Category Archives: Wesley

Highly Anticipated Methodist Scholarship…

15 Tuesday Sep 2009

Posted by in Book Review, links, Methodist History, Wesley

≈ 6 Comments

This semester will see the publication of three books that each promise to make important contributions to the field of Wesleyan/Methodist Studies.

First, John Wigger’s American Saint: Francis Asbury and the Methodists. This book is currently in stock on Amazon, which is earlier than I thought it was expected to be available. The book is described as follows on Oxford’s listing:

John Wigger has written the definitive biography of Asbury and, by extension, a revealing interpretation of the early years of the Methodist movement in America. Asbury emerges here as not merely an influential religious leader, but a fascinating character, who lived an extraordinary life. His cultural sensitivity was matched only by his ability to organize. His life of prayer and voluntary poverty were legendary, as was his generosity to the poor. He had a remarkable ability to connect with ordinary people, and he met with thousands of them as he crisscrossed the nation, riding more than one hundred and thirty thousand miles between his arrival in America in 1771 and his death in 1816. Indeed Wigger notes that Asbury was more recognized face-to-face than any other American of his day, including Thomas Jefferson and George Washington.

Wigger’s in-depth account of Asbury’s life promises to provide important insights into the key figure in the development of early American Methodism. And if it is as good as his previous book, Taking Heaven by Storm: Methodism and the Rise of Popular Christianity in America, it will not just be an important contribution to the field, but a delight to read. I am very excited to get my hands on this book!

Second, The Oxford Handbook of Methodist Studies, edited by Perkins School of Theology’s own William J. Abraham and James E. Kirby has forty-two essays that survey the development of the field of Methodist Studies. It is also published by Oxford and is described:

With the decision to provide a scholarly edition of the Works of John Wesley in the 1950s, Methodist Studies emerged as a fresh academic venture. Building on the foundation laid by Frank Baker, Albert Outler, and other pioneers of the discipline, this handbook provides an overview of the best current scholarship in the field. The forty-two included essays are representative of the voices of a new generation of international scholars, summarising and expanding on topical research, and considering where their work may lead Methodist Studies in the future.

Thematically ordered, the handbook provides new insights into the founders, history, structures, and theology of Methodism, and into ongoing developments in the practice and experience of the contemporary movement. Key themes explored include worship forms, mission, ecumenism, and engagement with contemporary ethical and political debate.

I thought the Oxford listing also had the titles of each essay as well as the authors, but I could not find it. With forty-two essays, I am confident that there will be many names that are recognized by students of Methodism, as well as contributions from the next generation of scholars of Methodism. Here is the only problem with this book – the price. It is listed at $150… I have a feeling that I am really going to want to have this book on my shelf, but may have to settle for having it there for a few weeks as the result of checking it out of the library.

Third, the Cambridge Companion to John Wesley, edited by Randy L. Maddox and Jason E. Vickers. This one, thankfully, will be available in a paperback edition, which means it should be much more reasonably priced. According to Cambridge’s listing for the book, it is scheduled to be published in December, 2009. The Cambridge listing does include the contents of the book:

Introduction Randy L. Maddox and Jason E. Vickers

Part I. Wesley’s Context:
1. The long eighteenth century Jeremy Gregory

Part II. Wesley’s Life:
2. Wesley’s life and ministry Kenneth J. Collins
3. Wesley in context David N. Hempton

Part III. Wesley’s Work:
4. Wesley as revivalist / renewal leader Charles I. Wallace
5. Wesley as preacher William J. Abraham
6. Wesley as biblical interpreter Robert W. Wall
7. Wesley as diarist and correspondent Ted A. Campbell
8. Wesley as editor and publisher Isabel Rivers
9. Wesley’s engagement with the natural sciences Randy L. Maddox
10. Wesley as adviser on health and healing Deborah Madden
11. Wesley’s theological emphases Jason E. Vickers
12. Wesley’s emphases on ethics Rebekah L. Miles
13. Wesley’s emphases on worship and the means of grace Karen B. Westerfield Tucker

Part IV. Wesley’s Legacy:
14. Spread of Wesleyan Methodism Kenneth Cracknell
15. The Holiness/Pentecostal/charismatic extension of the Wesleyan tradition Randall J. Stephens
16. The African-American wing of the Wesleyan tradition Dennis C. Dickerson
17. Current debates over Wesley’s legacy among his progeny Sarah H. Lancaster.

