Tag Archives: Wesley

Now Available: Pursuing Social Holiness

22 Wednesday Jan 2014

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

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , ,


Over the past several years, many of you have asked me when my dissertation would be available in print. I am pleased to announce that a revision of my dissertation, Pursuing Social Holiness: The Band Meeting in Wesley’s Thought and Popular Methodist Practice, has been published by Oxford University Press. Here is a summary of the book from the cover:

Kevin M. Watson offers the first in-depth examination of an essential early Methodist tradition: the band meeting, a small group of five to seven people who focused on the confession of sin in order to grow in holiness. Watson shows how the band meeting, which figured significantly in John Wesley’s theology of discipleship, united Wesley’s emphasis on the importance of holiness with his conviction that Christians are most likely to make progress in the Christian life together, rather than in isolation.

Demonstrating that neither John Wesley’s theology nor popular Methodism can be understood independent of each other, Watson explores how Wesley synthesized important aspects of Anglican piety (an emphasis on a disciplined practice of the means of grace) and Moravian piety (an emphasis on an experience of justification by faith and the witness of the Spirit) in his own version of the band meeting. Pursuing Social Holiness is an essential contribution to understanding the critical role of the band meeting in the development of British Methodism and shifting concepts of community in eighteenth-century British society.

OUP’s listing has more information about the book, including the Table of Contents. I think that readers of this blog will be particularly interested in the book’s description of Wesley’s understanding of holiness and how his emphasis on the importance of community is connected to sanctification. I also think readers will appreciate the extensive use of primary source materials from early Methodists, giving insight into the popular practice of communal formation in early Methodism.

OUP did a great job with this book. I am very please with the layout and production quality. The main factor that may keep many people from buying the book is the price. The book is listed at $74 (though it is currently available on amazon for $62.90), which will unfortunately price it out of many pastor’s personal libraries. For those not familiar with the world of academic publishing, I would note two things: 1) Authors do not determine the prices of their books. 2) Believe it or not, it could have been much worse. Hardcover academic monographs like this one often cost $150! All that to say, I completely understand if you are not interested in spending that much money on a book.

Here is what some reviewers have said about the book:

“This is a brilliant study of one of the foundational institutions of eighteenth-century Methodism. Early Methodism was at its heart a community event. The bands, along with the class meetings, were what bound Methodist societies together. Anyone who wants to understand the rise of Methodism should give this account careful consideration. This is a book we have long needed.”
– John Wigger, Professor, Department of History, University of Missouri

“Watson’s work on the band meeting is the definitive history of this practice of small-group confession within eighteenth-century English evangelicalism. Watson not only demonstrates the importance of this practice for the revival and the Wesleyan notion of ‘social holiness’ in the eighteenth century, but also outlines the reasons for its decline in the nineteenth century. This is a must-have for scholars of Methodism and eighteenth-century religious history.”
– Scott Kisker, Professor of Church History, United Theological Seminary

“This groundbreaking study offers the most detailed account to date of band meetings in early Wesleyan Methodism. Watson first demonstrates the distinctive synthesis of Anglican and Moravian precedents in John Wesley’s mature model for the bands. He then engages a range of primary sources to provide a richly textured account of the practice of bands through the eighteenth century. Highly recommended.”
–Randy L. Maddox, William Kellon Quick Professor of Wesleyan Methodist Studies, Duke Divinity School

Now Available: The Class Meeting

17 Tuesday Dec 2013

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Life has been hectic the last month and a half! My thoughts recently turned to this blog and I realized that I had not announced here that The Class Meeting: Reclaiming a Forgotten (and Essential) Small Group Experience is now available. The book can be purchased in print directly from Seedbed at the previous link. (It is only available in print directly from Seedbed.) It can also be purchased electronically through a variety of e-formats, including Amazon Kindle. This link will take you directly to Amazon’s Kindle listing for the book.

Seedbed has created a page for the book that has much more information: http://classmeeting.seedbed.com/

Seedbed has also included a page that contains links to reviews written online: http://classmeeting.seedbed.com/reviews/

My previous post included several of the advanced reviews that the book received.

Finally, I wrote a post for Seedbed.com that was published on the day the book was released. I also did a video interview that they published. You can view the post here and the interview here.

I am encouraged and grateful for the enthusiasm I am seeing for reclaiming the Wesleyan class meeting. Thank you for your support!

Forgiveness and (not or) Holiness

26 Monday Aug 2013

Posted by in Christian Living, Methodist History, Wesley

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

There was a time in my life when I remember feeling a lot of pressure to choose between the importance of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ or the importance of loving and serving other people. Around one group of people, I felt like talking about the need to read the Bible regularly and pray was seen as a form of escapism or navel gazing. Around the other group of people, I felt like concrete actions of love and service to others was fine, as long as it didn’t take away from the clear priority of spending one on one time with God. To be sure, I am oversimplifying the motivations of both groups. I don’t know about you, but I have felt at times like I was put in the awkward position of being asked to choose between cultivating a personal relationship with God or getting outside of myself and doing things for other people.

