Restoring Methodism (Part 2)
This is a continuation of a previous post on the book Restoring Methodism. This book, at 163 pages, is a very quick read. In fact, the danger is that one may read it all in one sitting and not allow the depth of each decision to really sink in. All in all, I found this to be a thought provoking book that I would highly recommend to anyone who is passionate about the United Methodist Church and wants to see it reclaim its spiritual vitality. Continue reading for some more specific thoughts about the content of the book.
Decision #8 notes the lack of doctrinal consensus in the contemporary UMC. The authors suggest that one helpful way to return to a common doctrinal understanding would be by reminding ourselves of the UMC's Wesleyan foundation. They suggest focusing on the following four elements:
1. Scripture
2. History and Tradition of the Church
3. Wesleyan roots
4. Wesleyan essentials
The discussion of Wesleyan essentials is important, especially if the goal is to have some sort of consensus. We are reminded that there are three main doctrines: repentance, faith, and holiness. They also include these as Wesleyan essentials: original sin, atonement of Christ, resurrection of Jesus, justifying faith, Holy Spirit, new birth, Christian assurance, holiness (sanctification), Sacraments, stewardship, and the Church (43).
The authors summarize what is at stake wonderfully: As Mr. Wesley said, after we agree on the essentials, we think and let think. Many United Methodists today can quote the "think and let think" idea, but they have forgotten that it was preceded by an agreement on the essentials. And the vast majority of United Methodists are not clear on what the essentials are (43). In other words, I am sure that Wesley would be appalled by some of the things that we spend so much energy arguing about, yet there would also be many things that not all Methodists today agree on that he would refuse to compromise on.
Decision #7 discusses the need to reinstitute a discipline that resembles that of the early Methodists.
In early Methodism, Every person was held accountable. It was not unusual for Mr. Wesley to examine a Society with eight hundred members and leave them with four hundred members (53).
I could write a whole other post about this... and maybe I will, someday.
Decision #4 focuses on restoring the purposes of the local church. The discussion that most caught my attention in this decision was the need for fellowship that "is intimate, warm, and family." The Scotts write, "Worship and large congregational gatherings have never been where this particular kind of fellowship occurs. It was in the Classes, the Wesleyan Class Meetings. These need to be reestablished in an updated, relevant application for today's church" (88).
This caused me to wonder: Could it be that the deepest problem facing the UMC isn't that we don't have enough members, but that the members that we do have aren't committed to holiness and growing in their faith? I strongly agree with James and Molly Scott that a reclaiming of the Wesleyan practice of meeting together for accountability in growing in our faith will be absolutely essential to the revival of United Methodism. I am not sure that this can be overstated.
Decision #3 begins a much needed discussion about the role of the laity. The Scotts make some interesting and creative suggestions that are contextual solutions to the current difficulties that face the UMC. I found that I agreed with their analysis, but wanted them to go a bit deeper in the ideas that they were discussing.
Decision #2 argues for the need to reclaim both a belief in sanctification and a determination to become more and more holy. A fairly disturbing statistic that they sight is that "90 percent of United Methodist laypeople cannot give a clear definition of the word sanctification. And when they are given a clear understanding - through the power of the Holy Spirit, growing in the image of Christ and becoming holy as God is holy - the initial response is often disbelief in its possibility or insult at having been offended by the thought that this is a necessity" (115).
For the Scotts, what is ulimately at stake for Methodism in relationship to sanctification is fairly straightforward: "The answer for us Methodists is profoundly simple: We must reaffirm sanctification as part of the salvation process and recognize and act on Mr. Wesley's observation after sixty years of ministry that where sanctification is preached, taught, and observed as lifestyle, the churches grow; but where it is not, the churches do not grow" (118). Many Christians chaffe at this suggestion, but to non-Christians it seems obvious - Christians ought to practice what they preach. The world really does seem to be watching and asking: Is this making any difference in the way that they live their lives? Far too often, the answer seems to be that it does not.
