Category Archives: Wesley

(Mis)Understanding Wesley’s Catholic Spirit

26 Thursday Jul 2012

Posted by in Christian Living, Methodist History, Wesley

≈ 25 Comments

Tags

“Though we can’t think alike, may we not love alike?”

This phrase is one of the most frequently cited and most frequently misused quotes by United Methodists. The phrase is typically used to argue that doctrinal agreement is unimportant compared to loving one another. It is the go-to quote for Methodists who argue that Wesley was not interested in correct beliefs. However, I am convinced that most people who use this quote have not actually read much of John Wesley, much less this sermon.

Consider for example the following quote from Wesley at the end of the sermon when he is describing what a “catholic spirit” is and is not. “It is not an indifference to all opinions. This is the spawn of hell, not the offspring of heaven. This unsettledness of thought… is a great curse, not a blessing; an irreconcilable enemy, not a friend, to true Catholicism.”

The confusion surrounding this sermon is understandable, because in the introduction to the sermon Wesley does say that differences of opinion or belief should never prevent Christians from loving one another. Here is the entire paragraph the well-worn quote is found within:

But although a difference in opinions or modes of worship may prevent an entire external union, yet need it prevent our union in affection? Though we can’t think alike, may we not love alike? May we not be of one heart, though we are not of one opinion? Without all doubt we may. Herein all the children of God may unite, notwithstanding these smaller differences. These remaining as they are, they may forward one another in love and in good works.

Wesley then frames the rest of the sermon around the brief exchange between Jehu and Jehonadab in 2 Kings 10:15. Wesley wrote: “The text naturally divides itself into two parts. First a question proposed by Jehu to Jehonadab, ‘Is thine heart right, as my heart is with thy heart?’ Secondly, an offer made on Jehonadab’s answering, ‘It is.’ – If it be, give me thine hand.’”

In answering the first question, “Is thine heart right, as my heart is with thy heart?” Wesley argues that differences of opinion are unavoidable. More interestingly, he argues that everyone thinks all of their opinions are true, but also knows that he is likely wrong about some of the things that he believes, “He knows in the general that he himself is mistaken; although in what particulars he mistakes he does not, perhaps cannot, know.” In essence, Wesley is arguing for epistemic humility. He wants people to acknowledge that as strongly as they hold their opinions, they could be wrong.

Wesley then turns to the various ways that people worship God. Wesley argues that, “everyone must follow the dictates of his own conscience in simplicity and godly sincerity.” And again, Wesley argues for a tolerance of a diversity of practice when it comes to different denominations, and different practices of the sacrament.

Then, Wesley asks “what should a follower of Christ understand” when he is asked “is thy heart right with God?” Then, for more than two pages Wesley asks questions that must all be answered affirmatively in order to receive the endorsement “thy heart is right, as my heart is with thy heart.” Here are a few of the questions Wesley asks:

Is thy heart right with God? Dost thou believe his being, and his perfections? His eternity, immensity, wisdom, power; his justice, mercy, and truth?

And that he governs even the most minute, even the most noxious, to his own glory, and the good of them that love him?

Dost thou believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, ‘God over all, blessed for ever’? Is he ‘revealed in’ thy soul?
Is he ‘formed in thy heart by faith?’

“Having absolutely disclaimed all thy own works, thy own righteousness, hast thou ‘submitted thyself unto the righteousness of God’, ‘which is by faith in Christ Jesus’?

Is God the centre of thy soul? The sum of all thy desires?

Art thou more afraid of displeasing God than either of death or hell? Is nothing so terrible to thee as the thought of ‘offending the eyes of his glory’? Upon this ground dost thou ‘hate all evil ways’, every transgression of his holy and perfect law?