One day it occurred to me that this was a false choice. My faith calls me to say yes to both. Once I stopped wrestling with which one to pick, I started seeing how frequently Scripture emphasizes both a personal relationship with God and concrete actions that express love towards others. When Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment is, for example, he replied: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” (Matthew 22:37-39)

Sometimes Christians are asked to choose between two things when they should affirm both of them.

As I have continued thinking about the relationship between sin and the Christian life, it seems to me that the conversation often puts radical forgiveness of past sins in contrast with deep transformation by an encounter with the living God.

Will you tell someone about how gracious and forgiving God is, or will you tell them about the possibility for living a new life that comes because of God’s grace?

The question is sometimes phrased in a way that implies that it is either/or, not both/and because there is a concern to avoid the perceived problems of one of them.

If you emphasize the depths of forgiveness that are available to us through Christ, the concern is that you may minimize the horror of sin. This is why I don’t like the cliché, “Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven.” This can quickly turn into cheap grace that presumes on God’s forgiveness as a way of excusing continued sin. I don’t really have to change, because God is forgiving. This view is effectively illustrated by the bumper sticker at the beginning of this post.

If you emphasize the reality that deep and lasting transformation (holiness) should come from an encounter with the living God, the concern is that you may heap judgment on someone who is still actively struggling with sin. A group of Christians that take holiness seriously may begin to veer away from their initial emphasis on the need for a transforming encounter with the Holy Spirit to a list of rules that define who is holy and who isn’t. This can quickly turn into legalism and pretending to be transformed, where Christians are most concerned to follow the rules and act the right way around each other. Ironically, and sadly, this also makes actual transformation by the grace of God that much more difficult.

And so, well-meaning Christians sign up to promote and defend either license or legalism, though of course neither group intends to do so at the outset. But that seems to be where each leads, particularly when separated from the other.

A few weeks ago, I wrote a post that argued that Christians should not discount the possibility of real growth in holiness in this life, by the amazing grace of God. As I have thought about the conversation that followed, I have found myself coming back to the idea that Christians seem to feel pressure to choose between either believing that God forgives us when we make mistakes, or that God transforms us by the power of the Holy Spirit and makes us like his Son.

But, thanks be to God, Christians do not have to choose between forgiveness and transformation. The gospel offers us both. Indeed, we are sinners who are desperately in need of forgiveness. And holiness is not about what we can do for ourselves by our determined effort. Holiness is about what God is able and willing to do in us.

Christians in the Wesleyan/Methodist tradition ought to particularly refuse to choose between forgiveness (justification) and holiness (sanctification), as Wesley himself was adamant that both were part of the Christian life. In her recent book, Discovering Christian Holiness: The Heart of Wesleyan-Holiness Theology, Diane Leclerc suggests that over the last generation Wesleyans have not been very good stewards of the message of holiness. She points to a crisis, which is not a crisis over how to communicate holiness, but a more devastating crisis of silence, “the lack of articulation of holiness” (15). As a result, Leclerc finds that “the pendulum seems to have swung from legalism to pessimism about victory over sin. Many of my students believe that sin is inevitable, pervasive, and enduring in a Christian’s life. Sadly, they seem to be unaware of a different way to live” (17).

Leclerc beautifully summarizes Wesley’s optimism of grace:

Sin need no longer reign in the heart. An outpouring of God’s love into the heart ‘excludes sin.’ We can live truly holy lives. As Wesley would say, to deny such optimism would make the power of sin greater than the power of grace – an option that should be unthinkable for Wesleyan-Holiness theology. (27)

In emphasizing the possibility of a Christian becoming holy such that love “excludes sin,” Wesley did not deny our need for forgiveness. In fact, he insisted that justification by faith was logically prior to the new birth and growth in holiness. Wesley was adamant that we are all in desperate need of God’s gracious forgiveness. But he also insisted that God wants to free us not only from guilt and condemnation, but also from the very things that have power over our lives that bring guilt and condemnation.

Holiness is not about our power or strength. It is about God. Which do we believe is more powerful, sin or God’s grace?

The remedy the Great Physician offers is not a partial treatment that requires us to continue limping through the rest of life. Rather, he makes our joyful obedience possible. He makes it possible for us to not only be servants of God, but to be sons and daughters of God.

So, are you for forgiveness or holiness? The best answer for Christians is: “Yes!” The gospel is not complete if it is not a word of forgiveness and a word of new possibility.

Kevin M. Watson is Assistant Professor of Historical Theology & Wesleyan Studies at Seattle Pacific University. You can keep up with this blog on twitter @kevinwatson or on facebook at Vital Piety.

Holy Conferencing: What Did Wesley Mean? (Part 2)

18 Thursday Jul 2013

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

≈ 15 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

“Holy conferencing” seems to be one of the buzz words for contemporary United Methodism. This post is the second post on this topic. (It could be seen as the second of three posts, as an earlier post pointed out that Wesley himself did not use the phrase “holy conferencing.”) The first post discussed the contemporary use of “holy conferencing.” This post discusses what Wesley meant by the phrase “Christian Conference,” which is the phrase from Wesley that is usually connected to contemporary uses of holy conferencing.