You may not care as much about this stuff as I do, but as a Ph.D. student working in Wesley Studies it is mind boggling that so much is coming out at the same time. These three books promise to shape the conversation about Wesley/Methodist Studies in the coming years. I look forward to engaging these works.

Surrendering the Legacy of Entire Sanctification

28 Friday Aug 2009

Posted by in Book Review, Christian Living, Methodist History, Wesley

≈ 17 Comments

In The Holiness Revival of the Nineteenth Century, Melvin E. Dieter discusses the tension that developed as the holiness revival progressed amongst its Methodist adherents over “come-outism.” This term referred to Methodists who left (or came out of) Methodism to pursue a purer form of holiness fellowship or association. Dieter argued that there were many Methodists who were advocates of the importance of holiness and who felt that it was essential that this movement stay connected with Methodism. In fact, some seemed to have seen this connection as crucial to Methodism’s future vitality.

Dieter goes on to discuss a parallel debate within Methodism over whether entire sanctification was Wesleyan. According to Dieter, “critics of the revival often had charged that the preaching of the Christian perfection which became characteristic of the revival was un-Wesleyan because the context of American revivalism tended to create significant variations from Methodism’s standard teachings of the doctrine” (256).

Interestingly, though, this argument was actually not all that persuasive or effective. Dieter argues that the holiness movement was “so closely identified with traditional Methodism and Wesleyan doctrine and life that Methodist opponents of the revival were forced to distance themselves from Wesley and the standard authors of prevailing Methodist theology to resolve the struggle with the holiness elements within the church” (256). In other words, those who opposed the holiness revival recognized that they could not win the argument by appealing to Wesley’s authority, so they looked for other sources of authority, and even a new heritage.

The Methodist Episcopal Church and the Methodist Episcopal Church South, then, shifted strategies. Instead of looking back to their heritage and the tradition that they were living out of, they looked forward “to the new and greener pastures in more modern teachers and theologies” (256). And so Dieter argues:

The legacy of entire sanctification, with whatever modifications may have been made to it during the course of the American deeper life revival, was now being surrendered, in large part, to the holiness movement; it had become difficult for the tradition to survive within its original Methodist Episcopal Church and Methodist Episcopal Church South home. (256)

Oddly, or perhaps hopefully, the MEC and MECS did not entirely officially abandon its connection to the doctrine of entire sanctification. For example, this morning I verified that the historic examination questions for admission into Methodist ministry are included in every MEC Discipline from 1884 until union with the MECS and Methodist Protestant Church in 1939. These are the very questions that are asked today of every person who presents themselves for ordination in the United Methodist Church as an elder or deacon. The second, third, and fourth questions are: Are you going on to perfection? Do you expect to be made perfect in love in this life? Are you earnestly striving after it?

Yesterday, I asked the students in my United Methodist History class if any of them had ever heard a sermon preached on entire sanctification or christian perfection. Not one of the nineteen students present had. As United Methodists, we seem to be living in a strange tension. In many ways we seem to have surrendered the doctrine of entire sanctification to other Wesleyan holiness groups, while still officially holding to the teaching in our doctrine and Book of Discipline. Or perhaps we have not surrendered the doctrine, just our commitment to teaching and preaching it. Somewhere along the way the very thing that Wesley believed to be one of the very reasons God raised up the people called Methodists became an embarrassment to later generations of Methodists.

I wish more ordained United Methodists would become uncomfortable with the fact that they have publicly affirmed their commitment and expectation that, by God’s grace, they expect to be made perfect in love in this life. United Methodists should not become familiar with this teaching only if they go to seminary. It should be preached in every Methodist pulpit, as the result of every UM pastor’s wrestling with what Wesley did and did not mean by “perfection,” and their efforts to present this to their parishioners in a way that they can understand. May we reclaim this “grand depositum” that God has entrusted to those who faithfully live out of the Wesleyan heritage.

