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.

Sexism and the British Methodist Church

The British Methodist Church is currently asking members and churches to contribute to a consultation on sexism and racism.

After reading a couple of blogs lately, one thought has occured to me with regard to sexism and I offer it as a point of discussion.

I'm not sure that the British Methodist Church takes the theology of 'complimentarianism' seriously. This is a theology that says that men and women are ontologically equal before God but that God requires 'functional subordination' of women to men.

We don't take this theology seriously because we don't hold it. However, 'complimentarianism' is held by many Christians in the United Kingdom including the growing 'New Frontiers' denomination. Complimentarianism is 'preached' by the Calvinist theologian John Piper who seems to be increasingly popular with many younger Christians in the UK as well as in the US.

I think that we need to vigorously refute the theology of complimentarianism and we must not stick our heads in the sand and write it off as a theology that is only held by those on the fringe of Christianity. We need to know why it is that we believe in the equality of men and women before God and we need to be able to articulate good biblical and theological arguments. If we cannot articulate why it is that we believe in biblical equality, then we are vulnerable to the charge that we are just following secular thought. (The organisation Christians for Biblical Equality can provide guidance and reading.)

Birthday

Who would have thought that there were so many 'Happy Fifthieth Birthday' cards in the world? Wonderful Husband gave me a lovely bouquet of flowers. It might sound trite, but I thank the Lord for good health, a wonderful husband and the opportunity to be a new minister in mid-life.

Sermon - Division and Peace

Today's sermon was Division and Peace.

We had a wonderful service with our Anglican neighbours. Theirs is a team ministry that includes three Anglican churches in the area; they all worship together during August. We joined them as Methodists at one of their churches and they will be joining us next Sunday.

How fantastic it was to have almost 100 people in the congregation rather than 20 or 30. There was an awful lot of goodwill and I hope that we can all work together more closely in the future.

Worship

I love this post by Velveteen Rabbi: Shabbat shalom.

I love the joy of worship and the attitude of thanksgiving to God that it conveys.

God and Healthcare

I reckon that this will be controversial, but I'm amazed at the (pejorative adjective deleted) theology that's coming out of the US Christian blogsphere about what they call 'socialised medicine'.

Their main theological argument seems to be that God demands that people help others with a sincere heart. They seem to be arguing that medical care for the poor not be given by the State because this precludes giving 'with a sincere heart'.

Am I the only one who thinks that this logic leads inescapably to the theological conclusion that, 'It's more important to God that the well-off give with a sincere heart than that the less-well-off live a decent life'?

These people typically claim to be 'biblical', but you really have to wonder if any of them have read the Prophets. Are we reading the same bible??? Anyone who reads the bible and sees a God with a heart for the poor and oppressed is apparently creating a theology from their own subjective 'feelings' and is not genuinely biblical ('Give unto Ceaser....' apparently trumps the cows of Bashan). It makes me want to scream. It's like reading an apologetic for Apartheid.

I think that there is another entirely different question about how well State healthcare works. But even with all the problems in the NHS (and they are many), it's nothing near like the hyperbolic statements I'm seeing on US blogs.

The efficient delivery of healthcare is an issue that is separate from Christian theology; we might end up honestly disagreeing about what the best delivery system is. However, I wish Christians would stop making the argument that God puts the rights of the well-off to decide when and if they give to charity before the needs of the less well-off to live a healthy and dignified life.

Rowan Williams on Christian Marriage

I recently purchased a copy of Open to Judgement, a book of Rowan Williams' sermons published in 1994.


I was quite interested in his sermon - given to a university audience - on the subject of 'Is There a Christian Sexual Ethic?' Like many people, I've been unimpressed with the usual arguments for marriage and monogamy that are made by Christians, even though I agree that monogamous, faithful, lifetime partnerships are the best way to work out Christian discipleship in the sexual arena.

Below is my personal attempt to briefly outline the ideas in this sermon.