What did Wesley mean by the phrase “holy conferencing”?

Well, he did not actually use the phrase. Nevertheless, most contemporary appeals to “holy conferencing” ground the phrase in the authority of John Wesley by suggesting that the phrase is synonymous with Wesley’s use of the phrase “Christian Conference.” So, this post is actually a discussion of Wesley’s use of the phrase “Christian Conference.”

In order to understand Wesley’s use of Christian Conference, it is helpful to think about how he uses the phrase as a general concept and how it functions as a practice. When Wesley talks about Christian Conference as a concept, he is generally talking about how Christians ought to converse with one another. However, when he talks about Christian Conference as a practice, it is located within his understanding of “social holiness” or communal formation. My argument here, then, is that Christian Conference should be understood to be a concept that is located within a particular understanding of communal formation. If you divorce the concept from the way it is located in a particular set of practices, you no longer have the full Wesleyan understanding of Christian Conference.

In order to understand Wesley’s use of Christian Conference, then, we will need to discuss the way he used the phrase as a general concept and the way he located it within a particular set of practices.

How did Wesley understand Christian Conference as a general concept? To start, I only found one use of the phrase in Wesley’s corpus. The passage where Wesley discusses Christian Conference is the “Large Minutes,” where it is listed as one of five instituted means of grace (meaning that it has a privileged position because it was instituted by Christ in scripture). The first four instituted means of grace are: Prayer, Searching the Scriptures, the Lord’s Supper, and Fasting. Here is what Wesley says about Christian Conference:

5. Christian Conference.
Are we convinced how important and how difficult it is to order our conversation right? Is it always in grace? Seasoned with salt? Meet to minister grace to the hearers?
Do we not converse too long at a time? Is not an hour at a time commonly enough?
Would it not be well to plan our conversation beforehand? To pray before and after it? (Wesley, Works, 10: 856-857)

This passage is interesting because it consists entirely of questions. It does not clearly define what Christian Conference is. We can only discern what it is by inferring what the questions imply. For the most part, this is relatively easily done with these particular questions. For example, Wesley believes that Christian Conferencing should usually be limited to an hour and it should be started and concluded with prayer. And yet, Wesley also seems to assume that there is clarity about the meaning of this phrase, so he doesn’t define it. Instead of talking about what Christian Conference is, he focuses on a few ways the practice could be improved.

The best passage that I am aware of where Wesley expands on this concept is in his sermon “The First-fruits of the Spirit.” (Thanks to Dr. Andrew C. Thompson for pointing me to this.)

5. They who ‘walk after the Spirit’ are also led by him into all holiness of conversation. Their speech is ‘always in grace, seasoned with salt’, with the love and fear of God. ‘No corrupt communication comes out of their mouth, but (only) that which is good; that which is ‘to the use of edifying’, which is ‘meet to minister grace to the hearers’. And herein likewise do they exercise themselves day and night to do only the things which please God; in all their outward behaviour to follow him who ‘left us an example that we might tread in his steps’; in all their intercourse with their neighbor to walk in justice, mercy, and truth; and ‘whatsoever they do’, in every circumstance of life, to ‘do all to the glory of God.’

6. These are they who indeed ‘walk after the Spirit’. Being filled with faith and with the Holy Ghost, they possess in their hearts, and show forth in their lives, in the whole course of their words and actions, the genuine fruits of the Spirit of God, namely, ‘love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, fidelity, meekness, temperance’, and whatsoever else is lovely or praiseworthy. They ‘adorn in all things the gospel of God our Saviour’; and give full proof to all mankind that they are indeed actuated by the same Spirit ‘which raised up Jesus from the dead’. (Wesley, Works, 1:236-237)

Note that Wesley uses many of the same phrases here that he uses in the questions in the “Large Minutes.” It is also significant that Wesley ties “holiness of conversation” so closely to the rest of a holy life. He wrote, “herein likewise do they exercise themselves day and night to do only the things which please God; in all their outward behaviour to follow him [Jesus].”

It is also significant that the discussion of holy conversation occurs within a sermon about “walking after the Spirit.” Holy conversation, then, is a part of a greater whole, where people are “filled with faith and with the Holy Ghost” and “possess… the genuine fruits of the Spirit of God.” Moreover, “holy conversation” is the result of being led by the Holy Spirit. It isn’t something that we bring with us to difficult conversations, it is something God does for us and in us.

So, how was this concept situated within the particular practices of early Methodism?

This is where, in my view, there is a clear divergence from the way that “holy conferencing” is most often used or understood in contemporary United Methodism, where it largely remains an abstract concept that generally applies to talking to other people, particularly about difficult topics.