United Methodist History Readings

07 Friday Aug 2009

Posted by in links, Methodist History, Wesley

≈ 1 Comment

For those of you who may be curious or interested, here are the books I will be using this fall for the United Methodist History course I will be teaching at Perkins School of Theology:

1. Wesley and the People Called Methodists, Richard P. Heitzenrater.

2. John Wesley’s Sermons: An Anthology, edited by Albert Outler and Richard P. Heitzenrater.

3. Taking Heaven by Storm: Methodism and the Rise of Popular Christianity in America, John H. Wigger.

4. The Methodists: Student Edition, edited by James E. Kirby, Russell E. Richey, and Kenneth E. Rowe.

5. The Methodist Experience in America: A Sourcebook, edited by Russell E. Richey, Kenneth E. Rowe, and Jean Miller Schmidt.

6. The United Methodist Hymnal.

There will also be a few other articles and primary source readings that we will read throughout the semester.

Strong Convictions of Sin: Earnestly Inquiring after a Savior

27 Monday Jul 2009

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

≈ 3 Comments

Saturday was a good mail day. The copies of volumes 2 and 3 of A History of Evangelicalism arrived (The Expansion of Evangelicalism: The Age of Wilberforce, More, Chalmers, and Finney, and The Dominance of Evangelicalism: The Age of Spurgeon and Moody). I was prepared to be let down by volume 2, because I enjoyed volume 1 so much, and volume 2 is not written by the same author (vol 1 is written by Mark Noll and vol 2 is writte by John Wolffe). However, I am really enjoying The Expansion of Evangelicalism. The purpose of this post, however, is not to review the book. It is to point to a thought that I had as I was reading the second chapter which describes revivals which occurred in Britain and the United States from 1790-1820.

Wolffe cites several primary sources that report the ways that folks experienced the revivals that they were a part of. As I was reading a few of these brief quotations, I began to feel as if I had read all of this before. Yet I knew I hadn’t, because Wolffe was writing about revival in a part of Britain (Scotland) that I have not studied much. (As Wolffe notes, the revivals in Scotland “owed nothing to Methodism which… remained a small movement with barely 1,000 members and did not expand at all during the 1790s” (53). Wolffe cites Alexander Stewart’s account of these revivals in Scotland:

“Seldom a week passed in which we did not see or hear of one, two, or three persons, brought under deep concern about their souls, accompanied with strong convictions of sin, and earnest enquiry after a Saviour” (54).

This process of becoming concerned about one’s spiritual state, then becoming convinced of one’s sin, seems to have led to “earnest enquiry after a Saviour.” Part of the reason this sounds familiar to me is because it does seem to be a common refrain for people who were describing the revivals of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. This was the language that they spoke. John Wesley used similar language in the “General Rules” when he wrote, “There is only one condition previously required in those who desire admission into these societies, ‘a desire to flee from the wrath to come, to be saved from their sins.'”

It seems to me that part of the reason that there were periods of revival in Britain and North America during this period was because there was general agreement on the basics of the Christian message, at least among those who were involved in the revivals. Traveling preachers who could not agree on other things, were able to agree that it was essential to wake people up to the reality of their standing before God and to lead them to sorrow for their present state. All of this was so that these preachers could point people to the hope of salvation, to the one who is both able and willing to save.

In public settings, from field preaching, to camp meetings, and other venues, there seems to have been a broad consensus and a deep passion for the importance of convincing people of the basic truth of this message. Historians have pointed to other factors that contributed to the potency of the evangelical revivals, but this seems, at least, to be one key factor.

Today, there seems to be broad consensus that renewal, even revival, would be a wonderful thing for United Methodism to experience. A difficult question facing United Methodists, however, may be: Are we able to agree on what the basic message is that we should hope to share with those who have not heard the good news? Indeed, it seems that we even sometimes disagree about whether or not we should even try to share our faith.

For those who yearn for renewed vitality in our denomination, we may have something to learn from our spiritual forebearers. They seem to have had passionate and convicted answers to these questions: Why is salvation important? What do I need to be saved from? What do I need to be saved for? How can I be saved? It seems to me that an important initial step to our efforts to find renewal and reverse the recent pattern of decline in our denomination will be to decide what our message to a broken and hurting world is and to share it with excitement, passion, and conviction.

The Explosive Growth of Methodism from 1776 to 1850

17 Wednesday Jun 2009

Posted by in Book Review, Methodist History, Wesley

≈ 8 Comments

The numerical growth that occurred in early American Methodism can be found in many different sources. However, in Roger Finke and Rodney Stark’s The Churching of America, 1776-2005: Winners and Losers in Our Religious Economy, they tell the story in a slightly different way. Finke and Stark have a chart (on p. 56) that shows the religious adherents as a percentage of total adherents by denominations in 1776 and again in 1850. In other words, they show the market share of six denominations during this time.