The list of questions continues. Here, there are two things to notice. 1) Wesley is not dismissing either the importance of beliefs or of action. He actually seems very concerned to vet the person he is considering joining hands with, asking them a litany of questions. He is not shrugging his shoulders and saying, “I guess your truth is just different than my truth.” 2) The list of questions is filled with doctrinal assumptions! Among other things, the questions about the first person of the Trinity ask the person to affirm the classical understanding of the perfections of God. The questions about Jesus require the person to affirm the divinity of Christ, the necessity of justification by faith, and the new birth. There is at least an implicit affirmation of original sin and there is an assumption of agreement on hating sin and being determined to avoid transgression of his holy and perfect law.

People often read this sermon to suggest that Wesley thinks people with different understandings of sin should just agree to love each other. I’m not sure that pays sufficient attention to what Wesley is actually saying in this sermon. Another way of saying this is that I don’t think Wesley’s understanding of “opinions” would have included disagreements about sin. Wesley was a man of his time and thought that sin was clearly spelled out in scripture.

Wesley then shifts his attention to what it means to join hands. For him it is not pretending to embrace one another’s opinions or modes of worship. Rather, “Hold you fast that which you believe is most acceptable to God, and I will do the same.”

Here is how Wesley describes joining hands. Wesley expects someone who joins hands with him to:

Love him “as a friend that is closer than a brother; as a brother in Christ.” He further asks, “Love me with the love that ‘covereth all things’, that never reveals either my faults or infirmities; that ‘believeth all things’, is always willing to think the best, to put the fairest construction on all my words and actions…”

Pray for him.

Provoke him to love and good works. In this Wesley includes, “O speak and spare not, whatever thou believest may conduce either to the amending my faults, the strengthening my weakness, the building me up in love, or the making me more fit in any kind for the Master’s use.”

Love him not in word only, but in deed and in truth.

Finally, Wesley turns his attention in the last part of the sermon to his understanding of a “catholic spirit.” Interesting he begins, “There is scarce any expression which has been more grossly misunderstood and more dangerously misapplied than this.” He then offers three statements of what a catholic spirit is not.

First, it is not “speculative latitudinarianism”, an eighteenth century term that referred to “an indifference to all opinions.” For Wesley, this is “the spawn of hell, not the offspring of heaven… an irreconcilable enemy, not a friend, to true catholicism. He continues:

Observe this, you who know not what spirit ye are of, who call yourselves men of a catholic spirit only because you are of a muddy understanding; because your mind is all in a mist; because you have no settled, consistent principles, but are for jumbling all opinions together. Be convinced that you have quite missed your way: you know not where you are. You think you are got into the very spirit of Christ, when in truth you are nearer the spirit of antichrist. God first and learn the first elements of the gospel of Christ, and then shall you learn to be of a truly catholic spirit.

Second, a catholic spirit is not “practical latitudinarianism” or an indifference to public worship and the way it is conducted.

Third, a catholic spirit is not “indifference to all congregations.”

There are many different directions that one could go in from here. I suspect I have already largely exhausted my allotment of words that most of you want to read, so I’ll try to wrap up with a few brief observations:

1) Wesley is making the case for charity and a hermeneutic of generosity towards others. He is realistic in his acknowledgement that people will not agree about everything. I also suspect that he takes the call to love one another more seriously than most people who appeal to this sermon do. (I.e., do we really love those we disagree with like they are our brothers and sisters, or best friends? Do we spend serious time on our knees in prayer for them, begging God to bless them and pour himself into their lives in new ways?) The sermon reminds me of the room for growth I have in loving those with whom I disagree. And it reminds me that it takes work, it is not something to merely be vaguely affirmed.

2) I don’t think this sermon supports the “Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors” motto that some love and some love to hate. Saying that Wesley is arguing for open-mindedness in this sermon is much too simplistic. He is actually saying that Christians should be close-minded in their own beliefs, but generous and charitable with those with whom they disagree. Put differently, Wesley is arguing for certainty in the specifics of one’s faith that comes from careful thought and examination of the options and not a devaluing of the role of doctrine in order to have a bigger tent.

