The Gospel: Love, not sin

This is an excellent article and well worth reading: WESLEYAN WISDOM: ‘Way of Salvation’ begins with love, not sin :

“we United Methodists do not believe that God’s way of salvation begins with the person’s sin; we believe it begins with God’s character, which is love.

And this is even true for other Methodists! ;-) [Minus 2 points for forgetting that the US is not the only place where Methodism exists!]

The Stories we Tell - Just Sayin'

Over the last four or five days reading blogs on the internet, I've been struck by how negative Methodists are about themselves and about their Methodist brothers and sisters.

This negativity seems to be true not only for British Methodists but also for the United Methodist Church in the US. Reading the blogs of UMCers who I find thoughtful and whose ideas I respect, I've actually begun to wonder whether I want to be part of the UMC when I move to the States in August.

In my last job, if anyone had talked down their organisation or their colleagues in the way that Methodists talk each other down, I reckon the boss would have called them in for a talking-to about their attitude.

Martin Atkins, General Secretary of the British Methodist Church, has called us to find the positive stories and tell the positive stories. I didn't read this as a call to be unrealistically Polyanna but to actually see the good in our brothers and sisters and to 'advertise' it.

Why is this important? Basically because if we keep telling each other we're rubbish, we're going to start to believe it. This does not obviate trying to find solutions. But, in commercial-speak, we are living in an era when the demand for our 'product' is declining. Let's stop acting like we can control the demand for our product; let's stop acting like we are all individually responsible for the decline in demand. And let's find ways of increasing market-share and then spreading these ideas around. And let's see the good in those who keep trying and trying and trying and see little worldly signs of success.

Just sayin'.

Why Does a Methodist Need to be a(n) [Add Modifier]?

My good friend, Dave Warnock over at 42 has been disagreeing with another chap called 'Warnock' (no relation to Dave) who has been making all sorts of claims about 'What an Evangelical has to believe in order to be A Real Evangelical'.

I admit that I'm rather fascinated by the fact that Dave and I often seem to agree on most topics theological but Dave calls himself 'an Evangelical' and I don't. For my own part, I'm pretty sure that this comes from my own personal background and baggage.  The kind of theology that 'the other Warnock' is spouting is stuff that I grew up with and I don't really want to have any part of it.

Now, I'm perfectly capable of believing that there are lots of different 'sorts' of Evangelicals around and that they hold a wide range of different views.  In fact, I know this from my own background and upbringing.

My only question is - 'Why'? Why would a Methodist want to label themself as 'an Evangelical'? Or why would a Methodist want to label themself as a 'liberal' or a 'radical' or a 'whathave you'?

Aren't these labels that come from outside Methodism in order to set oneself over and against others who are not liberals or not Evangelicals or whatever?  The problem with all these labels, it seems to me, is that when someone says 'I'm a liberal', they seem to want to communicate 'I'm not an Evangelical'. And when they say 'I'm an Evangelical', they seem to want to communicate 'I'm not a liberal.'

I'm a Methodist because Methodism believes that God offers his love to everyone (i.e. it is 'catholic').  I'm a Methodist because Methodism believes that the Gospel is such good news, that we are just bursting to tell others (i.e. it is 'evangelical').  I'm a Methodist because Methodism has historically been inclusive (i.e. it is 'liberal').  I want to be all these things.  I want to be a Methodist.

I really like the subtitle of Brian D. McLaren's book, A Generous Orthodoxy: 'Why I am a missional, evangelical, post/protestant, liberal/conservative, mystical/poetic, biblical, charismatic/contemplative, fundamentalist/calvinist, anabaptist/anglican, methodist, catholic, green, incarnational, depressed-yet-hopeful, emergent, unfinished Christian'.

Why would I want to be just a liberal?  Or just an evangelical?

With due apologies to Dave, who has a great sense of humour and who will, I'm sure, engage this post with the goodwill with which it is intended.

Thoughts on 'The Priesthood of All Believers'

'The priesthood of all believers' has been a term that has been used a number of times in our little UK Methodist blogosphere.

I'd like to offer a few thoughts on this term. I say 'offer a few thoughts' because I'm not purporting to offer a rigorous academic definition of the term, simply my own personal thoughts.

