I have recently learned that Abingdon Press will be publishing in early 2009 The Wesley Study Bible. From what I have read, this sounds like an excellent resource. It is edited by Joel B. Green and William H. Willimon and has over 150 contributors. I am hoping to get my hands on a copy so I can review it in detail here.
You can view an update at the Wesley Report and learn about how to join the facebook Wesley Study Bible group as well.
The retail price of the Wesley Study Bible will be $39.95, but it can be pre-ordered for $24.95.
14 Sunday Dec 2008
Tags
Eldbrooke UMC
Elbrooke United Methodist Church no longer exists, at least not as a community of faith that continues to gather together to worship God and serve others. My internship in seminary was at Eldbrooke UMC, where I watched the church yoke itself to Metropolitan Memorial United Methodist Church. The following year it was closed. I graduated from seminary and moved to Oklahoma before Eldbrooke was closed, yet I occasionally heard pieces of news as Eldbrooke was closed and then put up for sale. My internship at Eldbrooke was difficult because I came to love the people at the church, yet the church was obviously not moving in a positive direction. Attendance was low, the building was in disrepair, and people seemed to be fighting just to stay above water.
I saw so much potential for the church, as it was located in a growing neighborhood of Northwest Washington, D.C., within a block of a metro stop. From a strategic standpoint, there seemed to be every reason why the church should be thriving, not dying. Yet, die it did.
I heard that the church would likely ultimately be sold to the highest bidder, which most people thought would mean that the church would be torn down. But due to the church being designated an historical landmark, and other circumstances, it was ultimately sold to another church. And that is how Eldbrooke United Methodist Church became The City Church DC.
I made this discovery when my brother and I walked to Eldbrooke, reminiscing, and noticed that the lights were on and people were in the parking lot. I introduced myself and explained that I had been an intern at this church and was in town for the weekend and asked if there was any way that I could take a quick look around inside. I discovered I was speaking to one of the lead pastors. She seemed genuinely glad to meet me and show me around. She gave me a thorough tour of the church, and introduced me to her husband, the other lead pastor.
I have to say that seeing concrete evidence that a group of people were investing in this church made my heart sing. They have remodeled the sanctuary and the area where we used to have our soup suppers after worship on Sunday morning. And the work continues.
What particularly impressed me was how charitable they were in their discussion of the church. When I introduced myself to the second lead pastor and told him I was currently working on a Ph.D. in church history he immediately responded, “Well, there is a lot of history in this place.” Michael and Heather provided a wonderful example to me of how to work towards unity in the Body of Christ. The City Church DC is nondenominational and, therefore, not United Methodist. But there was not hint of gloating or dismay or judgment of what is, to be honest, a failure of the United Methodist Church. They seemed to see themselves as simply stepping into the history of this church, leading to its next steps of faithfulness and obedience to how they understand God to be at work.
And so Eldbrooke United Methodist Church, which was put to rest a few years ago, was born again. Eldbrooke, which was dead, is now City Church, which is alive and growing. (Michael told me that since they began worshiping in February attendance has grown fro 65 to 130.) I suspect that some United Methodists in the D.C. area may not care much about The City Church DC, but whether United Methodists notice or not, the kingdom is coming. Jesus continues to draw people to himself and he sends them in love to others.
I think this is a great story in and of itself. Yet, it seems to me that there is something in this story that United Methodists can learn from. It should not escape our notice that a church is growing in literally the same location and even in the very same building. In some ways, it seems that the main thing that had to die for the church to live was the United Methodist affiliation of the church. While in some ways that may not be that big of a deal, as the wellness of “the Church” is far more important than the wellness of “The United Methodist Church.” In other ways, Eldbrooke’s legacy may be, more than anything, to question United Methodism. What was it about Eldbrooke UMC, the district that the Church was in, and the Baltimore Washington Conference that made it unable to survive, while it seems to be doing very well with a new start? Was there a failure of the connectional system? Was there a failure of imagination? Of nerve?