3) Speaking of big tents. My reading of this sermon is that Wesley would find a big tent vision for Methodism a liability and not an asset. For example, when he acknowledges disagreements about the sacraments, he does not seem to me to be arguing that the folks who disagree should try to worship in the same church. On the contrary, he seems to assume that they would not be a part of the same faith community, but they could still be a part of the church catholic. It makes me wonder if Wesley might view our experiment at unity within diversity as an attempt for one church to be the whole church catholic and if he might think that attempt itself lacked both humility and sense, particularly because we are so obviously not a full expression of the church catholic. A cursory reading of Wesley’s letters, for example, will provide multiple examples of Wesley defining which beliefs are acceptable within the movement he was the leader of and which ones meant that mutual cooperation was no longer possible. Wesley regularly enforced doctrinal/dogmatic uniformity among early Methodist preachers.

Ultimately, while it is probably technically true that contemporary Methodists do believe just about anything, I do not think one can use this sermon as justification for either deemphasizing doctrinal commitments or for a community of faith that lacks clarity about what its own vision for what faithfulness looks like.

(You can read the full text of Wesley’s sermon “Catholic Spirit” here.)

Kevin M. Watson teaches, writes, and preaches to empower community, discipleship, and stewardship of our heritage. Connect with Kevin. Get future posts emailed to you.

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.

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?

Love Feast

16 Friday Mar 2012

Posted by in Christian Living, Life, Methodist History, Wesley

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

,

On February 18, 1750 John Wesley wrote in his Journal:

“Today, likewise, wherever we assembled together, God caused his power to be known, but particularly at the love-feast. The honest simplicity with which several spoke, in declaring the manner of God’s dealings with them, set the hearts of others on fire, and the flame spread more and more, till, having stayed near an hour longer than usual, we were constrained to part.” (Works 20:321)

Recently, I have been experiencing the way that God does seem to cause his power to be known when people speak with “honest simplicity” about the ways they have experienced God’s work in their lives. Yesterday, I was able to be a part of a love feast with Seattle Pacific Seminary students. We took an hour and a half in the middle of finals to share some light food and talk about how we have experienced God over the past few months.

The best part was that Wesley’s testimony to the power of the love feast in the above account came to life for me in a new way. As we shared with each other, I gained an experiential understanding of what the early Methodists experienced at this love feast when the Holy Spirit “set the hearts of others on fire, and the flame spread more and more.” And I think all of us left feeling like we had been renewed by our encounter with the living God.

In fact, I have been experiencing God’s presence in my life in new ways over the last month or so. I have been blessed several times in the last month with a tangible experience of God’s presence as I have been a part of conversations where people spoke with honesty and simplicity about “the manner of God’s dealings with them.” I have left each of these conversations with a deeper awareness of God’s goodness and his steadfast love for me.

Through these conversations I have experienced my own brokenness more deeply than ever and my deep need for the healing that only God can bring. In one conversation, a dear friend reminded me of two qualities of God: gentle and jealous. I was reminded that God is gentle, that he is so tender and careful with us. God loves us deeply and perfectly at every single moment of our lives. He has never been disappointed in us.

And yet he is jealous. God wants all of us. He wants us to be wholly given to him and the purposes that he has for our lives.

This is why, as I tweeted a few days ago, I still believe entire sanctification is the grand depositum that God has given to the people called Methodist. The gospel is the good news of what God has done for us in Jesus Christ through the crucifixion and the resurrection. Christianity is the promise of salvation, of healing, of rescue to the broken, the hurting, the perishing. But just like the church cannot get to Easter Sunday without Good Friday, we cannot get to the hope for new life in Jesus Christ without recognizing our own brokenness. We cannot save ourselves, we need a savior. And thanks be to God, we are offered salvation through the person and work of Jesus.

I am convinced that the fullness of the gospel is not only hope for life after death. The fullness of the gospel is not a few strategies for improving your life at work or at home. And though I love The United Methodist Church and desperately want it to have a future that is filled with God’s presence, the fullness of the gospel is not survival.