===

For many in our culture, it won't do to simply try to assert 'simple, traditional, biblical' teaching in the area of sexual ethics. Ours is a culture that prizes individuality and experimentation. People believe their circumstances are more varied than tradition allows and they believe that they need the ability to develop by trial and error.

Many individuals, including Christians, operate a sexual ethic on the basis of whether or not a relationship is hurtful or threatening to anyone: me, my partner, or anyone else. Some Christians may feel a little bit guilty at ignoring traditional teaching but they feel that they can't take it seriously.

Both the traditional approach and the 'new approach' (my term) have some Christian principles. The first talks of sacrificing one's own immediate gratification for the sake of discipline. The second talks of honesty, care, and taking responsibility for one's own choices.

Both approaches show an awareness that sexuality is a place of powerful emotion but both also suggest that people can 'get it right' once we understand the correct principles.

The problem is that the Christian Gospel is sceptical about me getting it right. It's sceptical about the usefulness of rules in getting it right and it's sceptical about using 'inner conviction and sincerity' to get it right. If the scepticism is correct then neither legalism nor good intentions will deliver a properly Christian sexual ethic.

However, the Gospel addresses itself to the 'deepest strata of injuredness and self-dividedness.' The Gospel says that 'pain, powerlessness, injury, despair, bewilderment, are laid open to a God who does not condemn or desert, but works tirelessly in the middle of our very betrayls and evasions to bring life.'

If life can communicate the meanings of God, then one's sexuality can be sacramental and speak of mercy, faithfulness, transfiguration and hope. The writer of the letter to the Ephesians tells us that married love is an image of the love between Christ and the Church. Christ gives himself up for the sake of his people and becomes dispossesed for the sake of another's life. In marriage, the husband's sacrifice is mirrored by the wife's obedience and both become dispossesed for the sake of the other. 1 Corinthians 7:3ff talks of mutual rights and belonging whether neither partner owns or governs their own body but makes it over to the other.

Married love is sacramental because it involves a lasting, not just momentary, resignation of control. It is a yielding to the other, a putting your own body at the disposal of another for that other's life or joy. What God has done for our life and joy we learn to do for God's joy: the joy in heaven over the return of the lost.

Within the Christian tradition, this surrender normally take place within marriage. Why? Partly because instinct warns us of the destructive energy that is the shadow side of sexual passion. 'Making oneself over' to another is always risky, especially if it is not a mutual exercise but an asymmetric one; I may give myself over to someone's greed or egoism.

Our yielding to God would be terrifyingly uncertain if we did not take it for granted that God was 'faithful', bound to us by covenant and by solemn self-commitment. This is why Christian tradition wants to talk about fidelity as the thing that makes sexuality meaningful in relation to God.

The grace that is to be discovered in nakedness and yielding can be itself when we give up the self-protection of non-commitment, experiment and gratification, when we go down the dangerous route of promising to be there for another person without having a 'get out clause'. A commitment without limits set in advance means that we have a lifetime to 'create each other' together. Without commitment, a relationship is in danger of one person turning themself over to another who manipulates them.

Williams says that our main question with regard to Christian marriage should not be 'Am I keeping the rules?' nor should it be 'Am I being sincere and non-hurtful?', it should be 'How much am I prepared for this relationship to signify?'

Sermon - The Authority of Jesus

Today's sermon is entitled The Authority of Jesus.

(For lectionary aficionados, the sermon is not based on this Sunday's lectionary reading as I need a spare semon up my sleeve at the moment.)

Sermon - Greed

Last Sunday's sermon which is simply entitled Greed, can be found here.

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.

Gregory of Nyssa on Peace

Today's reading from Celebrating the Seasons is an extract from Gregory of Nyssa's work, On Christian Perfection.

'Christian Perfection' is a concept that is very much part of Methodist tradition and one which many other Protestants found difficult to accept in Wesley's time. I'm of the view (although not everyone agrees with me) that Wesley waivered on what 'Christian Perfection' meant and whether or not it was achievable in this life. Wesley almost certainly would have read Gregory of Nyssa's work. Gregory's view of 'Christian Perfection' seems very different from much of current Protestant tradition.