The final decision is a very helpful reminder that the UMC will grow only by the power of the Holy Spirit. They remind us that we have too often, and for too long, tried to make our churches grow by our own effort. It is ironic that we seem to fairly easily understand that works righteousness does not work in our individual relationships with God, but we seem to forget that it won't work on an institutional level either.
Well, even though this has been a ridiculously long post, there is still more to this relatively brief book than I have been able to include. As you can see, James and Molly Scott provide quite a bit of food for thought. It is a great book. Have you read it? What are your thoughts?
7 comments:
I agree that laity can do more. If churches like some business organizations become too bureaucratic many will be turned off and not participate. In business a pay check may keep the employees atleast somewhat involved. For most laity in church the only meaningful incentive is to see positive results from their effort.
I could write a whole other post about this... and maybe I will, someday
I would like to read your post on the Scott's Decision #7. Let me ask you:
Who exactly would be the arbiter in this reinstitution of discipline in the churches?
What would the punishment be for those laity that don't make the grade?
Do you think that the Scotts are recommending that the churches disassociate themselves with the laity that don't meet the standards i.e. It was not unusual for Mr. Wesley to examine a Society with eight hundred members and leave them with four hundred members.
Do you agree with the idea that laity should be disassociated with the church for not meeting these standards of discipline?
Will you cast the first stone?
How many of the members at Lamont would you cull in the name of "reinstituting church disipline?"
Is there any doubt regarding how you voted on Resolution 3 at the Oklahoma Annual Conference?
Young Reverend Watson, I submit to you that no man or woman, including you, can look into the individual human heart.
Am I reading you wrong?
Anonymous-
You point to some of the subtleties involved in any discussion of church discipline. In reading your comment, I am afraid that for the most part you have read me wrong. It may be that I presented things in an unclear way in my original post. I think the Scotts do a good job of defining what they mean by discipline in Restoring Methodism:
“But discipline is not a negative concept. Discipline is a methodical – that is, Methodist – approach to achieving determined goals. We are using strict discipline in the sense that Webster describes: strict meaning “exact, accurate, precise; not loose or vague,” and discipline meaning “training that develops self-control, character, or orderliness and efficiency; a system of rules, as for a church or monastic order.”
"In the Christian world, discipline involves: (1) obedience to the commandments of our Lord Jesus Christ; (2) obedience to the Holy Spirit, who lives in us; (3) obedience to our spiritual leaders, who are training us in “holiness of heart and life”; and (4) obedience to the rules of the Church, of which we are members” (52).
In other words, I am not speaking of discipline as punishment, but as “watching over one another in love.” Methodists have traditionally believed that it was the discipline of the society, class, band structure that most effectively enabled the doctrine of the church to come to life in individual souls.
The Scotts define this type of accountability as “love assuring salvation” (53).
So, my interest is not in rooting people out of the church, but it is in helping them to have a passion for growing in their faith and providing a venue where they can effectively make progress along the Way of Salvation. The point is not in trying to “catch” someone sinning and kick them out, the point is to try to help all of us grow in our faith and become more faithful to the One we proclaim as Lord.
I am pleased that I was mistaken; however, I am still very troubled by part of the Scotts' (and presumably your) argument in this matter.
The excerpt that you quote weighs obedience to "spiritual leaders" and the "rules of the church" as equal to obedience to the commandments of Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
Are you trying to tell me that you, as a Methodist minister i.e. "spiritual leader", are afforded the same level of obedience as the Holy Spirit and Jesus's commandments? Surely not.
Who is the ultimate authority regarding the commandments of Jesus? Faithful and earnest Christians regularly disagree about the implications of Jesus commandments. To whose interpretation of the commandments of Jesus are we to be obedient?
What about the "rules of the church"? Do you mean the rules that are fabricated and voted upon by the Methodist General Conference?
The Oklahoma delegation, clergy and laity, to the General Conference is a strong group. But I wouldn't necessarily make their combined wisdom (combined with the rest of the GC's combined wisdom) an authority equal with the Holy Spirit in my own life.
