Preaching Again

10 Saturday Oct 2009

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

I will be preaching at both services tomorrow morning at McFarlin United Methodist Church in Norman, Oklahoma. In preparing for the services, I realized that I have not preached since my last Sunday as a full time pastor (which makes 68 weeks, for those of you keeping score at home). I am really looking forward to it.

I will be preaching on Mark 10:17-31 and my sermon title is “Our Precious Heritage.” The services are at 8:30 and 10:55 am.

At 7:00 pm I will be giving a lecture that will consider what was distinct about early Methodism. I will then ask if we have maintained those distinctives, and will consider whether anything is at stake in whether we have held to those distinctives or not. I am also looking forward to a lively discussion with those in attendance. The lecture is free and open to the public.

Organizing from the Bottom Up

05 Monday Oct 2009

Posted by in Accountability, Book Review, Methodist History, Ministry, Wesley

≈ 6 Comments

In a book I am reading for one of my classes this semester, Inventing the “Great Awakening” by Frank Lambert I came across the following quotation:

“Beginning with a few Oxford students, Wesley embarked on a lifetime task of organizing Christians from the bottom up, banding small groups of Christians together in religious societies for the purpose of deepening their faith and then putting it into action through charities and evangelism” (85)

This sentence has stuck with me. I have not often thought about the pastor’s task being one of bottom up organization. But it seems to make quite a bit of sense. This also seems to be a way of agreeing with people who argue that it is too late for the UMC as an institution to return to Wesleyan practices, such as an equivalent of the class meeting. Lambert has given me an image that helps me to think about restoring an authentically Wesleyan approach to discipleship in the local church, and it is beautifully straightforward! If Lambert is right, one of the key roles of Wesleyan preachers and lay leaders was organizing Christians in small groups “for the purpose of deepening their faith and then putting it into action.”

In a sense, the beauty of early Methodism was that the weight of the institution was behind this. In other words, paradoxically, the idea to organize for the purpose of deepening faith that would lead to action came from the top down. The powers that be commanded a bottom down approach to discipleship!

Today the situation has changed. We live in a time of increasing bureaucratization of the UMC, and the institution does not demand this bottom up approach to discipleship. Yet, while the full weight of the institution may not be behind the necessity of small group formation, it is also not actively forbidding or hindering it. This means that every pastor or active lay person who wants to return to the riches of our Wesleyan heritage does not have to wait on the powers that be to give the green light. It also means that we should not use the behemoth that is the institutional UMC as an excuse for failing to organize Christians wherever we find ourselves in order to better position them to be transformed by the grace of God and practice their faith.

In other words, Lambert’s image of bottom up discipleship is a hopeful one for me, because it suggests that the only thing keeping people at the local church level from experiencing the blessing of “watching over one another in love” is a failure of people at the level of the local church to do it. And while that is not an insignificant obstacle, it certainly seems to be a far smaller one than trying to change everything that is wrong with the UMC – broadly speaking – before actually turning our attention to the people that are coming to our churches, seeking to live faithfully and experience the fullness of life in Christ.

What do you think? Is the idea of a bottom up approach to discipleship promising for the contemporary UMC?

Wesley: A Guide for the Perplexed

29 Tuesday Sep 2009

Posted by in Book Review, Methodist History, Wesley

≈ Leave a comment

Last week I had the opportunity to meet and visit with Dr. Jason Vickers, who is professsor of theology and Wesley studies, and the director of the Center for Evangelical United Brethren Heritage at United Theological Seminary in Dayton, Ohio. I really enjoyed the conversation with Dr. Vickers and appreciated his making the time to meet with me.

His visit also gave me the push I had been needing to finally get to a book that had been on my shelf for nearly a year, his Wesley: A Guide for the Perplexed. And I have to say that this book was a delight to read. It is concise (the text is just over 100 pages) and well written. The main reason for my enthusiasm, however, is that the book does an excellent job of both summarizing several previous arguments in the field of Wesley Studies and then showing a new way of resolving these old debates. Vickers argues that Wesley’s English context was not nearly as secularized as it has often been viewed to have been, arguing instead for the “Anglican stabilization thesis.” Vickers further argues, in my view quite convincingly, that there is “a logical consistency running through Wesley’s ecclesiastical, political and theological commitments” (5)

Because of the skill with which Vickers is able to summarize many of the key issues in understanding John Wesley’s actions – particularly his decision to ordain ministers for American and Scotland, this brief book is an indispensable resource for students of Wesley studies. I would highly recommend it to anyone who is a student of John Wesley and wants to better understand the scholarly debate surrounding his relationship to his context.

What Made Asbury an Effective Communicator

22 Tuesday Sep 2009

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 4 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

One Thing Is Needful

18 Friday Sep 2009

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

≈ 4 Comments

Try this mental exercise:

Imagine that an intelligent being, who had no previous experience with human beings or our world, were to observe human interactions and the way that we spend our time. What conclusions would that intelligent being come to about what is most important for human life, survival, and happiness?

