Tag Archives: class meeting

The Methodist Class Meeting for the 21st Century: Why Classes?

02 Monday Aug 2010

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

≈ 22 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

This is the second post in a series on the contemporary relevance and practical application of the Methodist class meeting. In the previous post, I tried to make sure we were all on the same page by giving a brief history of the origin and development of the class meeting in early Methodism. In this post I will discuss the potential contributions I believe the class meeting can make for 21st century Methodism (or any Christians who are seeking to grow together in their faith). This post also will answer some of the questions I have received from you about the difference between the class meeting, small groups, and accountability groups.

The key contribution that the class meeting can make to contemporary Christianity is that it provides an entry point for every Christian to be in connection with one another in a way that is focused on the dynamic process of the Christian life. In general, the Christian life is a fluid process, people tend to either grow and mature in their faith or they tend to decrease in their commitment to their faith.

The class meeting is a helpful tool for increasing the likelihood that people will move forward in their faith for at least two key reasons. 1) The class meeting joins people together in small groups so that people are not lost in church. While this may seem most common or most likely in large churches, people can be “lost” in the smallest churches. In churches of almost any size, I suspect there are people who are connected with the church in some way, but who are not really known by other people in the church. This is largely unintentional, but when a church does not plan for ways to try to connect every person who is involved in the life of the church, someone is inevitably going to be left on the sidelines. The class meeting provides a structure that can connect everyone to a small group of people within the community of faith.

2) The format of the class meeting draws attention every week to the reality that the Christian life is not static. Every week each person in the class meeting is asked the simple question: “How is it with your soul?” Or, “How is your life in God?” In the classes that I have been a part of, simply getting into the rhythm of anticipating answering that question each week helps people to be more aware of how God is at work in their lives and how they are cooperating with God, or failing to cooperate with God. The content of the class meeting, then, is the lives of the people who are present. The goal of the class meeting is growth in holiness of the members of the class.

At this point, the difference between the class meeting and most Sunday school classes can be seen. To put it rather starkly, in the typical Sunday school class the content of the class is the Bible or a book of some sort. The goal is to learn new information. In my experience, people feel that a Sunday school class has been successful if at the end of the class they have learned something new, or have come to think about something in a new way.

In theory, and perhaps all too often in reality, someone could attend a Sunday school class for years, learning all kinds of information about the Bible or about Christian beliefs without growing in their faith one bit. Someone could be in a Sunday school class for years and their life with God could be worse at the end of the period of time than it was at the beginning – and it would be possible that nobody else would even know!

In the class meeting, there is no guarantee that the same person would be doing better spiritually. But they would have the opportunity to give voice to their struggles every week and the rest of the people in the group would have some idea of what was going on with them. They would be able to walk with them and pray for them.

The basic difference between the class meeting and Sunday school is that the class meeting focuses on transformation, on us becoming more and more like Christ. The Sunday school class focuses on information, on us learning information about Christ. To be fair, the intent of Sunday school is that this information will help us to live better lives as Christians. However, this is a second step, and one that often does not receive focus. I wonder if many Methodists have become so addicted to informational approaches to discipleship that they no longer think about how what they are learning is impacting the way they are living their lives.

It is difficult to provide a neat distinction between the class meeting and small groups or accountability groups, in part because the class meeting is a type of small group or accountability group. First, a class meeting is a small group, because it is a group that is small. However, a class meeting is a specific type of small group. The point here is that you can talk about a class meeting as a type of small group, but you cannot talk about all small groups as a type of class meeting. The key distinction is that in a class meeting the focus of the group must be on every person having the chance to talk about their life with God every week. If a small group gathers to read and study a book (no matter how amazing the book might be), it is not a class meeting.

Accountability groups are perhaps more similar to class meetings, in that it is generally assumed that an accountability group involves giving an account to the other people in the group. In other words, accountability groups are usually not dependent on curriculum or group study. Rather, accountability groups are oriented toward a voluntary decision to be accountable to a specific group of people for living a certain kind of life, the specifics of which are usually agreed upon by the group.

At one level, the class meeting is an accountability group. In our brief look at the class meeting in early Methodism, we saw that the class meeting was a place where people were held accountable for keeping the General Rules. And yet, at another level, the class meeting is actually a bit less intense than what most people have in mind when they think of being in an accountability group. In the early Methodist structure, the band meeting (a group of about 5 people that involved confessing specific sins) was more similar to the generally understood meaning of an accountability group.