Help me understand what "watching over one another with love" looks like. Can you help me by describing a real world example?
anonymous-
I actually had a very different impression of the quote that you mention. My assumption is that the list is not mentioning four things that all equally demand our obedience, but that there is a relative prioritizing of these things that is revealed in the order in which they are presented. I cannot speak on behalf of the Scotts, but it is clear to me that I should first be obedient to the commandments of Christ and the Holy Spirit that lives in me, and I should also be obedient to those who have gone before me and are able to mentor and encourage me in the faith. If a spiritual mentor gave me advice that clearly conflicted with one of the commandments of Christ, I would follow the commandments of Christ rather than the spiritual leader.
I really don’t think the Scotts are arguing that a spiritual mentor/leader (and I want to clarify that a spiritual mentor does not have to be a minister, there is no reason a lay person cannot be a spiritual leader/director) should be obeyed as if he or she were Jesus himself.
Similarly, the United Methodist Church is not placed on equal footing with the commands of Christ or with the action of the Holy Spirit. However, I would argue that obedience to the church is necessary in order to order the life of the church. The Book of Worship, for example, asks candidates for ordination the following: “In covenant with other elders, will you be loyal to The United Methodist Church, accepting its order, liturgy, doctrine, and discipline, defending it against all doctrines contrary to God’s Holy Word, and accepting the authority of those who are appointed to supervise your ministry?” The anticipated response is: “I will, with the help of God.” (BOW p. 676) And people who would join the church are asked, “will you be loyal to The United Methodist Church, and do all in your power to strengthen its ministries?” (UMH 38)
“Watching over one another in love” is the process where Christians who are united in their desire to grow in love of God and neighbor come together and hold each other accountable for doing so. The best real world example I can think of is the band meeting I was in during seminary. We met once a week, checked in with each other on how we were doing spiritually and confessed any sins that we had committed. The group would hear our confession and respond with the words of 1 John 1:9, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.” Followed by someone saying to the person who had finished confessing, “In the name of Jesus Christ, you are forgiven.”
The purpose of this group was not to find fault with each other, it was not to be judgmental. The purpose of the group was to take growing in holiness seriously, and so we were united with the commitment to support each other in “working out our salvation.” I can simply say, that in my own life, the discipline of being accountable to fellow Christians did not feel oppressive or burdensome. It was the most supportive, encouraging, and loving community that I have ever been a part of. And, we felt like all of us had seen real growth as a result of being involved in the group.
Our band group was modeled after the band meetings that were instituted by John Wesley during early methodism. In bringing up the bands, it is important to remember that they were not obligatory. While the band meeting has provided the most meaningful spiritual growth in my life, they are not necessarily for everyone. A less intense form of “watching over one another in love” was the class meeting which every member of a Methodist society was expected to be a part of. In the class meeting, each person was asked “how is it with your soul?” In some ways, the class meetings primarily provided accountability for whether people were participating in the means of grace: the Eucharist, searching the Scriptures, and praying.
It was Wesley’s conviction that Methodism would lose its spiritual vitality if it did not hold fast to both its doctrine and discipline. He wrote in “Thoughts upon Methodism,” “I am not afraid that the people called Methodists should ever cease to exist either in Europe or America. But I am afraid lest they should only exist as a dead sect, having the form of religion without the power. And this undoubtedly will be the case unless they hold fast both the doctrine, spirit, and discipline with which they first set out.” I think Wesley saw what was at stake very clearly, getting back to our roots as Methodists will be key to the revival of the UMC in America, especially as it relates to reclaiming a Wesleyan practice of “watching over one another in love.”
Thank you for your thoughtful explanation of the term "church discipline."
My previous understanding of the term brought to mind excommunication, "disfellowshipping," shaming and one particularly well publicized case of a preacher disclosing to his congregation that one member had been having an affair.
Best wishes.
anonymous - thank you for your contribution and your thoughts. Blessings to you.
Post a Comment