"Restoring Methodism" ...

... That's the title of a book written in 2006 by Jim and Molly Scott. Actually, the full title is Restoring Methodism: 10 Decisions for United Methodist Churches in America. The book is an attempt to help Methodist churches grapple with the realities of the denomination's situation at present and start to think about a way forward that would allow for the renewal of the church as a whole.

The Scotts are clergy members of the Arkansas Annual Conference who have had a long and diverse career in ministry. Since moving back to the state and settling in Eureka Springs, they have devoted themselves to study and writing, as well as in the training of pastors and congregations, on how the United Methodist Church might better embody the doctrine, discipline, and spirit that drove the movement back in Wesley's day.

I read the Scotts' book recently for their interest in the class meeting and its role (in the past and, potentially, in the present) as a central feature of Methodism. I think one of the best parts of their project in Restoring Methodism is in the way they clearly distinguished the renewal of the church-as-institution and the renewal of the church-as-Holy-Spirit-led-movement. All their interest is in the latter.

For instance, they write, "The purpose [of the church's restoration] is not to save an institution but rather to use all the gifts and graces given to us to fulfill our love and obedience in the Kingdom of God. It is the salvation of people that is at stake here. It is people experiencing the justifying grace of Jesus Christ that forgives and frees us from sin. It continues with the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit in us" (p.30).

Likewise, the Scotts are not interested in latching on to John Wesley as some mythic, founder-figure who defines the church simply because of a compelling life story. Rather, they write, "It is not that Wesley himself changes us; it is that he continually points away from himself to the Trinity - God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost; to basic Christianity; to the early Church. Wesley is not the answer, but he takes us to the answers" (p.xiii).

Those statements are a pretty good summary of why I study Wesley and early Methodism. The answers they provide are not contained within themselves; they rather come from where they point us. They demonstrate a form of disciplined holy living that can still help us respond to the Spirit's call in our own day.

[If you'd like to check out more about the ministry of Jim and Molly Scott, you can visit their Christian Connexion website.]

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.

Wesley Matters

I'd like to discuss some Wesley matters.

Namely: Does Wesley matter?

There has been an ongoing lecture series here at Duke Divinity School entitled, "What is Duke theology? Or ... How did we get here?" The series is co-sponsored by the Socratic Club and the Women's Center at the divinity school, and it is billed as, "A series of lectures/discussions on the various influences on professors and general milieu here at Duke Divinity School. Professors will lecture on significant theologians and theological movements and how Duke has tended to react against these or in line with them."

The series has been really interesting so far, and it has included Dr. Allen Verhey on H. Richard Niebuhr, Dr. Curtis Freeman on Karl Barth, Dr. Mary McClintock-Fulkerson on Friedrich Schleiermacher, and Dr. Amy Laura Hall on the Yale School. Upcoming lectures will include Dr. Fulkerson on Feminist Theology, Dr. Stanley Hauerwas on Stanley Hauerwas, and Dr. Richard Hays on Biblical Studies.

Some of the topics listed here are personal to the professors giving the lectures, and others relate to some of the major influences on the so-called "Duke School," a term I categorically reject but which is increasingly used by theologians and graduate students at other universities to describe what goes on around here.

But what is most interesting to me about this list is that there is no lecture entitled, "Dr. _________ on John Wesley" or "Dr. __________ on the Wesleyan tradition".

Now keep in mind that this is Duke Divinity School, the school that prides itself on being the flagship United Methodist seminary and that also has the largest concentration of scholars doing work in the Wesleyan tradition of any school anywhere. Why would it not occur to two of the most active student groups on campus to include a professor speaking on the importance of Wesley or the Wesleyan tradition in shaping the school's intellectual culture, spiritual life, and missional calling?

I am here as a doctoral student studying Wesley, so my opinion is naturally going to be skewed. An M.Div student might well give a compellingly affirmative account of Wesley's importance to the life of the school. But I fear that the lack of Wesley in a lineup like the current lecture series is reflective of Wesley's status as necessary to the institution but not to the lifeblood of theology here.

If so, that is truly unfortunate. And I wish I knew how to help future clergy understand the central importance of Wesley to everything we do. I would also be curious to know the status of Wesley on other UM seminary campuses.

General Conference fear & trembling

General Conference will take place in Fort Worth, TX, from April 23rd to May 2nd of this year. Our church's website begins its description of GC by stating, "General Conference is the top policy-making body of the United Methodist Church." The second sentence invokes the makeup of GC according to "church law".