For Wesley, Christian Conference was grounded in his emphasis on the importance of Christian communal formation, or social holiness. Several of the questions where Wesley discusses Christian Conference as an instituted means of grace suggest that Wesley was thinking of something like the class and band meetings. Wesley believed that the class meeting served to “minister grace to the hearers” through talking about the state of each person’s soul. He also pointed to the need to limit the duration of the meetings. And the “Rules of the Band Societies” include instructions to begin and end the meetings with prayer.

Consider, for example, the following passage where Wesley discussed the benefits 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 burdens,” 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 which 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.” (Wesley, “A Plain Account of the People Called Methodists” Works 9: 262)

Scholars have argued that for Wesley Christian Conference and Christian fellowship are nearly synonymous. (Thanks, again, to Andrew Thompson for pointing me to this.) So, when Wesley talked about Christian Conference as an instituted means of grace, he most likely had in mind a way of conversing that occurred within a particular context, where something like “bearing one another’s burdens” or “speaking the truth in love” was happening for the sake of growing in holiness. The place where this kind of conversation was expected to happen in early Methodism would have been obvious: the class meeting and the band meeting.

My sense, then, is that the early Methodist classes and bands would have been in the back of Wesley’s mind when he talked about Christian Conference, and not merely generic polite conversation. This becomes even more plausible when it is noted that immediately following Wesley’s list of the instituted means of grace, Wesley lists the “prudential” means of grace (because they are prudent, even though not explicitly instituted by Christ). Under the prudential means of grace “As Methodists” Wesley asks: Do you never miss any meeting of the society? Neither your class or band?” (Wesley, Works 10: 857)

As I began working on this, I emailed Dr. Randy L. Maddox and asked him for his thoughts on Christian Conference. In his response he said, “When Wesley refers to Christian Conference as an instituted means of grace, I think the class meeting is the best example of what he has in mind. This is particularly the case if we assume his primary focus in ‘means of grace’ is sanctification” (quoted with permission).

But why is the class meeting listed explicitly as a prudential means of grace for Methodists, and not also as an instituted means of grace for all Christians?

Wesley clearly acknowledged that the class meeting was not prescribed by Jesus. However, he did believe that something like the class meeting was. So, Wesley did believe that the general idea of small groups focused on our lives as followers of Christ was a general principle for all Christians. The class meeting was simply the particular way that Methodists were living out this principle.

So, what did Wesley mean by Christian Conference?

Christian Conference was honest, direct, piercing conversation with other Christians that was intended to help the participants grow in holiness. These conversations were most obviously situated within the weekly class meetings and band meetings. This relates to the first post on the contemporary use of holy conferencing, then, because Christian Conferencing was not generally understood to be having a one-time polite conversation about a controversial subject. Rather, it was focused on the details of individual people’s lives, where they were experiencing God and growing in faith and holiness, and where they were not experiencing God or failing to grow in faith and holiness.

The goal of Christian Conference, then, is to “walk after the Spirit,” and to be “filled with faith and with the Holy Ghost.” The means to this end, then, was through weekly meetings for prayer and “watching over one another in love.”

Now that is a practice worth reclaiming!

Kevin M. Watson is Assistant Professor of Historical Theology & Wesleyan Studies at Seattle Pacific University. You can keep up with this blog on twitter @kevinwatson or on facebook at Vital Piety.

Holy Conferencing: What Is It? (Part 1)

10 Wednesday Jul 2013

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

≈ 17 Comments

Tags

, , ,

What is “holy conferencing”?

This phrase seems to be one of the buzz words for contemporary United Methodism. This post is the first of two posts on this topic. (It could be seen as the second of three posts, as yesterday’s post pointed out that Wesley himself did not use the phrase “holy conferencing.”) This post discusses the contemporary use of “holy conferencing.” The second post will discuss what Wesley meant by the phrase “Christian conference,” which is the phrase from Wesley that is usually connected to contemporary uses of holy conferencing.

At the 2012 General Conference of The United Methodist Church in Tampa, FL “holy conferencing” was the explicit rationale for three scheduled times when delegates would break into thirteen groups for “holy conversation.”

Following General Conference, in the September/October 2012 issue of Interpreter the feature article was “Holy Conferencing: Bringing Grace to Tough Conversations.” I have to admit I was predisposed to be critical of the article by the subtitle, which to me suggested that we are the ones who bring grace to tough conversations because of our mastery of the skill of holy conferencing. I’m not exactly sure what the subtitle intended to convey, but it would be too easy of a target for outsiders who already suspect that Methodists are peddling works righteousness.

Nevertheless, I take this article as a good example of what many United Methodists mean today when they invoke the value of “holy conferencing.”

The article does not itself provide a clear definition of holy conferencing, but instead defines it by quoting a variety of church leaders. The main place where the article does interact with the concept is in this passage:

“Holy or Christian conferencing is a practice John Wesley included, along with prayer, Scripture reading, fasting and the Lord’s Supper, as a way of experiencing God’s grace. The roots are biblical. Leaders assert that every Christian should practice it, within and beyond the walls of the church.”