The fullness of the gospel is that at every point of need in our lives God has already acted to meet the need. The fullness of the gospel is that salvation is freely offered to every single person. The fullness of the gospel is that sin is no longer necessary, because the Great Physician is ready to heal us of all that is not in accordance with his purposes. The fullness of the gospel is that we can experience forgiveness for all that we have done that we should not have done and that we can actually live the kind of life that God created us to live.

When I was in high school I read a quote by Henry David Thoreau that has haunted me every since I first read it, “The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.” I think Thoreau is probably right. This would be very bad news, if this were all there news there is. But thanks be to God it isn’t. The good news is that we do not need to live lives of quiet desperation, it is not necessary or inevitable. We can live fully and obediently in God’s presence today!

As Paul says in a moving passage at the end of Romans 8, “I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Rom 8:38)

Anything contrary to God’s purposes in our lives is no longer necessary. Which is not to say that it no longer has a hold on our lives. We cannot release ourselves. But God can and thanks be to God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit that he is both able and willing.

These are some of the ways my heart has been set on fire as I have heard others share God’s “manner of dealing with them.” Thanks be to God for love feasts!

John Wesley on the End of the World

19 Thursday May 2011

Posted by in Methodist History, Wesley

≈ 5 Comments

For a period of time George Bell was a preacher in John Wesley’s “connexion.” As Bell was accused of “enthusiasm”, Wesley was initially hesitant to disassociate himself from Bell. The breaking point for Wesley came when Bell prophesied the end of the world on February 28, 1763. Here is what Wesley wrote in his published Journal when the day Bell prophesied the world would end arrived:

Preaching in the evening at Spitalfields on ‘Prepare to meet thy God,’ I largely showed the utter absurdity of the supposition that the world was to end that night. But notwithstanding all I could say, many were afraid to go to bed, and some wandered about in the fields, being persuaded that if the world did not end, at least London would be swallowed up by an earthquake. I went to bed at my usual time and was fast asleep about ten o’clock. (John Wesley, Journal, February 28, 1763, Works of John Wesley, Bicentennial Edition, vol. 21: 407.)

On Perfection

29 Friday Apr 2011

Posted by in Christian Living, Sermons, Wesley

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

,

The following is a filled out manuscript of the sermon I preached in chapel at Perkins School of Theology yesterday (April 28, 2011).

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

My favorite part about eating Chinese food is by far the fortune cookie. No matter how great the food tastes, I can’t help but look forward to the moment when those plastic-wrapped brittle cookies arrive. On one occasion in particular, the waiter brought the cookies on a silver platter of promise. I was handed a cookie, ripped open the package, broke the cookie open and read: “You shall soon achieve…” Could this really be my fortune? I had to read the words again: “You shall soon achieve perfection.”

Now that is a fortune cookie! Since that day, I have wrestled with the meaning of “soon” since I received this fortune about a decade ago. Aside from my fortune cookie, it seems that we usually do not have positive association with the idea of perfection. People are often given the advice, “Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.” And when we hear of a moral failure of a celebrity, politician, church leader, or friend or family member you will almost certainly hear someone say, “Nobody’s perfect.”

So what are we to do with the questions that The United Methodist Church asks those who will be ordained? Are you going on to perfection? Do you expect to be made perfect in love in this life? Are you earnestly striving after it? For many, these questions are embarrassingly naïve and we squirm in discomfort as the next generation of pastors answers the questions affirmatively. Or, as is often related, the body of ordained elders and deacons – who have already answered these questions – laughs nervously.

Why do we ask these questions? Nobody’s perfect, right?

What if our discomfort with the idea of being entirely sanctified, or being made perfect in love, is actually a reflection of our own preoccupation with ourselves and our unwillingness to be captivated by the grace of God? What if it reflects a realistic assessment of our own capabilities, but fails to recognize that God is in the picture too? What if what is at stake in whether we affirm, defend, and preach about the possibility of being cleansed from sin and actually becoming holy as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are holy has nothing to do with our ability? What if what is at stake is our faith in the power and sufficiency of God’s grace?