Now, if I were a non-Methodist and I saw a statement like that about our church's largest gathering, it would send me screaming in the other direction. Heck, if I were a typical, relatively uninformed Methodist it would send me running away. I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why church bureaucrats think that the rest of the church wants to conceive of, read about, and proclaim the church in bureaucratic terms. If all General Conference is going to be is a "policy-making body," then we ought not to spend the millions of dollars it takes to put it on and give that money for hunger relief.

The church does not "make policy." The church interprets Scripture, and from that interpretation, gives doctrine to the faithful. There has been a lot of talk over the past year about how everyone wants the General Conference to be a more prayerful, worshipful time - a time where the delegates can truly engage in holy conferencing together. The prospects of that happening are not helped when our official website uses such impoverished language to prepare us for what to expect.

If whoever it is that writes and posts information on umc.org wants to find out what Wesleyan conferencing is supposed to be about, that person ought to go to the sources and read a little bit about our tradition. Ignorance of it is a large reason why our church is in a state of slow dissolution. And if Methodists are truly more interested in policy-making than in holy conferencing, Washington D.C. is a much better place to do it than the General Conference.

I started this post with the intention of talking a little bit about my own hopes for General Conference, which I outline in an open letter to the delegates in The United Methodist Reporter. And now I don't think I can do that.

What is a Methodist?

That's a good question these days. Is there anything distinctive anymore about claiming the name "Methodist" as a part of your Christian identity? Should there be?

I ask the "what is a Methodist" question in my most recent column in the Covenant Discipleship Quarterly. And let me be clear: I don't think this is just a fun exercise to go through. It is of dire importance.

There are large segments of the United Methodist Church that don't want there to be anything at all distinctive about Methodist identity. In fact, they don't want there to be anything much distinctive about being a Christian at all. The 'inclusivity crowd' takes the open invitation of Jesus and turns it into the defining mark of the church. These are the same folks who howl with protest when anyone dares to question the wisdom of, I don't know, a church marketing slogan that aims at the lowest common denominator in trying to stop the slide in church membership numbers. (Whether the church's membership slide might be a direct result of our pathetically weak sense of discipleship is a question for their open hearts and open minds to consider.) To them, the church is all about open acceptance and not at all about those other things that have always been bedrock parts of our faith: repentance, the new birth, sanctification, and sacrificial discipleship.

It is not clear right now which direction the UMC will ultimately head. It may well continue down the path of lukewarm, milquetoast faith. But we should never mistake such an easygoing, worldly Christianity with the Methodism of John Wesley. For Wesley, Methodists were those who took the commands to love God and love neighbor and actually put them into practice. All day. Everyday.

The point is this: Jesus doesn't just want you in the church. Jesus wants you in the church so he can literally, physically, spiritually, and actually change your life. And if all you are doing is showing up for worship occasionally, and you are not allowing God to transform your life, then church is a bad place for you. Your salvation is in jeopardy. People in that position should leave the church, so they do not get lulled into the false sense of security that they are actually walking the way of salvation.

What is a Methodist? To Wesley, it is someone who is committed to holiness of heart and life. Who loves God and neighbor. Who cares for the poor. Who is inwardly and outwardly conformed to the will of Jesus Christ.

If that's not you, then you're not a Methodist. You may be a member of a United Methodist Church. You may have a cross & flame lapel pin. But you ain't a Methodist. Not according to Mr. Wesley.

True to our roots

Doctrine, spirit, and discipline.

Those are the three words Wesley used to describe what Methodists need to "hold fast" to in order to keep from becoming "a dead sect, having the form of religion without the power."

Doctrine includes the fundamental tenets of belief that define who we are as a church. Spirit indicates the attitude with which we approach our discipleship and mission. Discipline points toward our character and the seriousness with which we take our faith.

All three of these were essential to Wesley. Without them, the Methodists weren't Methodists at all. And in this strange time in the life of our church - where it is unclear whether the people called Methodists care enough to rescue their sinking ship - these three should be essential to us as well.

I write about this issue in my current column in the Reporter. It is not clear to me that the UMC has the stomach for a truly Wesleyan practice of faith. And we certainly do not live in a culture or a time that is conducive to such a practice. What do you think?

Where did we go wrong?

I write a lot - some might say too much - about the need for the church to be a place of truly intentional discipleship. Sometimes I catch myself falling into a mindset of "Church: love it or leave it!" And needless to say, that point of view can err on the side of a lack of compassion.