This is a helpful quote because it makes both moves that are typical in discussions of holy conferencing. 1) Its roots are in John Wesley. 2) It is important because Wesley included it as an “instituted” means of grace. So, similar to many of the other buzzwords in contemporary United Methodism, the grounding for the practice is – at least loosely – the authority of John Wesley.

But the above quote doesn’t tell us much about what holy conferencing is. From the above we know it is something that Wesley included with other basic Christian practices as a way of experiencing God’s grace (which, again, is in tension with the subtitle of the article). And that we should practice it in and out of church because the roots are biblical. This sounds important! So, again, what is it?

Here are a few quotes from the article where various United Methodist leaders use holy conferencing as a concept:

“Holy conferencing became really important as we gathered at the table to listen to all the reasons of why we should or shouldn’t move forward… When there would be a conflict or some tension or a variety of opinions, we would commit to listen to each other and approach each other with grace as much as possible. We always remembered that we have a place to stand together even if we don’t end up in the same place at the end of the conversation.” – Rev. Trudy Robinson, First UMC Littleton, CO

“Holy conferencing developed out of recognizing who people were, with a theological commitment that each person is a child of God and deserves to be treated as one.” – Rev. Stephen Cady, Kingston UMC, NJ

“In our culture today, there’s so much divisiveness that it’s really important to call ourselves to that means of grace… People, particularly in the United States, understand how uncivil conversation and discussion have become. People desire something different. In general society, there’s a fair amount of conversation about civil discourse. As Christians, (we have) a number of (Scripture) passages and admonitions in terms of how we treat one another.” – Bishop Sally Dyck, Chicago Area of The UMC

“It’s not just an exchange of opinions… but a real attempt to move toward a common understanding of God’s will and intention towards Christians. It’s a holy thing to be undertaken with seriousness and integrity. It’s an opportunity to build on the trust that is already there and to allow people to seek together for the truth.” – Rev. Tom Lambrecht, vice-president, Good News

With the exception of the quote from Lambrecht, it seems like holy conferencing means being nice to each other when we disagree.

One gets a similar sense from the “Principles of Holy Conferencing” that are published as a sidebar in the same article. (Note: This is a condensed version of a longer paper Bishop Dyck wrote. The full paper can be accessed here.) Here are the eight principles:

1. Every person is a child of God
2. Listen before speaking
3. Strive to understand from another’s point of view
4. Strive to reflect accurately the views of others
5. Disagree without being disagreeable
6. Speak about issues; do not defame people
7. Pray, in silence or aloud, before decisions
8. Let prayer interrupt your busy-ness

This is a helpful list. And these principles are important to keep in mind when having difficult conversations. I have seen too many examples in person and (more often) online where these principles have not been practiced by contemporary Methodists. So, I think this is a well thought out and helpful guide to having difficult conversations. However, at the end of the day, it still looks like the focus is on being nice.

My sense from thinking about the use of “holy conferencing” in contemporary discourse over the past six months or so is that it is being appealed to so heavily because, during a time when there are areas of profound disagreement among Methodists, it is a way to find something we can agree on. We should be able to agree to be nice when we disagree with each other, to “disagree without being disagreeable.”

There are at least two problems with this approach. First, the areas of disagreement often go so deep that someone finds the clear statement of a particular position to itself be disagreeable. In other words, the use of “holy conferencing” presumes an ability to not take the beliefs and convictions of another as a personal attack. I am not sure we are currently in a place where people are always able to make a distinction between honest disagreement and intentionally being disagreeable, or intentionally hurtful.

The second problem with this approach is that it deemphasizes the importance of the beliefs themselves. At best, it does not provide a way to resolve any disagreement. The only solution offered is polite conversation. At worst, it implies that there are no right answers.

The use of holy conferencing seems naïve because the solution it appears to offer is that if enough people could just sit down long enough, be nice enough, and hear each other, agreement would come from clear and kind articulation of each perspective. I think this underestimates the depth of genuine disagreement that often exists. There also may be a subtle form of arrogance that believes that I can convince you that I am right if we can just talk about this long enough because you have never actually thought about this in a careful rational way (or, that my beliefs are in themselves rational and logical in some way that yours are not).

I do not think that is what people who are advocating for holy conferencing intend to be the outcome of this practice. I think they are rightly broken-hearted by the extent of disunity, even anger and bitterness, in contemporary Methodism. And so, leaders are rightly trying to come up with anything that will move Methodism in a better direction. From that perspective, I think polite conversation is a step in the right direction.

My concern is that what was likely initially intended as a step is coming to be seen as a solution. The process of coming to theological convictions seems to be valued above the convictions themselves.

William J. Abraham has argued that the quadrilateral was conceived as a way to create a big tent vision for Methodism when it could not agree on basic Christian doctrine. (See especially his Waking from Doctrinal Amnesia). So, instead of focusing on doctrine, Outler created a way of thinking about doctrine. The idea was that we may not agree on the outcomes, but we can agree on the method we use to come to our different conclusions.