The fact that the class meeting is a less intense form of accountability is a crucial point for understanding its potential contribution to contemporary Christianity. In most conceptions of discipleship or Christian formation, it seems to me that a combination of tools are used. There are usually classes offered that will teach people the basics of the Bible, Christian beliefs, or the particularities of the denomination of which the specific church is a part. However, what is often missing is a basic structure that will bring Christians of all levels of maturity together with the basic goal of living out their convictions.

To put it differently, most people who go to church are not willing to join an accountability group where they meet in order to tell each other the sins they have committed of which they are the most ashamed. The early Methodist approach to Christian formation recognized this and created something that was less intense so that every person could have a place where they did come together to talk at a more general and less invasive level about their life as a Christian. Methodism did not force every one of its members to confess their sins to their peers (or to anyone). However, they did require that every Methodist weekly give an account of how things were going in their walk with God.

In our context, I believe a structure similar to the class meeting would help people connect to one another. It also would help people to get into the habit of being aware of what difference the faith that they profess with their mouths is making in how they actually live their lives.

What do you think? Again, please feel free to continue asking questions about the contemporary relevance of the class meeting, or about this post in particular. You are welcomed to leave your questions as a comment, or email me directly at deeplycommitted at gmail dot com.

The Methodist Class Meeting for the 21st Century: The Foundation

30 Friday Jul 2010

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

≈ 26 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

I want to start this series of posts on the contemporary relevance of the Methodist class meeting by covering the basics of the early Methodist class meeting. For those of you who already know about the early Methodist class meeting, please bear with me. After this post, the remainder of the conversation will be focused on practical application. I do want to take the time to give a brief introduction to the origins of the class meeting in case people find this series who want to know how to start small groups that are focused on growing as disciples, but aren’t familiar with the Methodist jargon of “societies,” “classes,” and “bands.”

The class meeting was started in 1742 when a group of Methodists were trying to figure out how to pay off a building debt in Bristol (pictured above). Captain Foy suggested that the Bristol society be divided up into groups of 12 people. One person in each group would be designated the leader and would be responsible for visiting each person in their group every week in order to collect one penny from them. By this means, Foy believed the building debt could be retired. Someone raised a concern that this would prevent the poorest Methodists from being involved. Captain Foy responded by volunteering to take the 11 poorest members of the Bristol Society into his group. He said that he would visit them each week and ask them if they could contribute. If they were unable, he would pay their penny on their behalf. Then, he challenged the other people at the meeting to do the same thing.

As this plan was put into practice, it became apparent that many Methodists were not keeping the “General Rules,” which were: do no harm, do good, and practice the means of grace (i.e., prayer, searching the Scriptures, receiving Communion, etc.). Almost immediately, Wesley realized that the class leaders (who were the ones that had originally committed to make the weekly collection) were ideally suited to address the lack of discipline in keeping the General Rules amongst Methodists.

In the General Rules Wesley described the duty of the class leader:

That it may the more easily be discerned, whether they are indeed working out their own salvation, each society is divided into small companies, called classes, according to their respective places of abode. There are about twelve persons in every class; one of whom is styled the Leader. It is his business, (1.) To see each person in his class once a week at least, in order to inquire how their souls prosper; to advise, reprove, comfort, or exhort, as occasion may require; to receive what they are willing to give toward the relief of the poor. (2.) To meet the Minister and the Stewards of the society once a week; in order to inform the Minister of any that are sick, or of any that walk disorderly, and will not be reproved; to pay to the Stewards what they have received of their several classes in the week preceding; and to show their account of what each person has contributed. (3)

Initially, the class leader met each person at his or her own house. However, it was quickly decided that it would be more practical for the entire class to meet together once a week. Wesley reported in A Plain Account of the People Called Methodists that at the class meeting “Advice or reproof was given as need required, quarrels made up, misunderstandings removed: And after an hour or two spent in this labour of love, they concluded with prayer and thanksgiving.” (II.6)*

Wesley further reported on what he believed were the fruits of the class meeting:

It can scarce be conceived what advantages have been reaped from this little prudential regulation. Many now happily experienced that Christian fellowship of which they had not so much as an idea before. They began to ‘bear one another’s burderns,’ and naturally to ‘care for each other.’ As they had daily a more intimate acquaintance with, so they had a more endeared affection for, each other. And ‘speaking the truth in love, they grew up into Him in all things, who is the Head, even Christ; from whom the whole body, fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every joint supplied, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, increased unto the edifying itself in love.’ (Plain Account, II.7)

The class meeting, then, quickly developed into much more than a capital campaign. It became a crucial tool for enabling Methodists to “watch over one another in love,” to support and encourage one another in their lives with God. In fact, John Wesley thought the oversight and support that the class meeting provided was so important that it became a requirement for membership in a Methodist society. To be a Methodist meant that you were involved in a weekly class meeting.