Now imagine that the same intelligent being, instead of observing humanity in general, were to observe your life. What conclusions would this intelligent being come to about what is most important for your life, your survival, and your happiness?

One of my favorite sermons by John Wesley, “The One Thing Needful,” begins with this very mental exercise:

Could we suppose an intelligent being, entirely a stranger to the state of this world and its inhabitants, to take a view of their various enterprises and employments, and thence conjecture the end of their existence, he would surely conclude that these creatures were designed to be busied about many things. While he observed not only the infinite difference of the ends which different men were pursuing, but how vast a multitude of objects were successively pursued by almost every different person, he might fairly infer that for all these things were the sons of men placed upon the earth, even to gratify their several desires with sensual pleasure, or riches, or honour, or power. (I.1, p.34)

Wesley then notes “how surprised” this being would be “to hear their Creator declare to all, without distinction, ‘One thing is needful!’ But how much more when he knew that this one thing needful for me, their one business, the one end of their existence, was none of all those things which men were troubled about… Nay, that it was an end not only distinct from but contrary to them all – as contrary as light and darkness, heaven and hell, the kingdom of God and that of Satan!” (I.2, p.34)

The intelligent being, then, would assume that these people must have an infinite amount of time. In other words, they are not doing the “one thing needful” because they are guaranteed to have enough time to get to it. But Wesley wonders when this being realized that “all men were placed on a narrow, weak, tottering bridge, whereof either end was swallowed up in eternity…” how would it respond? He asks, “How would he express, how would he conceive the senselessness, the madness, of those creatures who, being in such a situation, could think of anything else, could talk of anything else, could do anything besides, could find time for any other design, or care, but that of ensuring the one thing needful!” (I.3, p.35)

So what is the one thing needful from Wesley’s perspective? He vividly describes it:

To recover our first estate, from which we are thus fallen, is the one thing now needful – to re-exchange the image of Satan for the image of God, bondage for freedom, sickness for health. Our one great business is to rase out of our souls the likeness of our destroyer, and to be born again, to be formed anew after the likeness of our Creator. It is our one concern to shake off this servile yoke and to regain our native freedom; to throw off every chain, every passion and desire that does not suit an angelical nature. The one work we have to do is to return from the gates of death to perfect soundness; to have our diseases cure, our wounds healed, and our uncleanness done away. (I.5, p. 36)

I find that this sermon is worth reading on a regular basis, because it so powerfully asks us if we have our priorities in check. Another way of getting at the same basic point that Wesley is making is that you can tell someone’s priorities by the way that they spend their time and their money.

Wesley believed that it was absolutely essential that God’s priorities were our priorities. And this was not just a platitude that he often repeated. As a result of his conviction that one thing is needful – being renewed and remade in the image of God – he used anything that he could find to help people constantly be reminded of what was most important. And so Wesley urged his followers to use the means of grace – to pray, read Scripture, receive Communion, and fast – and to watch over one another in love through various forms of communal practice. As many others have pointed out, the goal was not to create the ultimate bureaucracy, or to create anything for its own sake. Rather, the goal was to fan the flames that God had lit in people’s hearts and lives. The goal was to help every Methodist keep their eyes on God and to keep them attentive to nurturing and growing their relationship with God.

So, what conclusions would that “intelligent being” come to about what is most important in your life? Or for that matter, what do other people in your life think are most important in your life, based on the way that you are actually living?

It seems like we often think it is acceptable and normal to believe that our true priorities can’t be that easily seen. The idea is that if you want to know what my deepest priorities are, you would have to be able to talk to me and ask me, so I could explain them to you.

There may be some truth to this way of thinking. Convictions, ideas, and beliefs certainly do matter. But so does the way that we spend our lives. What are you spending your life on? What are you investing your life in? As we consider these questions, Wesley reminds us that there is only one thing that is needful.

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.

How Can This Blog Help You Use Blueprint for Discipleship?

31 Monday Aug 2009

Posted by in Christian Living, Ministry, Technology

≈ 2 Comments

I have been considering different ways that this blog can be used as a further resource for those who are using A Blueprint for Discipleship: Wesley’s General Rules as a Guide to Christian Living in a small group setting this fall. I have considered a series that works through the book chapter by chapter. I have also wondered if it might be fruitful to accept questions from readers or group leaders and each week I could post a video response to the question. I am open to other possibilities as well.

If you will be using the book this fall, or if you have experience leading small group studies, how do you think this blog could best be used to make the experience that people who use the book have even better? I am very interested in your thoughts.

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.

Pulling the Plug on Twitter and Facebook

25 Tuesday Aug 2009

Posted by in Life, Technology

≈ 7 Comments

I am going to pull the plug on Twitter and Facebook. I am not going to delete my account on either one, but I am going to stop updating them.