Part of Eldbrooke’s legacy may be in the questions that it asks of United Methodists. My sense is that if we are willing to take a hard look at churches like Eldbrooke United Methodist Church, we will find some things that are not easy to acknowledge. We will be led to repent of the ways in which our church has not been faithful to our Lord. Yet, if we are unwilling to acknowledge our mistakes and our sins, how can we expect to move forward? For my part, I lament that United Methodists were not able to resurrect a vibrant ministry in that place, but mostly I praise God that the Church is present and Christ is still being proclaimed at 4100 River Road NW in Washington D.C.
20 Monday Oct 2008
Posted in Wesley
04 Thursday Sep 2008
Posted in Book Review, Ministry, Wesley
In my reading today, I came across more information about the Explanatory Notes:
During the previous decade, John had hoped the publication of his Bible commentary, Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament, would provide doctrinal help for his preachers. The first edition, in 1755, had been prepared more hastily than Wesley had hoped. The second edition the following year was essentially a reprint, though with the errata incorporated. In 1760, however, he and Charles had embarked on a major revision of the work, further refining the biblical text and expanding the notes. They finished this new edition in 1762 and, combined with the collected Sermons on Several Occasions John had published (four volumes by 1760), it provided basic doctrinal guidelines for the preachers.
By the late summer of 1763, Wesley had firmly fixed these two resources as the measure of proper Methodist preaching. (Heitzenrater, Wesley and the People Called Methodists, 212-3)
Heitzenrater goes on to argue that the Model Deed, which controlled access to Methodist pulpits, stipulated that preachers must preach “‘no other doctrine than is contained in Mr. Wesley’s Notes Upon the New Testament, and four volumes of Sermons.’ By this stipulation, the Sermons and Notes became the doctrinal standards for the Methodist preachers.” (Heitzenrater 213)
If you are still reading, you will see that we are starting to get somewhere… The Explanatory Notes were part of the doctrinal standards of early Methodism because they were considered to be an important way of ensuring that the people who preached in Methodist pulpits were preaching a doctrine that Wesley would approve of. Thus, the Explanatory Notes were intended to play an important role in defining what was acceptable Methodist teaching.
This still leaves open for discussion the role that they do actually play today and the role that they should play today.
03 Wednesday Sep 2008
Posted in Book Review, Ministry, Wesley
In a previous post I mentioned that I am reading through John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes on the New Testament. Today, in re-reading Richard Heitzenrater’s Wesley and the People Called Methodists, I came across this passage:
The notes were largely a collation of material from John Heylyn’s Theological Lectures, John Guyse’s Practical Expositor, Philip Doddridge’s Family Expositor, and Johannes Bengel’s Gnomen Novi Testamenti. The latter was one of the first works of modern critical biblical scholarship, and Wesley adopted many of Bengel’s principles of textual criticism. Although the predominance of the material in the notes comes from these sources, Wesley wove them together in such an editorial way that he could own the combined whole. Having acknowledged his debt to these authors in the preface, Wesley chose not to document particular borrowings, as as not to ‘divert the mind of the reader from keeping close to the point in view’ (JWW, 14:235-39). (Heiztenrater, 188)
In a sense then, it would seem that one could argue that our doctrinal understanding of the New Testament comes from John Heylyn, John Guyse, Philip Doddridge, and Johannes Bengel as filtered and collated by Wesley. It is likely that I will not have time in the near future to learn more about these four men, but I would be very interested to explore this further at another time, as I do not know much about any of them, and only recognize Doddridge’s name.
The more I think about the Explanatory Notes and read them, the more surprised I am that they carry the weight of Doctrine for United Methodists. One could ask whether it is necessary to have a Doctrine for the interpretation of the New Testament, but perhaps more to the point, one could ask whether the Explanatory Notes continue to make a relevant contribution to the life of the United Methodist Church.
I would love to hear your thoughts on this.