In 1776 Methodists made up 2.5 % of religious adherent in the colonies. In 1850 Methodists made up 34.2 % of religious adherents! In seventy years they had increased from a tiny sect to the largest denomination in the United States. (In other words, in 1776 1 in 40 religious people in America were Methodist. In 1859 1 in 3 were.) And no other denomination was even close to the Methodists at this time. The second largest denomination was the Baptists with 20.5%.

This is significant because in a growing population it is possible to experience numerical growth while declining in relation to the overall population. Finke and Stark point to the Congregationalists as illustrative of this. In 1776 Congregationalists made up 20.4% of religious adherents (the largest denomination in the colonies). In 1850 they made up 4%. During this time they had been passed by the Methodists, Baptists, Catholics, and Presbyterians. Yet, “despite this extraordinary shift in their fortunes, Congregationalist leaders during this era expressed surprisingly little concern” (56).

I have just begun reading Finke and Stark’s book. However, one thing that reading the book has made me think about is that most people don’t go back far enough when discussing the decline of American Methodism. Most people point to, ironically, somewhere around the time of the formation of the United Methodist Church in 1968. But the indicators of decline were in place long before that. Unfortunately, if in 1776 the Congregationalists were the largest denomination and they experienced an unexpected decrease in growth relative to other denominations, the Methodists would experience a similar decrease in growth relative to other denominations in the decades after 1850. The highwater mark, then, of American Methodism was not 1968, but somewhere around 1850.

Comparisons between Emergent and Methodism

16 Tuesday Jun 2009

Posted by in Article Review, links, Wesley

≈ 1 Comment

Dan Dick has a great post responding to the UM Portal article that I recently responded to on my blog. Dick’s post has challenged some of my initial excitement and helped me to think more critically about comparisons between emergent and early Methodism. I will continue thinking about this. While I do that, you should read about the United Methodist Emergent-cy.

Great Article at UM Portal

12 Friday Jun 2009

Posted by in Christian Living, links, Wesley

≈ 8 Comments

Thanks to Steve Manskar for drawing my attention to a wonderful article on the emergent movement and United Methodism at the United Methodist Portal. The article particularly highlights the difference between the missional focus of emergent as opposed to the attractional model of many churches which offer emergent worship as a way to attract a particular demographic.

The second half of the article makes a fantastic comparison between early Methodism and what is happening in some emergent settings. Taylor Burton-Edwards is a key voice in the article, discussing his understanding of what Wesley was doing in early Methodism and what seems to have potential for Methodism today.

There are some things in the article that seem to be a bit overstated. There is, for example, a quote from Burton-Edwards that Wesley was ‘absolutely horrible as a pastor.’ This is, of course, a very subjective claim that depends on what one considers to be the traits of a “horrible” or “magnificent” pastor. From the work that I have been doing for Dr. Ted Campbell on the next volume of Wesley’s Letters for the Bicentennial Edition of Wesley’s Works, I cannot help but be amazed at the sheer volume of Wesley’s correspondence. There were certainly times when he seemed to be very blunt and tactless. Yet, he also frequently encouraged people to continue doing the work God had called them to, and to continue moving toward holiness. My guess is that the stark contrast between “absolutely horrible” pastor and “tremendous community organizer” is more the result of editing for the article, than Burton-Edwards’ view of John Wesley.

The article also states:

Mr. Burton-Edwards believes the whole system began to bog down and lose its distinctive edge when Methodists started forming congregations in America in 1784. Wesley’s rules required active participation in both the class meeting and the society meeting. But by 1850, there were essentially no class meetings left in the church.

Again this doesn’t seem quite right. The time period that is identified is almost exactly the period when Methodism saw its most explosive and dramatic growth. While there do seem to be many different things going on during this period of seventy years, some of which led to the decline of Methodism – there also seems to have been something about the way in which American Methodists formed congregations in the last years of the 1700s that has some explanatory power for why Methodism grew at such an astonishing rate. This is simply a way of saying that it seems odd to say that Methodism lost its distinctive edge during the time that it was spreading throughout America. Despite this qualm, I think Burton-Edwards is onto something crucial when he points to the decline of the class meeting in the 19th century as a loss of something particularly distinctive of Methodist identity.