I wrote my first “tweet” on January 28, 2008… and then did not tweet again for more than a year. This May I started tweeting with some consistency. I also began using Facebook when I realized that I could use TweetDeck to update Facebook and Twitter at the same time. To be fair, there have been many things I have enjoyed about using Twitter and Facebook. I have a connection with many people I might not otherwise know. I have also been able to keep up to date on what is happening in the lives of some friends I don’t see as often as I would like to. What felt like the most sophisticated moment in my tweeting life was when I set up a meeting for coffee with a friend while in Tulsa.

Occasionally I would read a tweet that was too sarcastic for my liking, or expressed a total lack of understanding of a position it was uncharitably attacking. However, for the most part I was a convert to the world of tweets and twitpics and ReTweets (though it took me awhile to figure out what RT meant). I know that I was a convert because those words stopped sounding silly to me. I didn’t bat an eye when Derek Webb referred to his followers as “Tweeples” or when someone else referred an in person meeting of “tweeters” as a “Tweet-up.”

But a few nights ago, as I was trying to go to sleep, my mind was bouncing back and forth from one thing to another. I’m not sure exactly how or why, but I began thinking about the frustration I felt the week before in trying to get back into the rhythm of reading and studying after a week of vacation. Throughout the week I felt distracted and struggled to concentrate. (I also during the day almost always had TweetDeck running on my desktop.) Twitter and Facebook began to look like things that were not valuable, or at least neutral tools. They began to look like unhealthy distractions that had contributed to my lack of focus. As I fell asleep, I came to the conclusion that I needed to pull the plug on Twitter and Facebook. Here are a few reasons why:

First, my ability to concentrate for extended periods of time seemed to decrease the more actively I used Twitter and Facebook. This is what bothers me the most and is the main reason I am pulling the plug. Obviously this is a problem for someone who is working on a Ph.D. However, I hope it would bother me if I were still the pastor of a local church. I am convinced that the ability to carefully read and think about the argument of a well written book (like the Bible!) is an important, though underrated, virtue that is worth cultivating. I feel that I have been awakened to the ways that my consumption of technology really is shaping the way my mind works.

Second, in my personal experience, I have not often seen Twitter or Facebook used in ways that advance discussions about the most important or most controversial issues that are facing the church. Instead, I sometimes felt that people were using these media to take cheap shots at their opponents and to set up straw men. These are not conversations that I find it helpful to be a part of.

Third, while I have on many occasions enjoyed being able to read an update from someone I have not spoken to in a while (it is great to see wedding pictures, or a picture of an old friend’s first child), I have not found Twitter or Facebook to be media that lead to forming or sustaining meaningful relationships. In fact at times I have felt that Twitter and Facebook allow me to have the illusion that I am keeping in touch with someone, when in fact I am really just eavesdropping (with their permission) on the highlights of their lives. In other words, I may not feel as strong of a need to actually call up my old friend and find out what has been going on with them, because I feel like I already know. But the things they might most need to talk about could very well be things that they would not write updates about on Facebook.

Here is a quick example that illustrates what I am trying to get at: People write updates and often post pictures when they get married or have a child. However, they hardly ever do the same thing when they get divorced or have a miscarriage. I think Facebook and Twitter can actually lead us to invest less in some friendships. As a result, we fail to support each other when we need it most. It can even be, perhaps unintentionally, a way of insulating ourselves from the pain and suffering in one another’s lives.

Fourth, during the time that I was active in using Twitter and Facebook I was less active and consistent in blogging. I rarely felt like I had something important to tweet about, but I often did it because I hadn’t updated in awhile. For me, blogging cultivates the kind of disciplined focus on one topic that is beneficial to me personally and which I hope has a beneficial contribution to make to those surfing the internet.

So there it is, that is why I am pulling the plug on Twitter and Facebook. I hope that I will be able to blog more regularly as a result. And I hope that you will continue participating in the conversation by commenting here.

Finally, I would like to clarify that I am not writing this to make you feel guilty or like you need to defend your use of Twitter and/or Facebook. I am sure that there are many positives which I have not thought of or experienced. I am sure there are valid reasons to use these media. Yet, as I have written this post the phrase in 1 Corinthians 10 has been repeating itself in my mind: “All things are lawful, but not all things are beneficial.” I am open to the possibility that I will become convinced that the positives do outweigh the negatives, and that as a result I will plug back in. But for now, for me, Twitter and Facebook may be lawful, but they are not beneficial.

Campus Ministry

18 Tuesday Aug 2009

Posted by in Christian Living, links, Ministry

≈ 1 Comment

For those who are not either college students, or campus ministers, campus ministry can sometimes be easier to take for granted than to actively support. Yet, it seems to me that it would be very difficult for a committed Christian to make an argument that campus ministry is irrelevant or unimportant.

Ashlee Alley and Creighton Alexander have given us the opportunity to actively support United Methodist campus ministries through prayer. Yesterday began forty days of prayer for United Methodist campus ministries as they begin a new year of ministry with college students across the country.

You can read Ashlee’s post about it here.

You can find the prayers each day here, or follow them on twitter here.

Will you join me in praying for United Methodist campus ministries?