13 Wednesday Aug 2008
Posted in Wesley
I mentioned in another post that I am reading the New Testament with John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes as a devotional exercise (and also out of curiosity to see what they actually say, since they are listed as part of our doctrinal standards). There have been some surprises so far, but the main thing I want to mention in the context of this post is a striking comment Wesley makes at the very beginning of the Sermon on the Mount. In Matthew 5:1-2 the translation Wesley uses reads, “And seeing the multitudes, he went up into the mountain: and when he was sat down his disciples came to him. And he opened his mouth and taught them…” Here is Wesley comment on the phrase “and taught them”:
To bless men, to make men happy, was the great business for which our Lord came into the world. And accordingly He here pronounces eight blessings together, annexing them to so many steps in Christianity. Knowing that happiness is our common aim, and that an innate instinct continually urges us to the pursuit of it, He in the kindest manner applies to that instinct, and directs it to its proper object.
Though all men desire, yet few attain, happiness, because they seek it where it is not to be found. Our Lord therefore begins His divine institution, which is the complete art of happiness, by laying down, before all that have ears to hear, the true, and only true, method of acquiring it.
Observe the benevolent condescension of our Lord. He seems, as it were, to lay aside His supreme authority as our Legislator, that He may the better act the part of our friend and Saviour. Instead of using the lofty style, in positive commands, He, in a more gentle and engaging way, insinuates His will and our duty, by pronouncing those happy who comply with it.”
There is so much here that could prompt a discussion, but I want to focus on what first caught my attention. Wesley seems to be articulating a framework or a lens through which to read the Sermon on the Mount. He seems to be arguing that Jesus gives the Beatitudes in order to map out for us the way to happiness. I think this is very interesting, because this is so relevant to today. Many people are seeking happiness. Yet, on the other hand, few people, it seems to me, view the Sermon on the Mount as good news in their search for happiness. Wesley invites us to read the words of Christ in Scripture as a model and a guide to finding happiness. What is your reaction to this? When you read or hear the Sermon on the Mount, is your reaction that this is good news that leads us to happiness, or is it a reaction of feeling guilty because it points to so much that you fail to do or don’t even want to do?
Wesley writes, “Though all men desire, yet few attain, happiness, because they seek it where it is not to be found.” Where are you looking for happiness? Are you finding it there?
12 Tuesday Aug 2008
First of all, that is a great title because it can be taken in at least two different ways. Think about it.
Second, I was excited to walk into Bridwell Library this morning and discover a copy of Reclaiming the Wesleyan Tradition: John Wesley’s Sermons for Today (a book I was blessed to be one of the co-author’s for) in the new acquisitions section. It even has the official and very sturdy looking library binding. The picture I took with my phone proves it.
Now, if only my book would sell as well as this one.
04 Monday Aug 2008
Tags
Listed in the Doctrinal Standards of the United Methodist Book of Discipline is John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament. The Discipline says that the Explanatory Notes are currently in print through Schmul Publishing Company’s 1975 edition. I was skeptical of this, because I had been told that it was out of print. However, through searching Schmul’s website, I discovered that it is in print. You can order a copy of it by going here.
I was pleased to discover that the book is at least currently in print, yet there still seems to be a discrepancy between what United Methodists say about Wesley’s Explanatory Notes (that it is part of our doctrinal standards, giving Wesley’s Notes an authoritative status in interpreting the New Testament) and what United Methodists actually do with Wesley’s Explanatory Notes (basically ignore it, Schmul’s website confirms that there was a period of time that the Explanatory Notes were a part of our doctrinal standards and were not in print…).
Because of my research interest in Wesley Studies, and because of my desire to take seriously the process towards becoming an ordained elder in the United Methodist Church, a few years ago I decided to try to track down a copy of the Explanatory Notes. I am not sure if Schmul’s edition was in print then, but if it was none of the ways that I searched for it on the internet brought it to my attention. I had trouble finding a copy anywhere, finally finding one on ebay. I was very surprised that it was so difficult for a United Methodist pastor to even find a copy of what is considered to be part of our doctrine.