1) A priest is normally understood as being a human being who has a 'mediating' role between God and humanity. The term 'priesthood of all believers' indicates that it is through 'the Church'[2] that this mediation takes place.

2) 'The Church' is a fraught term over which generations of Christians have disagreed. I take a fairly Protestant view of 'the Church' regarding it as a mystical communion of believers (although I leave it to God to judge who is in and who is out).

3) 'The Priesthood of all believers' therefore indicates that the communion of believers plays some kind of 'mediating' role in the life of the faithful. For me as a Methodist, the concept of 'fellowship' is important to my understanding of that mediating role. For me, there is something important about the Christian community and our mutual encouragement and oversight of each other as well as about our commitment to self-giving love, to forgiveness and to reconciliation.

However, there are also a few things that 'the priesthood of all believers' is not.

a) It is not a theory that implies that every individual member is called to all the functions of the ordained ministry and that each member might as well do all or any of them instead of a minister. Normally speaking, one would assume that any individual called to most of the functions of an ordained minister might have a calling to such a ministry. It might very well be the case that, in any given congregation, there are some individuals with this calling. The Church historically has asked them to step forward, offer themselves and be recognised by the Church if they want to exercise them. This was Wesley's concern about 'order' in the church.

b) It is not 'rule by the loudest members.' It does not mean that when any member of the congregation says 'Jump!' that other members or the minister say 'Yes sir! How high?' In any other group or institution, individuals demanding that all their desires be met would be called anarchy. Of course, the prescription against autocracy goes for the minister as well as for members.

c) It is not unique to Protestantism and it doesn't imply congregational church governance. The Roman Catholic church would also claim to believe in 'the priesthood of all believers'. It does, however, have a very different view of 'church' and of what I would call 'the institutional church', of the meaning of ordination and of the role of an ordained priest.

In Praise of the Covenant Service

Wow! Who would have thunk it? A really positive article in The Guardian entitled In Praise of…….the covenant service. That starts the week off right for me. :-)

From the article (bolding is mine):

The heart of the occasion is a passage that includes the words: "Put me to what you will, rank me with whom you will; put me to doing, put me to suffering; let me be employed for you, or laid aside for you, exalted for you, or brought low for you." It should not be misinterpreted as a sort of fatalism, for many Methodists have held eminent positions, espoused radical politics, and gone to prison for opposing injustice and war. Its nobility is the recognition of the accretion of great good through small deeds.

UK Methodist Bloggers' Meeting

I arrived home from the UK Methodist Bloggers’ Meeting to find that I had no internet connection (or should that be 'connexion'?). Ironic, innint?

We covered a number of topics but, for me, the most important thing about the meeting was actually meeting a number of people face-to-face. I already knew Dave of of ‘42’ fame from theology college, but I'd never met any of the other bloggers. I think meeting people face-to-face can be really important. It's how we remember that we are dealing with real people and not just with 'them out there'.

During the course of the meeting, we talked about whether we were 'Methodist bloggers' or 'bloggers who happen to be Methodist.' I think I prefer the latter category. There are a number of thoughts I have on this:

1) Whilst I certainly do not want to bring the Methodist Church into disrepute, I also do not want to blog 'officially' for the Methodist Church (not that I could do anyway). My disclaimer makes that clear.

2) Whilst I see blogging as a recreational activity, I am also aware that it's a public thing. Someone I know refers to this as 'my journal'; it's not my journal as there are things I'd not write here because of it being public space.

Anyway, I think that 'a good time was had by all'.

Methodists and Conversion

We've been having a fascinating conversation over on: What is a Methodist Evangelical?. Please feel free to continue there if you have any further thoughts!
I wanted to pick up on Peter Kirk's comment on 'conversionism'. Peter wrote:

To me, the central issue which distinguishes evangelicals from other Christians, at least in the Church of England, is conversionism, the belief that what the mass of people need is not moral exhortation or participation in worship but to be born again. How far are Methodist evangelicals, and Methodists as a whole, in agreement with this?

Perhaps those who have been Methodists longer than I have been can answer that question for 'Methodism in general'. I think it's right to say that 'conversion' is central to Methodist thinking: 'All need to be saved,' according to the 'Four Alls'.