In our Scripture reading for today, the author of 1 Peter exhorts his audience to “set your hope on the grace to be brought to you when Jesus Christ is revealed at his coming.” At a basic level, then, the instruction is to have hope because of the grace that is coming when Christ returns. As one scholar has paraphrased verse 13, “You have been born to a living hope; therefore hope. Live out your call.”

The content of the hope that verse 13 speaks of is further illuminated by verse 3: “Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.” As Christians, we have hope because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. The one who was crucified and died, that one, Jesus of Nazareth, he lives! Because of the resurrection, we have the right to have hope in the face of seeming hopelessness. On Good Friday, there was no hope. Jesus was dead. But just when the story seemed to have been concluded in the most final way possible, the period at the end of Jesus’ life exploded into the most amazing and wonderful news possible – Jesus lives! And among other things, for Christians this means that God’s grace is bigger than sin and death. God’s grace is more powerful than sin. Even in the face of death itself, because of the resurrection, we can say “Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?” The resurrection has implications for every part of life, and it is good news. And the world is desperate for this kind of hope.

1 Peter continues in verse 14, “As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance.” In the light of the hope that we have in the resurrection of Jesus, the writer seems to be imploring us – there is no necessity for sin. And yet, the resistance to the Wesleyan understanding of entire sanctification often sounds like we are making the case that sin is necessary, that no matter what has happened, sin exists and cannot be extinguished. Nobody is perfect. We can’t do that. We shouldn’t expect pastors to affirm that they expect to be made perfect in love in this life. But if holiness is about what God is able to accomplish in us by the power of God’s grace, then why wouldn’t we expect pastors and laity to affirm that they expect God to accomplish in us what God’s wants to accomplish?

Perhaps there is a deeper issue. Perhaps we are afraid or unwilling to be transformed in the ways that God wants to transform us, rather than it being the case that God is not able to operate in our lives in these ways. It may be that we continue to be attracted to sin in ways that we are unwilling to acknowledge or recognize. It may be that we are afraid at what complete freedom for obedience to God would do to our lives as they currently exist. But do we really want to argue that sin is necessary for those who have been forgiven and renewed by the power of the Holy Spirit?

What do we think Jesus meant when he said that the greatest commandment was “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself.” I am convinced that by the grace of God, the children of God are truly able to keep these commandments. And expecting any less is not because we have accurately assessed God’s ability or God’s willingness to enable us to be faithful. Rather, it is a failure of our imaginations and our hope in the saving power of Christ. Or, it is another sin that God wants to free us from!

But someone will say, Is Christian perfection only about avoiding sin, or avoiding breaking a commandment or rule? Thanks be to God it is so much more! As our Scripture passage for today ends, “But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: ‘Be holy, because I am holy.’” Christian perfection is about holiness. It is about being renewed in the image of God so that we actually love God and love our neighbors. And in this passage, it is not offered up as a polite suggestion or an option. It is an imperative, a command, “Be holy!” As one scholar has put it, “A holy God demands a holy people, just as a God of hope creates a hopeful people.” (NIB, 258) Thus, this passage suggests that a stubborn refusal to believe in the possibility of deep holiness is not a polite and proper modesty or humility on our part, rather it is a sinful refusal to respond to God’s grace.

I know not all of us are Methodists, but for those of us who are, this is of particular urgency! Holiness and entire sanctification are in our DNA! In fact, John Wesley, believed that Methodism was raised up by God to preach and spread the doctrine of entire sanctification, the possibility that God is able and willing to save us to the uttermost!