Since buying the book, I haven’t really done a whole lot with it. I looked up several passages I was preaching on in Lamont and referred to it occasionally in a sermon. Saturday, I decided to start using it as my devotional reading. My plan is to read one chapter a day with Wesley’s notes. I am interested to see what the tenor and quality of the notes are, but my primary purpose is going to be using it as a devotional resource, which is what seems to be Wesley’s goal in writing the Explanatory Notes.
In the meantime, do you have any experience with the Explanatory Notes. I have also been wondering if anyone with a background in New Testament has recently looked at Wesley’s Notes and written anything about it. I think this is a very interesting area of research, please mention any articles or books you might be aware of treating the contemporary relevance of the Explanatory Notes for biblical scholarship, or the usefulness of the Explanatory Notes in studying the New Testament in the comments of this post.
Ultimately, the questions seems to me to be: Should something be a part of our doctrinal standards if (at best) we don’t even use it, and perhaps (at worst) don’t even really know what it says? I still hear people reference Wesley’s sermons, the Articles of Religion, and the General Rules, but the only time I can remember someone else talking about the Explanatory Notes was in my UM polity class in seminary, where it was just being mentioned because it was part of the doctrinal standards.
29 Tuesday Apr 2008
Posted in Article Review, Ministry, Wesley
I receive quite a bit of emails from a caucus group in the Oklahoma Conference named Mainstream United Methodists. I have recently received several emails from them about a handout that they were planning to distribute at General Conference. I have been away from my office for two weeks due to the birth of my first child, so I just got an email with final details about the handout and distribution of it. In the email there was an attachment that had the first page of the handout. Out of curiosity I opened the attachment. The front page prompted me to track down the entire handout, which you can find on the MUM website here.
As someone interested in Wesley Studies and preparing to enter SMU’s PhD program in the History of the Christian tradition in the Fall, and as someone who is a pastor in the Oklahoma Annual Conference, I wanted to comment on a few things that I think are inaccurate or unhelpful about this handout. My intent in doing this is not to start a fight or be disrespectful, but simply to clarify some misunderstandings about John Wesley and his relationship to the quadrilateral. I also want to clarify upfront that I am not involved in any other caucus group. My interest is not in defending the Institute on Religion and Democracy, which the handout is very critical of. Rather, my concern is that in reacting to things that MUM does not like about IRD, they seem to misrepresent Wesley in the interest of scoring points against IRD.
The main piece of the handout that I take issue with is the article found on the front page in the center column under a very well known picture of John Wesley, “Wesley’s Quadrilateral Under Attack.” It is not all that long, so for the sake of clarity and fairness, I will quote it in its entirety:
Wesley’s Quadrilateral is the center piece of United Methodism. Found in the introduction of Wesley’s forty-four sermons, it has provided a balanced doctrinal perspective for over 200 years.
Scripture, Tradition, Experience and Reason are valuable tools that guide inquiring minds and open the doors of spiritual mysteries. How can a pilgrim of the Way negotiate the treacherous waters of 21st century faith without them? These four guidelines help extract Biblical and theological truths for Jesus’ followers.
A growing number of scholars and theologians of various backgrounds tuck these “helps” in their tool belts. For Methodists, the Quadrilateral is a common denominator. It’s part of who United Methodists are. 2004 General Conference “editors” moved scripture to first and foremost on the quadrilateral. The next attempt will be to move to Sola-Scriptura, “Scripture Alone.” This is AWAY from John Wesley’s instructions.
As a layperson in Oklahoma recently exclaimed:
“Do away with Wesley’s Quadrilateral?
How could you do that?
The Quadrilateral is Methodism!”
There are a number of problems with the arguments made in this statement. The first is found in the title itself. The Quadrilateral cannot accurately be called “Wesley’s” because the quadrilateral was not created by John Wesley. In fact, Wesley himself never used the term. This is a not controversial, but is a plain fact that all respected Wesley scholars recognize. The term quadrilateral was coined, in relation to contemporary United Methodism, by Albert Outler (1908-1989). In an article published in the Wesleyan Theological Journal titled, “The Wesleyan Quadrilateral – In John Wesley,” Outler wrote: “The term ‘quadrilateral’ does not occur in the Wesley corpus—and more than once, I have regretted having coined it for contemporary use, since it has been so widely misconstrued.”