So what happened in these weekly meetings?

Classes were intended to have between 7 to 12 members in them. They had both women and men in the classes and class leaders were both women and men. Classes were divided primarily by geographical location. In other words, you would have attended a class meeting with the Methodists in your neighborhood. From what we have seen above, the class meeting seems to have focused on three things. First, it held people accountable to keeping the “General Rules.” Second, the class meeting was a place where every Methodist weekly answered the question, “How is it with you soul?” (Methodist historian Scott Kisker has recently rephrased this question as “How is your life in God?”) Third, it was a place where Methodists were encouraged to give weekly to the relief of the poor.

The phrase that I believe best captures what the Methodists believed was so important about the class meeting was “watching over one another in love.” Early Methodists were asked to invite others into their lives and to be willing to enter deeply into the lives of other people so that together they would grow in grace. They were committed to the idea that the Christian life is a journey of growth in grace, or sanctification. And they believed that they needed one another in order to persevere on this journey.

The remainder of this series will be focused on what it might look like to “watch over one another in love” in the twenty-first century. I continue to welcome your questions about the relevance or application of the class meeting for the twenty-first century. You can leave your questions as a comment on the first post in this series, or you can email me at deeplycommitted at gmail dot com. I am looking forward to the conversation!

*(Note: All quotations in this post are from John Wesley, The Works of John Wesley, vol. 8., ed. Thomas Jackson, first published 1872. I have used this edition because it is in the public domain, and I am not sure what the copyright implications are for quoting as extensively as I have from “A Plain Account” and “The General Rules.” Having said that, I would highly recommend The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley, as it is the recent scholarly edition of Wesley’s works. Vol. 9 of this edition contains the documents I have cited 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.

The Methodist Class Meeting for the 21st Century

29 Thursday Jul 2010

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

≈ 14 Comments

Tags

, , ,

Recently, I have had several opportunities to speak at churches about Wesleyan small groups. I have been encouraged by the desire that many pastors and laity have had to start something like a class meeting. On several occasions I have had further conversations with people about what it might look like for them to actually begin a class meeting. A common refrain I have heard when I have talked about the Wesleyan method for making disciples of Jesus Christ has been something like, “This all sounds great, but how would you actually do this today?”

Based on the things that people have said to me, I have been surprised at how easy it has been to convince people that the class meeting was of vital importance to the success of early Methodism. Rather than doubting the value of the class meeting, people seem to want concrete guidance on the steps to reclaiming this practice.

In light of this, I am going to write a series of posts called, The Methodist Class Meeting for the 21st century. This series will focus on topics such as: What were the nuts and bolts of the early Methodist class meeting? What are the primary obstacles to starting something like a class meeting? What ingredients are necessary for starting a healthy class meeting? How do you start a class meeting? How do you maintain the vitality of an established class meeting?

I also want to solicit your questions. Are there questions that you have about class meetings? I welcome both historical and practical questions. Feel free to either leave your questions as a comment on this post, or email me directly at deeplycommitted at gmail dot com.

I look forward to the conversation.

Empowering and Equipping Laity

22 Tuesday Jun 2010

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

≈ 10 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

In response to my recent post on the expansion of Methodism in the early 19th century, I highlighted the large percentage of laity who were involved in spiritual formation of other laity in their churches. I suggested that one of the key reasons for the success of early Methodism was that for every church there were several lay people who were leading class meetings, where the lay leader of the group was responsible for asking each person in the group, “How is your life with God?” I then suggested that “one of the most essential tasks for the United Methodist Church today is training and empowering laity for this kind of ministry.”

John Meunier responded with a brief and piercing comment: “Someone teach me how to “empower and equip” lay leaders and I am there.”

So how do we empower and equip lay leaders in the contemporary United Methodist Church?

In this post I will do two things. First, I will identify two ways I think the early Methodist approach to discipleship can be directly adopted by contemporary United Methodists. Second, I will specifically outline one way to empowering and equipping the laity for the kind of ministry I have in mind.

It seems to me that often when folks in the Methodist blogging world talk about John Wesley or early Methodism, they trip over themselves to make sure their audience realizes that “things are not as they used to be.” At one level, this is an obviously true observation. Life in the 21st century United States is very different than life in 18th century Britain. An awareness of context is very important both in reading and interpreting Scripture and in making comparisons or prescriptions from one period of history to another.

