I am a small “c” conservative. I want to understand why something is the way that it is before I tear down, rearrange, or remove it entirely. In my work as an historian, I often find it helpful to simply reread key documents to understand why things were the way that they are and, therefore, are the way that they are.

One document I have read many times since I left the United Methodist Church and have been praying, talking with others, and seeking to discern the way forward post-disaffiliation from the UMC is the letter John Wesley wrote to “Our Brethren in America” after he took the bold step of ordaining two lay people deacons and then elders in order to launch the Methodist Episcopal Church.

As is typically the case with historical documents at key inflection points in history, there is much in this letter that is of interest. But there is one detail that I’m not sure I really understood or appreciated until it became clear to me that I would not be able to stay in the UMC. I am convinced Wesley is correct about this detail and it has been a key piece of my own discernment about what I think the Lord is doing in my life and at my church.

First, a bit of background to help you understand this letter. Wesley wrote the letter to “Our Brethren in America” after he and James Creighton ordained Richard Whatcoat and Thomas Vasey as deacons on September 1, 1784, and then elders on September 2. Wesley and Creighton also laid hands on Thomas Coke, who was an ordained elder in the Church of England, and set him apart as a superintendent.

These actions were crucial steps toward establishing denominational Methodism, leading to the formation of the Methodist Episcopal Church, which was the first Methodist denomination in the United States.

The steps Wesley took were also controversial and radical. John Wesley was an elder in the Church of England. Elders do not ordain in the Church of England, bishops ordain. John Wesley was not a bishop. And so, Wesley’s decision to take authority to ordain upon himself required explanation. And that is what Wesley did in his September 10, 1784 letter to “Our Brethren in America.”

Here it is in its entirety:

By a very uncommon train of providences many of the Provinces of North America are totally disjoined from their Mother Country and erected into independent States. The English Government has no authority over them, either civil or ecclesiastical, any more than over the States of Holland. A civil authority is exercised over them, partly by the Congress, partly by the Provincial Assemblies. But no one either exercises or claims any ecclesiastical authority at all. In this peculiar situation some thousands of the inhabitants of these States desire my advice; and in compliance with their desire I have drawn up a little sketch.

Lord King’s Account of the Primitive Church convinced me many years ago that bishops and presbyters are the same order, and consequently have the same right to ordain. For many years I have been importuned from time to time to exercise this right by ordaining part of our traveling preachers. But I have still refused, not only for peace’ sake, but because I was determined as little as possible to violate the established order of the National Church to which I belonged.

But the case is widely different between England and North America. Here there are bishops who have a legal jurisdiction: in America there are none, neither any parish ministers. So that for some hundred miles together there is none either to baptize or to administer the Lord’s supper. Here, therefore, my scruples are at an end; and I conceive myself at full liberty, as I violate no order and invade no man’s right by appointing and sending laborers into the harvest.

I have accordingly appointed Dr. Coke and Mr. Francis Asbury to be Joint Superintendents over our brethren in North America; as also Richard Whatcoat and Thomas Vasey to act as elders among them, by baptizing and administering the Lord’s Supper. And I have prepared a Liturgy little differing from that of the Church of England (I think, the best constituted National Church in the world), which I advise all the traveling preachers to use on the Lord’s Day in all the congregations, reading the Litany only on Wednesdays and Fridays and praying extempore on all other days. I also advise the elders to administer the Supper of the Lord on every Lord’s Day.

If any one will point out a more rational and scriptural way of feeding and guiding these poor sheep in the wilderness, I will gladly embrace it. At present I cannot see any better method than that I have taken.

It has, indeed, been proposed to desire the English bishops to ordain part of our preachers for America. But to this I object; (1) I desired the Bishop of London to ordain only one, but could not prevail. (2) If they consented, we know the slowness of their proceedings; but the matter admits of no delay. (3) If they would ordain them now, they would likewise expect to govern them. And how grievously would this entangle us! (4) As our American brethren are now totally disentangled both from the State and from the English hierarchy, we dare not entangle them again either with the one or the other. They are now at full liberty simply to follow the Scriptures and the Primitive Church. And we judge it best that they should stand fast in that liberty wherewith God has so strangely made them free.