In the sermon “The Scripture Way of Salvation”, here is how Wesley himself made the case for entire sanctification: Before we say anything else, we have to be clear that the foundation of sanctification and entire sanctification is faith, just as justification or forgiveness is by faith. The faith that saves from sin and perfects us in love, then, is faith that God has promised this in the Scriptures. Secondly, it involves faith that God is able to deliver on God’s promises. Third, it is a faith that God is able and willing to do it now. And finally, it is faith that God actually does it. Wesley ended this sermon with a powerful plea:

By this token may you surely know whether you seek it by faith or by works. If by works, you want something to be done first, before you are sanctified. You think, ‘I must first be or do thus or thus.’ Then you are seeking it by works unto this day. If you seek it by faith, you may expect it as you are: and if as you are, then expect it now. It is of importance to observe that there is an inseparable connection between these three points – expect it by faith, expect it as you are, and expect it now! To deny one of them is to deny them all: to allow one is to allow them all. Do you believe we are sanctified by faith? Be true then to your principle, and look for this blessing just as you are, neither better, nor worse; as a poor sinner that has still nothing to pay, nothing to plead but ‘Christ died.’ And if you look for it as you are, then expect it now. Stay for nothing. Why should you? Christ is ready. And he is all you want. He is waiting for you. He is at the door! Let your inmost soul cry out,
Come in, come in, thou heavenly Guest!
Nor hence again remove:
But sup with me, and let the feast
Be everlasting love.

Is there something within you that is stirred by Wesley’s words? Could that be the Holy Spirit, inviting you to such faith, such hope in the amazing grace of God? 1 Peter calls us to “be holy in all we do because God is holy.” This holiness is rooted in the hope that we have in the grace that has drenched the world in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Christ is risen! Sin no longer reigns. Even in the face of the continued presence of sin, Christians can proclaim that there is no inevitability of sin. It is allowed to continue to the extent that we invite it into our lives, but God through Jesus is able and willing to free us from the power of sin and free us for joyful obedience.

When we pushback against this understanding of Christian perfection, I wonder if part of it is that we feel like this is just another idea that reminds us that we are not measuring up. That we are not good enough. That we are not focused enough, disciplined enough, or whatever enough. But, like the gospel itself, any understanding of Christian perfection that seems like it is bad news is either a misrepresentation or a misunderstanding. Christian perfection is not intended to be another item to add to our spiritual to do list. It is a blessing that God wants to freely give to us. The only catch is that God will not work without our assent. Grace makes us able to recognize the promptings of the Holy Spirit, but still allows us to decide whether we will respond.

On second thought, that was a pretty Wesleyan fortune cookie! And perhaps the questions that we ask ordinands are neither embarrassing or naïve. Are you going on to perfection? Do you expect to be made perfect in love in this life? Are you earnestly striving after it? Note that the second question is not, do you expect to make yourself perfect, or even become perfect in love in this life? No. The question is, do you expect to be made perfect in love in this life? The answer to each of these questions can be and should be, “Yes, by the grace of God!”

Holiness is about God’s grace, not our goodness or our works. But we worship an all powerful, all loving God who desires to renew the divine image within each one of us, so that our lives are no longer plagued by the stains of sin, and so that we are able to enter into full communion with God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. May the Triune God give us each the faith to believe that grace is bigger, more powerful, and more capable of transforming our lives than anything else. May we be holy as God is holy, even today!

New Volume of Wesley’s Works Forthcoming

07 Thursday Apr 2011

Posted by in Book Review, Methodist History, Wesley

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

I am anxiously awaiting the release of vol. 10 of the Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley. The title of vol 10 is The Methodist Societies: The Minutes of Conference and will contain, as the title helpfully implies, the minutes from the various conferences in early Methodism. I am particularly interested in getting a copy of this book in my hands because there are several passages from various minutes I would like to cite from the critical edition in my dissertation. This volume is edited by Henry D. Rack, who is best known for his biography of John Wesley, which is seen by many as the standard biography of John Wesley.

The Bicentennial Edition is the scholarly edition of John Wesley’s works, as distinguished from the Jackson edition, which is much cheaper, but is not comprehensive and contains no footnotes or annotations. The Bicentennial Edition is fairly expensive (although about a year ago, Cokesbury was selling the previously published volumes for $15 each) but it is, in my view, a worth while expense for the library of any pastor in the Wesleyan family. The Bicentennial Edition has published all of the volumes of Wesley’s sermons and all of the volumes of Wesley’s Journals and diaries.

