Methodist Distinctives
What I mean is this:
One of you says, "I follow Paul";
another, "I follow Apollos";
another, "I follow Cephas;
still another, "I follow Christ."
Is Christ divided?
Was Paul crucified for you?
Were you baptized into the name of Paul?
-- 1 Corinthians 1:12-13
My hope is built on nothing less
Than Wesley's thoughts on righteousness
-- With apologies to Edward Mote
As the United Methodist Church tries to find its way forward in the 21st century, what should be distinctive about the church and the movement John Wesley began in the 18th century? The answer to that question depends on whether you are looking at Methodism as a movement or at the United Methodist Church as a church.
Our constitution begins by saying that we are part of Christ's universal church. I would put it this way: the United Methodist Church is a particular institutional expression of the one holy, catholic an apostolic church of Jesus Christ.
A sociologist looking at us would certainly discover some things distinctively characteristic of United Methodist churches and institutions, but "what is" is not necessarily "what should be."
The Book of Discipline gives us our distinctive structure and outlines our particular understanding of the faith, both of which have historical roots in Methodism as a movement. Do we maintain these out of allegiance to Wesley and our history? Or do they represent our best understanding of how to live as a church built on "the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints"?
Mr. Wesley's sermons and notes are "standards of doctrine," but it's not as if we should look upon them as scripture upon which to perform exegesis. Neither are they concise doctrinal summaries like those we find in the Articles of Religion or the Confession of Faith. Our constitution requires us to listen to Mr. Wesley, as we should. As the Church of Jesus Christ, however, we should also be listening to the early church fathers, to Augustine and Aquinas, to Luther and Calvin and the radical reformers, to pietists and scholastics, to Baptists and Pentecostals, to mega-churches and emerging churches. Well, you get the point.
Should the objection, "That's not Wesleyan" stop all discussion (even if it is accurate)? No, not if we're the church of Jesus Christ. Methodism is historically Arminian in theology. Can members of the United Methodist Church not also listen to Calvinists as we try to discern the meaning of God's word? As the universal church of Jesus Christ, we should do our best to listen to the text itself regardless of who might point us in the right direction. We need not see everything exclusively through Wesleyan filters. I've had people say to me, "What you're proposing doesn't fit with Wesley's understanding" of whatever the topic might be. "It's more Lutheran." My internal response is, "So, what's your point?"
Once Methodism made the transition from being a movement to being a church, Mr. Wesley gave up ownership of it. The church belongs to Jesus, not to Mr. Wesley.
Now, we could go back to being a movement. Following the Catholic model, we could become the Order of John Wesley or the Methodist Society within a larger church. This is the way Methodism functioned in England during the first years of its existence. We could even be a parachurch movement whose members belonged to any number of churches. We would simply be a group of Christians who have covenanted to live with John Wesley's rule and vision for the Christian life. If that's what we want to do, then let's sell our buildings and stop meeting as a group on Sunday mornings. On Sunday mornings we need be gathered around God's word and sacraments as the church of Jesus Christ.
Do we want to be a church or a movement? A movement can look to the teachings and practices of its founders, but the church of Jesus Christ must see itself in relationship to God's mighty acts in creation and redemption. As for me, I choose to be a member of a church.
What should - with an emphasis on the word "should" - what should be distinctively Wesleyan about the United Methodist Church as we move into the future? What Wesleyan ideas and practices must remain normative forever? We have a few unalterable principles in our constitution. Every group has both the right and the responsibility to order its life as it sees best. Mr. Wesley and our Methodist history will always be "where we are re coming from." The vision that drives us forward, however, should be the great Biblical story of creation and redemption in Jesus Christ, not the thoughts and practices of an 18th century Anglican priest.
(See Foundational Documents of the United Methodist Faith at the Official UMC Website)
Filed under: Articles
October 17th, 2009 at 1332
A great salvo into the current efforts to revive Wesley and ground the UMC more firmly on Wesleyan understandings and distinctives.
I hope you offer some answers to your final questions as you go forward. My reading - and it very well could be wrong - is that you would say "not much" in response to the question about Wesleyan aspects worth holding on to.
October 17th, 2009 at 1723
You make some good points. The United Methodist Church, and it's antecedent bodies, have always struggled with their ecclesiology. The Methodist Church in America tried to continue as a Wesleyan movement well into the nineteenth century. But by the end of that century had discarded most of the practices that once marked them as Methodists in favor of becoming a "mainline" denomination. We continue to struggle with our ecclesiology today.
The problem I have with your argument regardign Wesley is that you seem to be setting up a false dichotomy between following Christ and holding to the theology and practices of John and Charles Wesley as a faithful guide to following Christ. I say we can look to Wesley as a guide for how to follow and serve Christ in the world today. One of the resons I am drawn to Wesley is that he brilliantly sythesized the whole of the Christian tradition, the Western (Protestant & Roman) and Eastern (Orthodox). In Wesley's theology we find influences of Calvin, Luther, Zinzendorf, Aquanias, Athanasias, the Capadocians, Paul, and others. All striving to learn and follow Jesus Christ in the world.
I am convinced that when North American Methodism discarded the Wesleyan practices of class meetings, class leaders, the General Rules, conferencing, Love Feasts, etc. we ceased to be Methodists and became something else. I am also convinced we can, and have, learned much about a possible way forward by turning once again to Mr. Wesley. He will help to lead the UMC back to its missional roots as a Christ-centered sign-community of the coming reign of God.
October 18th, 2009 at 1356
John - I don't think I would say "not much." There is a lot in the Wesley story that has continuing value. Furthermore, some of it is built into our constitution and Discipline. Everyone joining us knows - or should know - that are joining an institution shaped by Wesleyan history.
Our setting in life is different than 18th century England, however. Society, theology, Biblical studies, and so many other things have changed that we cannot simply impose a Wesleyan template on our current situation. So the question becomes, which Wesleyan components are most appropriate today?
As Steve notes, Wesley read widely and talked to people from throughout the Christian tradition. In his synthesis, did Wesley create a final product for us to adopt or did he model a process that is ongoing? When I suggest that we should continue to do the same thing, I think I am being Wesleyan.
We have benefited, for example, from the liturgical renewal that took place among Catholics and liturgical Protestants following Vatican II (and largely based on the writings of a 3d century Roman priest). The structure of Word and Sacrament in our current Book of Worship came out of that process. There's nothing Wesleyan about it, and yet I think the church is richer for it.
We had a copy of a Kenneth Wyatt's painting hanging in the church at Stone Mountain. It pictured Wesley sending off Coke, Whatcoat and Vesey to America with the command, "Offer Them Christ." Jesus was at the heart of everything Wesley did. When I say that the vision that drives us forward should be the great Biblical story of creation and redemption in Jesus Christ, I think I am being Wesleyan as well.
There is no dichotomy between Christ or Wesley if you don't put them on the same level. As a matter of principle, I do not think the church can ever formally define itself by anything other than Jesus Christ. The church that Wesley began can only be built on Christ. We owe it to Mr. Wesley to listen to him, but we owe it to Christ to question and assess all who would shape the life of his church - including Mr. Wesley.