Is “holy conferencing” another Act in this same play? Some of the quotes from the Interpreter article, in fact, emphasized that “standing together” was more important than “ending up in the same place at the end of the conversation.” Think about the imagery in that quote. The image itself shows how insufficient a vision this is. The goal is to stand together, even though we are not in the same place?!

Recall that the common rationale given for the importance of holy conferencing is that it was endorsed by John Wesley in the “Large Minutes” as one of five instituted means of grace (meaning that they were explicitly given to us by Christ). The other four instituted means of grace are: prayer, searching the Scriptures, the Lord’s Supper, and fasting. These are rich, robust practices that have been a part of the Christian life from the early church. Could Wesley have really meant by “Christian conference” that Christ instituted the practice of “standing together, even though we are not in the same place” as just as reliable of a way of encountering God’s presence as prayer, searching the Scriptures, the Lord’s Supper, and fasting? Surely not!

The next post will answer the question: What did Wesley mean by the phrase “Christian conference”? It will also consider the role of “Christian conference” for contemporary Christianity, suggesting that it is much more than being nice when we disagree.

In the meantime, what do you think about the way that “holy conferencing” is used in contemporary Methodism?

Kevin M. Watson is Assistant Professor of Historical Theology & Wesleyan Studies at Seattle Pacific University. You can keep up with this blog on twitter @kevinwatson or on facebook at Vital Piety.

Wesley Didn’t Say It: “Personal and Social Holiness”

20 Monday May 2013

Posted by in Methodist History, Wesley

≈ 25 Comments

Tags

, , ,

“Personal and social holiness.”

Wesley did not say this.

Andrew Thompson, who is Assistant Professor of Historical Theology and Wesleyan Studies at Memphis Theological Seminary, reminded me of this phrase that is often attributed to Wesley in a comment on my previous blog in this series. (Andrew also blogs here.)

Here is part of Thompson’s comment:

The one that gets me is the attribution of the phrase “personal and social holiness” to Wesley. There is no evidence I have ever seen that Wesley used this phrase. And in an article I did a couple of years ago, I looked as hard for it in Wesley as anyone ever has. Yet the phrase gets repeated ad nauseam, as if it is a given that Wesley used it. I would argue that it is neither historical to Wesley nor is it “Wesleyan,” in the sense that it bifurcates holiness in a way that Wesley was at pains to avoid (hence the use of the phrase, “no holiness but social holiness,” which is accurately Wesleyan).

At the end of his comment, Thompson cites the quote where Wesley does use the phrase “social holiness.” However, when social holiness is used by contemporary Methodists, it is almost always used in a way that is synonymous with social justice. And yet, in the only passage I know of where Wesley used the phrase “social holiness” he was talking not about justice, but about the importance of other people for growing in holiness. The passage “social holiness” occurs in is the preface to Wesley’s 1739 edition of Hymns and Sacred Poems. Here is the passage in its broader context:

Directly opposite to this is the gospel of Christ. Solitary religion is not to be found there. ‘Holy solitaries’ is a phrase no more consistent with the gospel than holy adulterers. The gospel of Christ knows of no religion but social; no holiness but social holiness.

In this context, then, Wesley is explicitly rejecting “holy solitaries”, or the attempt to become holy in isolation from other Christians. And he is insisting on the importance of community for becoming Christ-like.

I have previously written about this quote and its broader context on this blog here. Andrew Thompson has written about “social holiness” on his blog here and here. He has also published an excellent academic essay on Methodist Review. The essay can be accessed through his personal website here.

You can add “personal and social holiness” to the other quotes that are stubbornly connected to John Wesley, despite the fact that there is no source that connects them to Wesley’s pen. Others I have previously written about are:

“Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as ever you can.” [Original post here.]

“I set myself on fire and people come to watch me burn.” [Original post here.]

“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and, in all things, charity.” [Original post 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.

Experience in the so-called “Wesleyan Quadrilateral”

13 Monday May 2013

Posted by in Christian Living, Methodist History, Wesley

≈ 40 Comments

Tags

, , ,

For many Methodists, the most cherished piece of their heritage is the so-called “Wesleyan quadrilateral.” Yet, as has often been noted, the quadrilateral was largely Albert C. Outler’s invention in the mid-twentieth century. Towards the end of his life Outler wrote:

“The term ‘quadrilateral’ does not occur in the Wesley corpus – and more than once, I have regretted having coined it for contemporary use, since it has been so widely misconstrued” (36)

Nearly thirty years later, I wonder how Outler would feel today about his creation. It certainly continues to be widely misconstrued. The quadrilateral is not doctrine, it is a proposed method for theological reflection. But it is almost never used the way that it was intended. A tool that does not actually do what it is supposed to do is of limited usefulness. A bicycle pump that lets more air out of a tire than it puts in should be set aside. A screen cleaner that scratches the screen should be thrown away, not repeatedly reused.

So why is there such persistent loyalty to a tool for theological reflection that almost never works the way that it is supposed to?

For the sake of space, I will limit my comments here to the part of the quadrilateral that is most “widely misconstrued” – experience.