Are you as excited as I am?

The General Rules and a Holy Lent

09 Wednesday Mar 2011

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

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , ,


One of many highlights of last week’s annual meeting of the Wesleyan Theological Society was a conversation I had with Michael G. Cartwright about a new resource on the “General Rules.” Cartwright and Andrew D. Kinsey have developed “Watching Over One Another in Love: Reclaiming the Wesleyan Rule of Life for the Church’s Mission” which is a 28 day day study of the “General Rules.” I have not had the chance to read through this resource, but it looks excellent and I am looking forward to getting into it. (My first impression, when I was given a copy was that the design and layout is beautiful!)

And the price of this resource is right. You can download it here for free! For more, you can also go to The Indiana Annual Conference’s Wesleyan ConneXion page to download another free resource that contains articles by Richard P. Heitzenrater and William J. Abraham on the relevance of the Wesleyan tradition for contemporary United Methodism.

As I write this on Ash Wednesday, I can’t help but think that using “Watching Over Another in Love ” could be a great way to help you have a holy Lent in preparation for the good news that we will hear again on Easter Sunday. In fact, it would be a great way to take on John Meunier’s recent challenge to focus on what it would look like to “be Methodist” during the forty days of Lent.

Hearing from a 21st Century Class Leader (Part 4)

24 Thursday Feb 2011

Posted by in Accountability, Christian Living, Ministry, Wesley

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

This post is the fourth and final post in a series within a series. Broadly, it is a continuation of my series of posts on the Methodist class meeting for the twenty-first century. (Click here for a link to the last general post in this series, which also contains a link to an outline of the rest of the series.) More specifically, this is the fourth post in a series written by Nick Weatherford, who is a member of Munger Place Church and a leader of a Kitchen Group, which is a 21st century class meeting. This series will allow you to hear directly from a lay person who is currently leading a class meeting. In the first post, Nick shared his story with you and talked about the role that being in a class meeting played in his recommitting to a life of Christian discipleship. In the second post, Nick talked about the impact that leading a Kitchen Group has had on his faith. The third post discussed the impact that Nick believes that these groups are having on Munger Place. In this post, Nick talks about the impact that he thinks reclaiming the class meeting for the 21st century would have on contemporary United Methodism. I deeply appreciate the time that Nick has taken in writing this series of posts, which will appear throughout the course of this week. He has agreed to follow the discussion and interact with any comments or questions that you may have, so I hope you will take advantage of the opportunity to interact with Nick.

What impact do you think reclaiming these kinds of groups could have on the larger UMC?

I personally believe that the UMC should focus on the roots of the Wesleyan tradition. When I was considering a church, denomination was not particularly important although I certainly had some preconceptions of the Methodist church. I think in many congregations they are probably quite true. However, through getting to know Kevin and Andrew, I have been exposed to John Wesley and the early foundations of Methodism. Munger has made a very conscious effort to embrace that heritage primarily through Kitchen Groups (or as I have learned, what Wesley called “class meetings”). For Wesley, being in these class meetings wasn’t just encouraged, it was required. In fact, for a time it served as your ticket to worship on Sunday. I picked up a book on Wesley and developed a crude understanding of Wesley’s theology and the formation of the early Methodist church. I learned that for a time in American history, the Methodist church grew from being quite small in number to becoming the fastest growing and largest denomination in the country. And, there weren’t even enough preachers to go around!

Wesley understood that assembling people into these class meetings was essential for their spiritual maturity. This was a place where they could watch over one another in love, to encourage each other, to encounter God’s grace and to keep people committed to the task at hand. Wesley understood that group participation and interaction would lead to active membership. The groups would create a system where people heard and shared the gospel each week, and groups would allow the church to grow in number through members being actively engaged in ministry with each other. These early groups were able to raise large sums of money to support charity. The members were active in attending to the needs of the least, last and lost in their communities.