But what is supremely frustrating to me is the wide gulf that seems to separate early Methodism from the Methodism of our own day. In Wesley's day, the Methodists were regarded as dangerous "enthusiasts" who took their religion way too seriously (which begs the question, is it possible to take Jesus too seriously??). In our time, the Methodists are seen as the ultimate mainline Christians - neither hot nor cold, we are as comfortably lukewarm as the Laodiceans of Revelation 3. In between that time and this one, a whole lot of spiritual power has been lost.

The reasons for our spiritual decline are many, but perhaps looming over them all is the way that we Methodists sold our church's soul to the devil in return for cultural respectability. As a professor of mine pointed out recently, there was a time when the best way for politicians to take the national pulse on any given issue was to call the Methodist bishops. Methodism quite literally was American culture. And when you get to a position of that kind of dominance, it is all too easy to just assume that little matters like discipleship, accountability, and sanctification will take care of themselves.

Well, gentle reader, the point I would make to you is that I am not alone in my frustration. I get e-mails from pastors and layfolk from all over the connection who share in the desire to see renewal happen in the church. For instance, one laywoman from Illinois wrote me last week:

"Our dear, old UMC appears to be still stuck on making up programs and strategies and meaningless slogans, which mostly amount to fiddling while Rome burns. Of course we do good in the world, but what a church our size could really accomplish for the Kingdom only God knows. And He wants to lead us to do it. You're right, our member numbers are shocking, and I fear they'll soon be tragic if our church doesn't get seriously into the scriptures, humble ourselves before God, and beg Him to lead us once again..."

From the standpoint of the national church, our main stumbling block seems to be that we still think we are in that position of cultural dominance. I deeply respect our Council of Bishops, but I wish they would spend less time trying to get their photographs taken with famous politicians (and I wish they would ask themselves why such an effort is important). I also wish the church as a whole would ask itself what it thinks it is accomplishing by making a slogan like "Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors" as the church's chief public witness to the world (a slogan which is almost entirely devoid of meaning).

The quote from the reader above is as indicting as it is insightful. And so was the comment that a first year M.Div student at Duke made to me on Wednesday. She said, "You know, the more I learn about John Wesley, the more I realize that we don't do anything he said we should do."

If that doesn't make you want to fall on your knees and beg for forgiveness, I don't know what will.

We are called Methodists for a reason

Perhaps my column in the Reporter this week is too strongly worded. But I don't think so.

All the so-called "experts" say that denominationalism is dead. They say that people don't want to identify with a denomination anymore. They say that denominations will be much better off pretending like they aren't denominations anymore.

I dismiss all of that "expert" opinion. Every bit of it.

We are part of a story - a history and a tradition that makes us who we are. As I have been reminded myself lately, we don't get to choose our own story. We are born into it, shaped by it, and we find our identities in it.

Our story is the story of Methodism. It is the story of a people who arose out of a response to an extraordinary call of the Holy Spirit. As I write in my column, "Originally intended as an epithet, the name [Methodist] came to be associated with a people who shunned religious pretension, practiced a rigorous discipleship, sought furiously after the way of salvation and relentlessly carried the gospel to the poor and lost."

Frankly, that's not an identity I particularly want to lose, anyway. Our recovery as a church - and by that I mean The United Methodist Church - will only come when we stop trying to follow what the culture identifies as the latest trend and start practicing the kind of discipleship that John Wesley instilled in his early followers.

Don't get me wrong. Christ ultimately desires unity for his church. And I think that is both a physical and a spiritual unity - one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. But that unity is not achieved by forsaking the distinctiveness of our tradition in favor of a bland, happy-go-lucky megachurch. Such a model only serves to imitate the surrounding pagan culture dressed up in religious language.

If we Methodists started acting like the Methodists of 1742, 1784, or 1824, it would be scary what the Holy Spirit could accomplish through us. That calling has never left us. Who will answer it in this day and age?

Glad to be home!

I arrived back in Durham from my trip to Egypt on Monday evening. What an incredible experience! As I have been trying to overcome jet lag these past two days, my head has been swimming with thoughts of all that we saw and did. Four days ago, I was sitting on top of Mt. Sinai, and now I'm sitting at the computer in my living room. It's hard to process it all.

I plan on writing a few blog posts on the experience of traveling to Egypt as a pilgrimage. In the mean time, feel free to check out my most recent column in the United Methodist Reporter. It is concerned with claiming our distinctive witness as Methodist people, something that must begin with a process of learning about our story and heritage.

FYI, the Alex Jackson mentioned in the column is a close friend of mine, going back to divinity school days. We were students together at Vanderbilt and have remained close since then. Back in 1999, he helped me to respond to my call into ministry. And in 2005, he officiated at my wife's and my wedding. He's a great pastor and a great friend.