In his essay, “The Wesleyan Quadrilateral – in John Wesley” Outler described the rationale for Wesley’s theological method:

When challenged for his authority, on any question, his first appeal was to the Holy Bible… Even so, he was well aware that Scripture alone had rarely settled any controverted point of doctrine… Thus, though never as a substitute or corrective, he would also appeal to ‘the primitive church’ and to the Christian tradition at large as competent, complementary witnesses to ‘the meaning’ of this Scripture or that…

But Scripture and tradition would not suffice without the good offices (positive and negative) of critical reason. Thus, he insisted on logical coherence and as an authorized referee in any contest between contrary positions or arguments. And yet, this was never enough. It was, as he knew for himself, the vital Christian experience of the assurance of one’s sins forgiven that clinched the matter. (24)

Did you notice how specific Outler’s understanding of the role of experience is for John Wesley? It is not just any experience that a person has. It is not experience with a person and whether you find them to be a good or decent person. In fact, Outler almost always modifies the word experience with “Christian.” And it is not just any “Christian experience,” it is the particular Christian experience “of the assurance of one’s sins forgiven.”

In case the limited role of experience is missed, he adds that “Christian experience adds nothing to the substance of Christian truth; its distinctive role is to energize the heart so as to enable the believer to speak and do the truth in love” (25)

Outler goes on to argue that it was Wesley’s “special genius” to add experience to the Anglican “triad” of Scripture, tradition, and reason. Wesley did this, on Outler’s account, in order to “incorporate the notion of conversion into the Anglican tradition” (27).

Outler’s understanding of the role of experience in Wesley’s theology, then, is quite particular. It is not any experience that a person has, it is the distinctively Christian experience of assurance of the forgiveness of one’s sins. It is the experience of the witness of the Spirit. Wesley was quite fond of citing Romans 8:16 to illustrate this: “it is that very Spirit bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God.”

When the quadrilateral is deployed as a means of theological reflection; however, experience is almost always defined far more broadly than this. In popular use of the quadrilateral, experience is usually understood as a kind of common sense. Experience is an authority for theological reflection (so the argument goes) because, if we are willing to pay attention, we can see the obvious things that are going on around us. Experience is also usually used to describe one’s encounters with the world around them, which often results in confirming the prevalent perspective of the current popular culture. Rarely, in popular discussions of the quadrilateral, is experience defined in the specific and more technical way that Wesley and Outler did.

We have come a long way from Outler’s qualification that “Christian experience adds nothing to the substance of Christian truth; its distinctive role is to energize the heart so as to enable the believer to speak and do the truth in love” (25)

And yet, it seems to me that one of the reasons that many contemporary Methodists are so loyal to the quadrilateral is precisely because the appeal to experience provides an authority for adding new things to Christian truth.

If Methodists are going to continuing citing the quadrilateral as their distinctive theological method, then we have a choice to make. We can return to an understanding of experience as it was defined by Outler in his creation of the quadrilateral. Or, we can knowingly reject the way that he defined experience as a legitimate source for Christian theology and use it in a way that he explicitly rejected. If we choose the latter, we ought to at least be honest that we are now using a method of theological reflection that neither John Wesley nor Albert Outler would have endorsed.

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 Gospel in a Wesleyan Accent #andcanitbe

13 Wednesday Mar 2013

Posted by in Christian Living, Ministry, Wesley

≈ 14 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

How do you preach the gospel in a Wesleyan accent? This has been on my mind quite a bit over the last month. My last two blog posts were about this to some degree. In the first post, I discussed my sense of the current state of United Methodism, arguing that what we are in favor of is not good enough. One of the key arguments of that post was that United Methodism’s common discourse is thin and impoverished doctrinally. Another way of putting it is that there seems to me to be deep disagreement about what we are for. It is more clear that we are confident that we can change the world than that we believe that we are desperately dependent on the Triune God to do anything that matters.

A few days later I wrote another post noting that the Wesleyan message is almost entirely invisible in print and social media in comparison to other expressions of Christianity. The conversation from the initial question I raised has taken on a life of its own, particularly with the use of the hashtag #andcanitbe on twitter. (To be clear, I did not come up with the idea for the hashtag and I do not have any control over what is happening with this conversation, which I’m sure is obvious to anyone who uses twitter – nobody controls what happens there! Please do feel free to follow me [@kevinwatson] and contribute to the conversation.)

Those two posts were more related for me than I initially realized. I am starting to wonder if one of the most significant factors in the decline of the United Methodist Church is an inability to agree on and articulate a clear and compelling theology. Some see this as an asset of contemporary Methodism – there is plenty of room to agree to disagree. But I wonder what the fruit is of this “big tent” vision of Methodism. Relating this to my second post, I suspect that the Wesleyan message is invisible because those who claim to be Wesleyan do not themselves agree on what the Wesleyan message is?

As the #andcanitbe conversation has gained some momentum, I have been asking myself what my hopes are for this conversation. Here are my current hopes:

First, I want to see God show up in amazing ways. I want to see broken and hurting peoples’ lives changed by the amazing grace of God. This is really central to everything else for me. I want to be a part of something where I can say, “God did that” and where everyone knows that is absolutely the case. Not that we did something cool for God, but that the almighty One dwelt among us in tangible ways.