And yet, the pastor in me often wonders if the concern for context is often a way of distancing ourselves from taking the Christian life too seriously. What, for example, has changed about the current context that would make the question “How is your life with God?” an irrelevant question for the twenty-first century?

As it relates to empowering and equipping lay leaders in the church, my guess is that the church could fruitfully adopt most of the strategies of the earliest Methodists without having to do too much contextualizing. Here are two specific ways that the early Methodist approach could be directly adopted by contemporary Methodists:

First, the expectation that every Methodist must join and participate in a weekly class meeting meant that Methodist leaders were constantly trying to identify people who might do a good job leading a class meeting. When a gifted lay person was identified, the typical response was to encourage them to become a class leader. This is relevant for contemporary Methodists because I suspect that many pastors most naturally assign their most gifted laity to be the leader or chair of a committee, rather than seeking to help them find a way to pastor other members of the church. So, the first thing I think contemporary Methodists should do to equip and empower laity for the ministry of “watching over one another in love” is to make identifying lay leaders who are gifted for this kind of a ministry a priority over everything else. If you have a lay person who would either be an excellent chair for the board of trustees, or would be willing to lead a weekly small group focused on growth in grace, you should direct that person every time to lead a weekly small group focused on helping others grow in grace.

Second, early Methodism equipped and trained lay people through a sort of apprenticeship. The first thing that someone who was Methodist did was join a weekly class meeting. In that meeting they would observe a lay person leading the class meeting, asking each person how their lives with God are, facilitating the conversation, making sure everyone has a chance to participate, and offering advice or encouragement as they discerned it was helpful or appropriate. These class leaders, when they identified someone they thought had the potential to be a good class leader, would talk with them and provide an opportunity to lead a class. I believe that this is relevant for contemporary Methodism. The main concern of some pastors might be that there are no laity currently involved in this kind of ministry who can apprentice others. My guess is that nearly every church (if not every church) has at least one or two laity who would thrive as a spiritual director or guide for others, but they are not able to exercise this gift because it is not currently valued by the church, or they are not able to exercise these gifts because they are so absorbed in tasks of institutional maintenance. The first step, where there is not currently an active lay ministry to others would be for the pastor to work to identify people who are gifted in this way, and seek to apprentice them and then help them start a ministry with others. This could be very similar to the ways that excellent Sunday School teachers are identified, except that they would not be teaching a curriculum, but would be a shepherd of souls.

The second thing I want to do in this post is outline the steps that could lead to empowering and equipping laity to start something like a class meeting. (I want to preface this by saying that this approach assumes that the congregation where this is being implemented generally has little to no awareness of the class meeting or the early Methodist approach to discipleship.)

First, preach a sermon series on the Wesleyan Way of Salvation and the Methodist “Method” for Making Disciples. Depending on the pastor and the congregation’s need for teaching on this, I would envision this being 6-12 weeks. The goal is that after the sermon series, the congregation should have a basic familiarity with Wesleyan theology and the “method” for bringing this theology to life that gave Methodism its name.

Second, towards the end of the sermon series announce that small groups will be forming which will explore this further. A book like my A Blueprint for Discipleship: Wesley’s General Rules as a Guide for Christian Living would be helpful in helping folks get a better sense of the way that Methodism was originally designed to be a force for the spiritual renewal and transformation of its members. Sunday School classes could also be encouraged to use this study during this period of study.

Third, at the end of the study people should be invited to join an experimental class meeting that would last six weeks. During this time they would be able to see what a class meeting is like and they would be able to discern whether they would be willing to make a longer term commitment to being in a class, or even become a class leader.

Fourth, at the end of this period people would be invited to make a commitment to join a class. Depending on the response, a new class, or classes would start. Ideally there would be at least one lay person who would be willing to lead each class. This is less important, but I think it also would be ideal if after the six week “experiment” the classes met in the home of the class leader, or another person’s home (mostly because this is a more intimate and less intimidating environment for people who might consider joining a class after it has already been formed).

Fifth, the pastor should ask the class leaders to meet with her once a month to talk about any challenges they are facing, to ask questions, or to process what they are learning. The purpose of this is not to gossip about what is happening in other people’s lives, but is solely for the purpose of providing continued support and encouragement for the class leaders.

Sixth, once this approach has become a part of the congregations “DNA” steps one and two could be the training that new members go through, or confirmands.

Seventh, once or twice a year there could be space in the worship service for people who have been in classes to testify to the difference it has made in their lives. Following this, the person could make an invitation to join a new round of a six week experimental class meetings where people could get a feel for a class meeting without fully committing to it. After this, the procedure that follows step three could be followed.