I'd like to do some personal thinking around the idea that 'people do not need moral exhortation or participation in worship, but to be born again.'

My own sense is that we need all of these things and that conversion alone is not sufficient. I think I'd also add that we need prayer as well; this might come under the cover of worship, but I want to make clear that public worship on a Sunday probably isn't 'enough', at least not if we are ever going to need to call on our faith in times of crisis.

First of all, on 'conversion'. I think that we all need to be 'converted' because we all need to repent. As most Christians know, 'repent' means to turn around. We all have a tendency to want to go our own way apart from God, be it actively sinning or simply just ignoring God, so we all need to 'turn around'. But this 'turning around' isn't just a one-time thing.

If 'conversionism' is a one-time big event, then I don't think it's sufficient. Necessary, but not sufficient. I worry if people think that all they have to be able to do is to name the time and the date of their conversion and then, as far as God is concerned, they are set up for heaven. I also would not want to exclude people who have managed to turn around, repent and convert without ever being able to name the time and the date. I do think that this can happen for people who have been brought up in a Christian family or another Christian environment.

I believe - and I think that this is very Methodist - that 'conversion' is an on-going thing. As someone said to me recently, it's not that we have been saved, it is that we are being saved. This 'on-going salvation' is, I think, another way of expressing the Methodist idea of Christian Perfection or Holiness. Once having 'given one's life to Christ', we are still in need of on-going growth, discipleship and perfection.

I think that the Christian community is extremely important in our on-going discipleship and I think that worship and prayer are important in this continued growth. I'd argue that this is also 'Methodist' - at least, it's Wesleyan. Wesley exhorted his followers to receive communion as often as possible and also recommended 'constant communion'. Certainly, the early classes and bands were nothing if they were not opportunities for moral exhortation and prayer.

That brings me to 'prayer' and I can't really point to anything particularly Methodist as I talk about prayer, although Methodists certainly have nothing against praying! I believe, mainly from personal experience, that putting effort into practicing a prayer life is vitally important. A retired Methodist minister remarked recently that, in his experience, the attitude of many elderly people toward God depended on whether or not they had a prayer life. I'm not talking about 'faith' as 'doctrines' but 'faith' as in whether or not people feel that they can turn to God in times of crisis. This rings true to me and would probably be another long post. Suffice it to say that I think that there is value in 'practicing' prayer even if we can't feel God at all or don't feel like praying.

To sum up, I personally believe that conversion is necessary but not sufficient. For me, to neglect or de-emphasise worship and growth in holiness is to be constantly 'drinking milk' rather than 'eating meat'.

What is a Methodist Evangelical?

I've just come back from attending a conference on Methodist Identities at Cambridge.

One of the presentations I found very interesting was given by the Revd Dr Andrew Atherstone, a research fellow at the conservative evangelical Anglican think-tank Latimer Trust. His paper was on the objections of both Methodist and Anglican Evangelicals to Anglican-Methodist union in the 1960s.

As a non-cradle Methodist, one of the most interesting revelations to me from this presentation was the fact that Methodist Evangelicalism and Anglican Evangelicalism were not historically the same thing.

For various reasons, I think that I have always tended to view Evangelicalism in the 'Anglican manner'. With apologies to Atherstone, I was not able to copy down the characteristics of Anglican Evangelicalism that he rattled off rapidly by heart, but in my own definition of 'Evangelical' in the 'Anglican manner', I've seen belief in penal substitutionary atonement and belief in the bible as God's infallible revelation to humankind as being two big hallmarks of evangelicalism.

My reluctance to see the bible as infallible revelation and to affirm penal substitutionary atonement as the central and most important doctrine of atonement have made me want to demur in calling myself an 'Evangelical'.

I now come to find out that, historically, this has not been the definition of 'Evangelical' within British Methodism, although a number of the participants expressed the opinion that the Anglican definition may be currently gaining a foothold in Methodism. Atherstone reckoned that the British Methodist Church during the late 19th and early 20th centuries was decidedly theologically liberal and that Methodist Evangelicals were simply Methodists who were commited to evangelism.

