The United Methodist Way

Taylor Burton-Edwards has a provocative piece in the United Methodist Reporter this week. He comments on a paper presented by Dr. Randy Maddox during a retreat at Lake Junaluska, NC, last winter that brought together bishops and district superintendents from all over the connection. The paper, which is entitled, "The United Methodist Way," looks at Methodism's origin as a flexible, Holy Spirit-led revival movement that incorporated people into a way of life marked by progressive freedom from sin through holiness of heart & life. This process was possible because of the working of God's grace, which first reaches out to sinners and empowers them to respond by shaping their lives around holiness through participation in the means of grace.

The paper (downloadable here as a pdf file) suggests that the United Methodist Church today is, ironically, in much the same shape as the Church of England in John Wesley's day - "marked by much nominal commitment and spiritual lethargy." But it also argues that the means for responding to the Holy Spirit's call are already present within the church's tradition. It suggests such common features of church life as Disciple Bible Study, Covenant Discipleship, and Volunteers in Mission are examples of Wesleyan ministry that have the power to really be transformative. And it suggests that, when individuals and congregations commit themselves to such practices, the Holy Spirit is given the place to work.

Now this is my own interpretation of the paper's central intent, and it is admittedly loose. But Burton-Edwards offers a critique that, surprisingly enough, seems to suggest that the church as a whole is ill-equipped for the type of renewal the paper is advocating. In particular, he asserts that:

-- John Wesley and the early Methodists "did not try to reform the Church of England per se" but rather set about to engage in mission (what he calls "a bias toward action").

-- "[O]ur current denominational and congregational institutions are simply not designed to make missional Christians, much less deploy much of what early Methodists were up to."

-- These same "institutions" are "continuity structures and supply houses, not on-the-ground missiologists."This response begs the question, "Then who can respond to the Holy Spirit's call?" Claiming that the structures he's referring to are not the answer, Burton-Edwards goes on to suggest what (or who) is. He responds: "You are."

Now I don't want to belabor this point, but what Burton-Edwards is saying, what he is not saying, and what he is saying wrongly are all extremely important for anyone who cares about the future of our church.

First, Burton-Edwards is incorrect in a historical sense when he suggests that Wesley wasn't trying "to reform the Church of England per se." In point of fact, it was always Wesley's hope that the revival experienced by the Methodists in their societies would spread to parish congregations more than it did. His stated mission for the Methodists was that they "reform the nation, particularly the church, and to spread scriptural holiness over these lands." Frank Baker has an informative chapter concerning Wesley's many attempts to form a coalition of evangelical Anglican clergy serving parishes in John Wesley and the Church of England (see "Uniting the Evangelical Clergy," pp.180-196). As an historical anecdote we might also think of the way in which Wesley intended to hand over the leadership of the Methodists to the ordained priest John Fletcher, who was ensconced in a parish as the vicar of Madeley. Though by the end of his life Wesley realized that a good proportion of the Methodists would probably separate, it was always his hope and his aim to reform the church rather than separate from it.

Second, Burton-Edwards seems to suggest that the paper itself claims renewal must take place in a top-down manner. It is vague what he means by "denominational and congregational institutions" but it seems that he is thinking on the level of general boards and agencies, as well as bishop-led conference ministry staffs. Interestingly the paper never suggests that either general boards & agencies or annual conference ministry staffs need to be at the vanguard of the types of Wesleyan ministry it advocates. (An appendix at the end of the paper suggests ways that bishops can be involved in nurturing this ministry, but I actually read it in an anti-programmatic way.) Instead, the paper focuses on Wesley's three-part exhortation from "Thoughts upon Methodism" where he advises that the Methodists must hold fast to the "doctrine, spirit, and discipline" with which they were formed as a body of faithful Christians.

Admittedly, the General Conference as one of those top-down institutions must ensure that orthodox doctrine is maintained so that the church remains faithful to Scripture and the catholic tradition of the church. But beyond that, doctrinally-faithful practices constitutive of Methodism's original "spirit" and "discipline" as suggested by the paper seem almost wholly to be located at the local level. (As a pastor with experience in campus ministry and the local church, that is at least how the paper seemed to come across to me.)

Ah, but there's the catch. Burton-Edwards lumps general church-level and annual conference-level institutions together with congregations themselves ("denominational and congregational institutions"). It is a confusing aspect of his commentary in general (Does he mean the heart of congregational life? Does he not? And if he does, why does he assume congregations are so inherently deaf to the Spirit's call?). But regardless, the claim that congregations are somehow incapable or ill-equipped to nurture the United Methodist Way - as the paper describes it - is a serious one that drives at the heart of our polity.

As you can probably guess, I disagree. Local congregations are the perfect places to nurture the kinds of disciplined practices that early Methodism knew and fostered. If it can't happen in the local church, it can't happen anywhere. To answer the question, "Who or What is the answer?", with "You are", is to miss a very important point. There are no solitary Christians. In fact, there are no more "holy solitaries" than there are "holy adulterers" (Wesley's own claim). We are only Christians in community. And the community we are called to be a part of is a local congregation.

In some ways, I think I understand what Burton-Edwards is saying in regards to top-down renewal. He's a staff member at the General Board of Discipleship in Nashville, and seeing church bureaucracy from the inside he wants to warn us away from thinking it holds the answers to our deepest ecclesial problems. He resists any suggestion that the GBOD or any other bureaucratic structure can bring about renewal, and I applaud that. In fact, his point in that regard is essential to anyone who thinks large programs are God's answer to the need for true revival.

But lumping local congregations into that same category? And suggesting that the Wesleyan approach to revival or renewal is not centered on local church life? I think he's wrong there.

We shouldn't underestimate what God can do in a local congregation. God works miracles there. And one of the miracles God might be preparing to work is the renewal of the People Called Methodists.