These are my thoughts for equipping and empowering laity to become spiritual leaders who “watch over one another in love.” What are your thoughts, objections, or questions?

The Expansion of Methodism in the early 19th c.

15 Tuesday Jun 2010

Posted by in Book Review, Methodist History

≈ 9 Comments

Tags

,

The explosive growth of Methodism in the early 1800s always fascinates and amazes me. In America’s God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln, Mark A. Noll argues that “the central religious reality for the period from the Revolution to the Civil War was the unprecedented expansion of evangelical Protestant Christianity. No other period of American history ever witnessed such a dramatic rise in religious adherence and corresponding religious influence on the broader national culture” (165-66). Noll further argues that this expansion was unprecedented and there was no reason why it should have been expected.

Within this remarkable growth, Noll finds that “the expansion of the Methodists requires special notice” (168). In 1813, a few years before Francis Asbury’s death, Methodist records indicate that there were 171,448 white and 42,850 African-American members in ‘full society’ served by 678 preachers. At this time there were also about 7,000 class meetings. Each class meeting was presided over by a class leader, which was a local layperson. To give a further idea of a) the seriousness with which Methodists held to their requirements for membership at this time; and b) the broad influence of Methodism, about one million people attended Methodist camp meetings each year. In other words, more than five times as many people went to these camp meetings each year than were full members of the Methodist Episcopal Church.

Noll concludes: “From nowhere, in a period of very rapid general growth in church affiliation and over a remarkably short span, Methodism had become the most pervasive form of Christianity in the United States” (169).

Of all these statistics, here is the one that I think is most interesting: there were 7,000 classes meeting throughout Methodism in 1813. That is an average of one class per 30.6 members in full connection. (This creates an interpretative dilemma, because John Wesley typically defined a class as a meeting of 7 to 12 people, not 30. However, this actually serves to confirm what I have read elsewhere – that classes in early 19th century American Methodism were actually quite a bit larger than they were in Britain during Wesley’s lifetime.) What may be more astonishing than the number of classes is that each class was served by a local layperson, who was responsible for the spiritual development of all of the people in their class, and there were ten times as many class leaders (about 7,000 class leaders) as there were preachers (678)!

There are so many different directions you could go in with these numbers. One thing that really strikes me, though, is that it seems that one of the key reasons for the growth of early American Methodism in the first years of the nineteenth century was that everywhere there was a Methodist church, there were several lay people who were spiritual leaders. People who loved their brothers and sisters in Christ enough to walk with them, to ask them how things were going in their life with God in order to support and encourage them.

I wonder if one of the most essential tasks for the United Methodist Church today is training and empowering laity for this kind of ministry. In many churches, there is likely one lay person for every thirty who has authority over an administrative task (such as chairing or serving on a committee). If we could survey every UM congregation throughout the connection, I wonder what the ratio would be of lay people who are asking other laity how things are in their life with God? I wonder what the ratio would be of lay people who are asking other laity if they are keeping the “General Rules” (do no harm, do good, and attend upon the ordinances of God – i.e. practice the means of grace). I wonder what the ratio would be of lay people who are asking other laity whether they are loving God with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength, and whether they are loving their neighbor as themselves.

What do you think?

The Class Meeting and Itinerancy

26 Monday Jan 2009

Posted by in Book Review, links, Ministry, Wesley

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

In continuing to read Norwood’s The Story of American MethodismI came across some interesting analysis of the decline of the class meeting. Norwood connects the decline of the class meeting with the decline of the circuit riding preacher. Norwood writes:

The high point of the class meeting coincides with the heyday of the circuit rider. Its decline dates from his dismounting. As long as the traveling preacher was on the go around his circuit and from appointment to appointment, the place of the class meeting was secure. The class leader was needed to perform those pastoral functions which are part of a balanced ministry. But when the preacher settled down in a parsonage as a stationed pastor, the class leader… became, at least so it seemed, an unnecessary wheel. Inadvertently, because of the settling down of the traveling preacher, Methodism lost one of its strongest supports, the active ministerial participation of the lay people. (132)

This is not portrayed by Norwood as a positive development. Norwood concludes the chapter musing that “Ever since, Methodists have been trying to decide whether they would be a great church or a holy people.” When I first read this, I thought: Are the two mutually exclusive? I guess it depends on your definition of a “great church.”

The important point, it seems to me, is not that we should work to return to a truly itinerant ministry. Instead, it is that there is something vital missing when the active ministerial participation of the lay people (to use Norwood’s phrase) is missing. I see the class meeting as a key to renewing, strengthening, and empowering a lively lay ministry.