I asked Atherstone after the session whether this wasn't simply the old battle between Arminianism and Calvinism. Wouldn't a conservative Calvinist view Arminianism as theologically 'liberal' by definition? Atherstone agreed with me on this point: that Arminianism is 'liberal' by evangelical Calvinist standards.

I found this interesting because I think it explains some of my confusion when Methodist friends who appear to me to be decidedly theologically moderate insist that they are 'Evangelical'. I do fear, however, that the Anglican form of Evangelicalism is creeping into Methodism. That, of course, is my own bias.

Link: Holistic Holiness

There is a really excellent post on the subject of Holistic Holiness by the President of Methodist Conference, Martyn Atkins over at the The President and Vice President of the Methodist Conference blog.

I like this post because I'm interested in how, as Methodists, we can be more conscious of our 'Methodist distinctives' whilst at the same time working ecumenically. (I think a heart for ecumenism is a modern Methodist distinctive, anyway.) As Martyn says, the idea that personal piety and good works must go hand and hand is absolutely core to Methodism.

I am also glad to see Martyn and Ruby using this form of communication.

Talking ourselves down

My friend Dave over at 42 has recently written a couple of posts about how he thinks that The Methodist Church is on the up, contrary to all the messages of doom and gloom that we often hear.

Yesterday on an ecumenical Good Friday walk of witness an Anglican woman said to me in passing "Of course, the Methodist Church is rapidly dying out." I looked at her and replied, "Actually, I don't think that's quite true. I think that we talk ourselves down a lot." I said that, whilst I realise they are both somewhat unusual congregations, my sending congregation had a membership of 200 and the church where I did my placement had a membership of about 270.

I'd like to advocate that The Methodist Church desperately needs a centrally-expressed vision of where we are going. For good or for ill, at the moment, the message that is coming through from the centre is that we are dying.

Now, I've just come out of over 20 years in business and I want to say that I'm in whole-hearted agreement with the fact that the Methodist Church needs to cut costs. If you're a business and you're growing, you add staff and branches. When your business slows or loses business, you have to cut out branches and central staff. It's the same with us as a church and it's only sensible that we look at our costs and cut them back if we can't afford them. And undoubtedly, that's where we have been for several years. It's only responsible to do this now.

The problem is that the message that seems to be going out to all and sundry is that "we're dying". And I don't think that's true. Using a business analogy again, you're not going to buy a PC from "PC Universe" if you think that "PC Universe" is going to be out of business in the next year.

Whether or not it's the message that Church House wants us to be repeating, at the moment, many of us seem to be repeating the mantra "We're dying". And everyone else is getting that message loud and clear.

We have 300,000 members in the UK. We need a positive vision to work toward and a positive manta to repeat and we ALL need to be "on message". The message that we keep repeating is the message that we will finally live out.

Ignatius of Loyola and John Wesley

Ignatius of Loyola was born in 1491 and died in 1556. He was a contemporary of Martin Luther and had his dramatic conversion at about the same time that Luther was excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church. The religious society that Ignatius founded (Society of Jesus - Jesuits) pledged its loyalty to the Pope, who Ignatius sincerely regarded as the Vicar of Christ on Earth. Clearly Ignatius was no Protestant!

John Wesley was born in 1703 and died in 1791. He was an Anglican clergyman and the son of an Anglican clergyman. Although credited with being the Father of Methodism, he did not set out to found a new denominantion. His interest was rather in a spiritual revival within the Church of England and bringing the message of the Gospel to those who were not readily able to hear it - especially the poor (who were normally not welcomed in churches).

In my opinion, Ignatius and Wesley had broad commonalities in their ministries. Both were passionate about God and Christ, both were passionate about living lives dedicated to discipleship and service, both were concerned with the development of people's prayer lives and both were concerned about practical help for the poor.

I also think that both men were "reformers" in the broad sense of the word - calling the Church of their time out of an institutionalised religion and into genuine service. Both were absolutely passionate about what Catholics term "Apostolic Ministry" and what Protestants term "The Social Gospel".

I love both St. Ignatius' prayer of commitment and John Wesley's covenant prayer. I'm not the first to spot the similarities, but one has to wonder whether Wesley's prayer was influenced by Ignatius' prayer. Or perhaps both prayers simply sprang spontaneously from the commitment that these two men felt for God?