I understand that the UMC overall is declining in numbers, and that most congregations have far more members than folks who attend church any given week. I think many people are unsure of what the Methodist tradition is about, even within its churches. Based on what I have learned from reading up on Wesley and through launching Munger, I believe the heart of the Methodist tradition is an active commitment to the church and to Christ’s ministry of reconciliation. It’s about getting your hands dirty, and committing to give financially and to serve in the community. It’s also about grace. It’s about committing to a group knowing that we are going to struggle but that this participation will ultimately keep us engaged in our relationship with God.

It’s also about seeing salvation as the starting line for your relationship with God. Wesley believed that grace allowed us to respond to God’s call in our hearts, but that we were to engage ourselves daily (methodically!) in reconciling ourselves to who God is calling us to be. I don’t find that people are afraid of expectations. People want to be involved in something that matters and they want know what the principals and theology of their church are. Embracing this is resulting in an active community of believers at Munger, many of whom did not come from the Methodist tradition.

Ultimately though, these groups don’t measure us or grade us. They are certainly not there to pressure us or make us feel guilty. They are there to encourage us and challenge us. They remind us each week that our God is a God of second chances and they help us begin looking at our lives as if our faith and relationship with God was the only thing that matters.

– Nick Weatherford

Hearing from a 21st Century Class Leader (Part 3)

23 Wednesday Feb 2011

Posted by in Accountability, Christian Living, Ministry, Wesley

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

This post is the third post in a series within a series. Broadly, it is a continuation of my series of posts on the Methodist class meeting for the twenty-first century. (Click here for a link to the last general post in this series, which also contains a link to an outline of the rest of the series.) More specifically, this is the third post in a series written by Nick Weatherford, who is a member of Munger Place Church and a leader of a Kitchen Group, which is a 21st century class meeting. This series will allow you to hear directly from a lay person who is currently leading a class meeting. In the first post, Nick shared his story with you and talked about the role that being in a class meeting played in his recommitting to a life of Christian discipleship. In the second post, Nick talked about the impact that leading a Kitchen Group has had on his faith. This post discusses the impact that Nick believes that these groups are having on Munger Place. In the final post, Nick talks about the impact that he thinks reclaiming the class meeting for the 21st century would have on contemporary United Methodism. I deeply appreciate the time that Nick has taken in writing this series of posts, which will appear throughout the course of this week. He has agreed to follow the discussion and interact with any comments or questions that you may have, so I hope you will take advantage of the opportunity to interact with Nick.

What impact do I think these groups are having on Munger?

The groups are certainly becoming part of Mungers DNA. I hope that we are creating a culture where you will feel like you are missing out if you are not actively in a group. Not because anyone is trying to stand up each week and “sell” you on it, but because someone you know at church tells you what they are experiencing in a group, or even better, because you recognize something different about the Kitchen Group members.

One of the things often repeated about Munger is that it feels like home. I believe group participation really fosters this sense. I have never felt more comfortable walking into a church before and I know that part of that is due to the fact that I am going to see someone from my group across the room or chat with them after the service. Having little communities within our church really makes folks feel welcome and even excited to walk through the doors on Sunday. I can’t speak for everyone, but I have heard folks mention that for that Sunday is now their favorite day of the weekend. I imagine there are several reasons for that at Munger, but I believe that part of it is that the group experience prepares you for worship. On Sunday, we celebrate, but during our meetings we do a lot of the heavy lifting, focusing on our personal ups and downs in our faith journeys with a group of fellow believers. We encounter the grace of the Holy Spirit there. We are more aware of where we stand with God, and more eager and ready to experience His loving presence on Sunday.

From a very practical standpoint, I think the groups are accomplishing a lot of work for the church. Whenever we have a service day, an outreach event or need volunteers, the majority of the folks you will see are in one of our groups. Whatever the Lord is accomplishing in our groups is translating into service amongst the members. Part of this is bound to be the comfort zone of knowing folks at these activities and getting to hang out with your Kitchen Group friends, but I think there is also more to it than that.

– Nick Weatherford