Second, I think the first sentence of this article is a reach: “Wesley’s Quadrilateral is the center piece of United Methodism.” I confess to not having the time to research this fully, but I am fairly confident that this statement is not one that is found in the Book of Discipline. If there is a center piece of United Methodism, I would think it would be something more along the lines of the UMC’s mission to “make disciples of Jesus Christ.” Elevating the Quadrilateral to “center piece” status would seem to be on the verge of another form of fundamentalism that is not helpful to the current context of polarization and mistrust. This is not to say that Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience are not important norms for theological reflection. As a United Methodist pastor I think that they are absolutely important norms. However, I do not think the Quadrilateral should be lifted up as the center piece of Methodism. I think the Discipline highlights a preferable aim for Methodism “to summon people to experiencing the justifying and sanctifying grace of God and encourage people to grow in the knowledge and love of God through the personal and corporate disciplines of the Christian life” (45).
In the second sentence, we are told that the Quadrilateral is found in the introduction of Wesley’s forty-four sermons” and that “it has provided a balanced doctrinal perspective for over 200 years.” I am not sure what introduction is being referred to, but I am guessing it is the introduction that Outler wrote for his 1964 collection of Wesley’s works. The Quadrilateral is certainly not mentioned in the Preface that Wesley wrote for Sermons on Several Occasions. On the other hand, in that Preface Wesley did write, “I want to know one thing, the way to heaven – how to land safe on that happy shore. God himself has condescended to teach the way: for this very end he came from heaven. He hath written it down in a book. O give me that book! At any price give me the Book of God! I have it. Here is knowledge enough for me. Let me be homo unius libri [A man of one book]. Here then I am, far from the busy ways of men. I sit down alone: only God is here. In his presence I open, I read his Book; for this end, to find the way to heaven” (Bicentennial Edition, Vol. I, 105-106).
Skipping to the third paragraph, “2004 General Conference ‘editors’ moved scripture to first and foremost on the quadrilateral. The next attempt will be to move to Sola Scriptura, ‘Scripture Alone.’ This is AWAY from John Wesley’s instructions.” This statement makes it appear as if placing Scripture above tradition, reason, and experience is a recent innovation. The reality is that most Wesley scholars see this as accurately correcting a misperception that arose from Outler’s articulation of the Quadrilateral. In other words, what was being altered was not Wesley’s theology, but Outler’s articulation of Wesley’s theology — so that it would be more faithful to Wesley’s own writing.
In Wesley and the Quadrilateral: Renewing the Conversation Scott Jones (formerly a professor at Southern Methodist University, and currently Bishop of the Kansas Area) points out that Wesley called himself a man of one book and forty-one years later: “He uses the phrase again to talk about the beginning of Methodism and its continuing commitment to Scripture:
[Wesley’s own words follow] From the very beginning, from the time that four young men united together, each of them was homo unius libri – a man of one book. God taught them all to make his word a lantern unto their feet, and a light in all their paths. They had one, and only one rule of judgment, with regard to all their tempers, words and actions, namely, the oracles of God. They were one and all determined to be Bible-Christians. They were continually reproached for this very thing; some terming them in derision Bible-bigots; others, Bible-moths – feeding, they said, upon the Bible as moths do upon cloth. And indeed unto this day it is their constant endeavor to think and speak as the oracles of God.[End of Wesley’s words]
Any accurate understanding of Wesley’s view of the Bible must first start here, with a strong statement that Scripture alone is the authority for Christian faith and practice” (41).
I am proud to be a part of the Oklahoma Conference and I give thanks for the voices in our Conference, and throughout our denomination, who are calling for United Methodists to reclaim our Wesleyan heritage. Unfortunately, the information that MUM is propagating at General Conference relating to Wesley’s relationship to the Quadrilateral is misleading and inaccurate. I hope that future publications will be more carefully researched and nuanced.
Kevin M. Watson 