This article raises many interesting questions, and it provides intriguing answers to many of these questions that are worth exploring further. I am excited to see this kind of analysis by United Methodists and eagerly anticipate more from Burton-Edwards, David Reid (who wrote the article) and the UM Reporter.

(By the way, I would like to partially remedy one major oversight of the article. It mentions that Taylor Burton-Edwards has started a blog for emergent United Methodists, but it does not provide a url or a link to the blog. The blog is emergingumc and the url is http://emergingumc.blogspot.com. I would encourage you to go there and join in the conversation if these issues are of interest to you.)

No Limit to God’s Saving Work in Christ

09 Monday Mar 2009

Posted by in Book Review, Ministry, Wesley

≈ 8 Comments

Over the past week I have been reading a couple of books by Lester Ruth; A Little Heaven Below: Worship at Early Methodist Quarterly Meetingsand Early Methodist Life and SpiritualityI would recommend both books to people who want to understand better early American Methodism, particularly what its worship was like.

In Early Methodist Life and Spirituality I came across the following quote: “Methodists found totally unacceptable any suggestion that there was some limit – particularly a God-determined limit – to the scope of God’s saving work in Christ.” (70)

Do we still find any suggestion that there are limits to the scope of God’s saving work in Christ totally unacceptable? It seems to me that people are much too quick to accept the limitations of life in this world as unavoidable and inevitable. I have noticed a tendency to quickly move to extremes when discussing the expectations of the Christian life that seem to work as a sort of defense mechanism…. “If all Christians did that, then I guess there just wouldn’t be any Christians anymore.” (Or something to that effect.)

This appears to be an expression of a lamentable failure of imagination. Part of what Lester Ruth seems to be suggesting is that early American Methodists refused to allow any restraints on God’s ability to save through Christ. If there were going to be limits, they would have to be elsewhere. This belief that God could fully save through Christ was expressed in two key ways: universal atonement (all can find salvation in Christ) and Christian perfection or entire sanctification (all can be made perfect in love).

In my experience (albeit limited), most Methodists find the idea of entire sanctification quaint, or even absurd. Yet, I long to see the ways in which God’s Spirit would move in Methodism again if we were to cease being so quick to rationalize our tendency to sin and instead stubbornly, adamantly, and unapologetically refuse to accept any limits to the scope of God’s saving work in Christ. The United Methodist Church is, after all, filled with ordained ministers who have answer in the affirmative the historic questions “Are you going on to perfection?” and “Do you expect to be made perfect in love in this life?” This is not a work that we perform to merit God’s grace. On the contrary, the best answer to both of these questions is, “Yes, by the grace of God.”

3 Free Books Left

23 Monday Feb 2009

Posted by in Life, links, Wesley

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , ,

I have 3 copies left of A Blueprint for Discipleship: Wesley’s General Rules as a Guide for Christian Living. If you haven’t claimed your copy yet, here is what you have to do to receive a free copy:

1. Have a blog.

2. Be willing to blog about the book after you read it.

3. Post a comment in this post with your name and your blog url in the comment. (Books will be given to the first 25 people to leave a comment.)

4. Send an email to deeplycommitted (at) gmail (dot) com with the subject “Free copy of Blueprint for Discipleship.” In the body of the email include the address that you would like the book mailed to.

Update: The 3 remaining copies have been claimed. Thanks so much for your interest.

Free Copies of Blueprint for Discipleship

19 Thursday Feb 2009

Posted by in Life, links, Wesley

≈ 27 Comments

I am happy to announce that my marketing director at Upper Room/ Discipleship Resources has given me permission to give away 25 copies of my new book A Blueprint for Discipleship: Wesley’s General Rules as a Guide for Christian Living to people who are willing to blog about it. To receive your free copy you need to:

1. Have a blog.

2. Be willing to blog about the book after you read it.

3. Post a comment in this post with your name and your blog url in the comment. (Books will be given to the first 25 people to leave a comment.)

4. Send an email to deeplycommitted (at) gmail (dot) com with the subject “Free copy of Blueprint for Discipleship.” In the body of the email include the address that you would like the book mailed to.

Also, feel free to spread the word!

Update: All 25 copies have been claimed. Thanks so much for your interest.