Second, for #andcanitbe more specifically, I hope that the conversation will result in an articulation of the gospel in a particularly Wesleyan accent with clarity and conviction to a broader audience. I really appreciated the phrase Matt Judkins (@matt_judkins) used early on. He spoke of the need to identify “core unifying commitments” of the Wesleyan tradition. I would love to see a result of this conversation be a network of spirit-filled women and men who have clarity about the key unifying beliefs and practices for contemporary Christianity. I would begin by naming the following as core beliefs: sin and the need for repentance and forgiveness; justification by faith; the new birth and assurance; and sanctification by faith, even unto entire sanctification. Another way this has been put is:

All need to be saved.
All may be saved.
All may know themselves to be saved.
All may be saved to the uttermost.

And it will not surprise those of you who are familiar with my work that I think a crucial core practice of any expression of the gospel in a Wesleyan accent would be Christian conferencing (by which Wesley meant small group accountability structures, like the class meeting and band meeting and not “polite conversation,” which is how some UM leaders are increasingly redefining it). There are, of course, other practices that are crucial as well.

Arguing that core unifying commitments are crucial may be a difficult sell in a tradition that not too long ago was best known for slogans like “you can be anything and be United Methodist” or which defined its distinctiveness not by any particular theological commitments, but by a method of reflecting theologically (the Outlerian Quadrilateral). Thankfully, fewer people today seem to want to be known as the church that has no beliefs. Yet, the UMC has recently presented itself to the world with slogans like “open hearts, open minds, open doors” and by suggesting the need to “rethink church.”

For my part, I am increasingly convinced that an inability to clearly and passionately articulate a common message is a liability, not something to be celebrated. I would even go so far as to say that a clear message that people are burdened to share with as many people as possible is of more urgency than openness.

Third, I would like the conversation to be clearly focused on the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and not on ourselves. Being in the Pacific Northwest and at Seattle Pacific University where I am around non-UMs at least as often as I am around UMs has made me more aware of the ways that United Methodists (myself included) often talk and act as if we are the center of the ecclesial universe. I have particularly found myself questioning whether the things that people sometimes assert as unique about Methodism would not also be claimed by most of the Church. All that to say, I am less interested in being a part of something that focuses on defining how Wesleyans are different from others, than I am in working to more effectively proclaim the gospel with a Wesleyan accent.

Finally, while I think unity matters, I am not arguing for homogeneity. My sense is that if the Holy Spirit brings renewal to United Methodism, or the broader Wesleyan tradition, the Spirit will bring together a variety of voices from miraculously different backgrounds, who feel a common leading to articulate a message that is theologically in harmony and not a cacophony. In other words, I expect that if God does show up in miraculous ways, one fruit will be that people who have not been working together will start working together. People would become deep partners in ministry with people they have never met before and would not have met if God had not sovereignly brought them together. A sign of revival would be the Holy Spirit bringing people together from different cultures, races, ethnicities, and genders. I am thinking of Pentecost. I am thinking of early American Methodism. I am thinking of Azusa Street. And I am thinking of Revelation 7:9-17:

After this I looked, and there was a great crowd that no one could number. They were from every nation, tribe, people, and language. They were standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They wore white robes and held palm branches in their hands. They cried out with a loud voice: ‘Victory belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb.’ All the angels stood in a circle around the throne, and around the elders and the four living creatures. They fell facedown before the throne and worshipped God, saying, ‘Amen! Blessing and glory and wisdom and thanksgiving and honor and power and might be to our God forever and always. Amen.’ Then one of the elders said to me, ‘Who are these people wearing white robes, and where did they come from?’ I said to him, ‘Sir, you know.’ Then he said to me, ‘These people have come out of great hardship. They have washed their robes and made them white in the Lamb’s blood. This is the reason they are before God’s throne. They worship him day and night in his temple, and the one seated on the throne will shelter them. They won’t hunger or thirst anymore. No sun or scorching heat will beat down on them, because the Lamb who is in the midst of the throne will shepherd them. He will lead them to the springs of life-giving water, and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.’

Now that, I want to be a part of! Come Lord Jesus.

The General Rules and a Holy Lent

09 Wednesday Mar 2011

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

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , ,


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

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

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

Published in Methodist Review

06 Thursday Jan 2011

Posted by in Article Review, Life, Methodist History, Wesley

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , ,

For those of you who may be interested in my research on the early Methodist band meeting, I have recently had an article published in Methodist Review an online, peer-reviewed academic journal. The title of my article is “Forerunners of the Early Methodist Band Meeting” and (as the title suggests) it explores the key antecedents that influenced the development of the Wesleyan Methodist bands.

If you want to read the article, you simply have to register with Methodist Review (which is free) and then download the PDF file. Once you register you have access to both vols. 1 and 2 of the journal and can download any or all of the articles that have been published.