There is so much in this letter that is interesting and even instructive for the church today. I think the second to last paragraph might be my personal favorite. I love Wesley’s humility, honesty, and willingness to lead in the midst of wrestling. He basically says, “If you can show me a better way, I would love to be convinced. I’ve thought about this for years and this is the best I can come up with. It was time to act, so I did the best I could with everything in front of me.”

I appreciate this because our assumption ought to be that this is what everyone has been doing on the other side of disaffiliation. We may not get everything right, but we must do the best we can.

As much as I like the details in that paragraph, however, it is not the detail I was referring to at the beginning of this post.

Did you notice John Wesley’s own understanding of ordination and how different it is from that of contemporary mainline Methodism?

The key detail is in one short phrase: “Bishops and presbyters are the same order, and consequently have the same right to ordain.”

John Wesley was not a bishop. American Methodism did not start with bishops as a separate office or order from elders. The elders were the overseers. This is why bishops are not ordained in the UMC, for example. They are set apart among the elders to superintend the work beyond the local church. (This is one reason that there has been debate about whether bishops in the UMC ought to be a lifelong office, or only an office one has while one is actively exercising the functions of the office.)

Here is the key detail that I believe gives warrant to elder-led ordination in Wesleyan polity and ought to at least give humility to those who follow in John Wesley’s footsteps who embrace an episcopal polity:

American Methodism did not begin with bishops as a required office for ordination. It began with an elder (John Wesley) deciding to take authority himself to ordain based on his reading of a history of the early church and the New Testament witness.

For me personally, this has made me relax about concerns about apostolic succession as a continuous line of succession of ordination that is rightly ordered that goes all the way back to the apostles. American Methodists of any stripe don’t have a claim to that because our first ordinations did not come from a bishop, but from an elder taking the authority to ordain without the blessing of his own church.

I am not saying Methodism is missing one of the marks of the church. We are apostolic in that we are carrying, stewarding, and defending the teaching of the apostles to hand it down to the next generation.

Let me also say I was ordained by a bishop. I am thankful to have been ordained by Bishop Robert E. Hayes, Jr. I do not think it is wrong for Methodists to have bishops. I also do not think it is wrong for Methodists to not have bishops. Why? 

Because the beginning of Methodism as a denomination is literally built on the conviction that bishops and elders are the same order.

I believe Wesley was correct. In the New Testament, elders and overseers are the same category. In Acts 20:17-35, Paul is speaking to one audience. In Acts 20:17 Paul “called the elders (presbyteros) of the church to him.” It is to these same people (the elders), Paul says in verse 28, “Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers (episkopos), to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.”

For what it is worth, when you look at the history of the Wesleyan tradition in the United States across the range of Wesleyan denominations, the office of bishop is one of the significant places of disagreement among these denominations. Again, this doesn’t mean it is wrong to have bishops. It does mean that there have been spectacular abuses of power from some American Methodist bishops. There have also been many examples of some bishop’s asserting their personal convictions over and against the clear polity of their own church.

All of this matters to me, because Asbury Church, where I serve, will hold a service of consecration and ordination this Pentecost. We will not have bishops at this service. The ordinations will be elder led. And I am going to participate. Over the past several years, I have spent a significant amount of time and energy reading, thinking, and praying about the best path forward. I have listened and tried to understand the various approaches other churches that left the UMC have taken. Like Wesley, the best I can say is, “I cannot see any better method than that I have taken.”

I am not taking this step begrudgingly or hesitatingly, though I have spent a season of watching and waiting. I am taking this step with joyful expectation for what the Lord has in store for us. If we are wrong, the Lord will make it clear to us. But with the best light I have right now, I am as confident as I can be that this is what the Lord is leading us to do.

As Asbury Church, we believe that if you are still breathing, God has more for you. This phrase comes from our Senior Pastor, Rev. Andrew Forrest. It is a beautiful contemporary expression of the Wesleyan belief in the possibility of radical holiness in this life. From womb to tomb, God always has more!

I can’t wait to see the details of that “more” coming into focus over the coming weeks and years.

---

Kevin M. Watson is a Pastor and the Senior Director of Christian Formation at Asbury Church in Tulsa, OK. He is also on the faculty at Asbury Theological Seminary, anchoring the Seminary’s Tulsa, OK Extension Site. His most recent book, Doctrine, Spirit, and Discipline describes the purpose of the Wesleyan tradition and the struggle to maintain its identity in the United States. Affiliate links, which help support my work, used in this post.