For those who argue that 'peace' was not at the heart of early Christian tradition, I think this extract is evidence that they are wrong. I was particularly struck how Gregory seems to equate salvation with the death of hostility - expressed hostility as well as 'spiritual' hostility. Gregory exhorts followers of Christ to 'become peace' in order to 'be true to the name of Christ we bear.'

Gregory writes:

'Christ is our peace, for he has made both one.' Since Christ is our peace, we may call ourselves true Christians only if our lives express Christ by our own peace. As the apostle Paul has said: 'Christ has brought hostility to an end.' So it is incumbent upon us not to allow that hostility to be resuscitated in us in any way at all; we must proclaim its death absolutely. God has destroyed it in a marvellous way for our salvation. Thus it is important that we do not allow ourselves to become resentful or to nurse grudges because these things will threaten the well-being of our souls. We must not stir to life by our evil actions the very thing that is better left dead in us.

But because we bear the name of Christ who is peace, we too are called upon to secure the end of all hostility. In this way what we believe with our minds will be professed in our lives. Christ destroyed the dividing wall and brought the two sides together himself, thus making peace. We too, then, should not only seek to be reconciled with those who attack us externally, we should also be actively seeking to reconcile the warring factions that rage within us, so that flesh and spirit are no longer in constant opposition. Then, with our minds stable and our flesh subject to the divine law, we will be refashioned into a unified creature, into men and women of peace. When the two have been made one, we shall experience peace within ourselves.

Peace may be defined as a harmony between opposing factions. When, therefore, the civil war in our nature has been brought to an end and we are at peace within ourselves, then we ourselves will become peace. Only then can we be true to the name of Christ that we bear.

More Fun

A bit of fun. I think the Meyers-Briggs is right. I always come out INFJ with not very strong 'I' and quite pronounced 'NFJ'.



Hat tip to: Sally via Dave.

Why I Kinda Like Liturgy

Why I Kinda Like Liturgy - Strange title?

First of all, I want to explain that I'm writing this post from the context of British Methodism. If you happen to be an expert in the history of Christian liturgy or a Vestment Vixen, this post is definitely not for you. This post is my explanation into a denomination where I perceive that congregations generally don't have have much regard for formal, written liturgy and often look down upon it.

Secondly, I use the word 'kinda' because I want to explain what I think is good about formal, written liturgy. Often, I think, Christians assume that if one likes liturgy, one will also hate a service with extempore prayers and/or charismatic worship. I do not hate informal or extempore worship; For me, personally, these two forms of worship serve different purposes; I suspect that they may also reach different types of people and that some people are best reached by formal, written liturgy and others are best reached by extempore worship.

So here is why I 'kinda like' formal, written liturgy.

1) Most worship has 'liturgy' or ritual in it anyway. When I attended a church with informal worship, we always began with three praise songs, two which built us up into praise of God and one which quietened us down a bit to come before God in a prayer of approach. Believe it or not, that's actually liturgy. As are the words 'Oh Lord, we just want to come before you today and bless your holy name.' That's liturgy too. This is probably how the first ancient liturgies got written. People found patterns of worship and words that worked and these were repeated until they eventually got written down.

2) Formal, written liturgy has good theology and is well-written. This is important to me. I don't think I've had any 'bad theological experiences' in Methodism, but I've had them in other informal contexts. What can you do when someone says something in prayer or leading worship that is simply incorrect doctrinally? Not a lot, really. Also, in my experience, the theology expressed in informal worship almost invariably centres around 'having a personal relationship with Jesus' or possibly with 'healing' if it's a healing service. Both are well and good, but somewhat limited. Formal liturgy references all three persons of the Trinity and their work, Christian discipleship and stewardship as well as having a personal relationship with Jesus.

3) Formal, written liturgy links us with Christian tradition. I suspect that for many this might be an argument to abandon formal liturgy altogether! But I don't actually think that Church Tradition has gotten everything wrong all the time. When we use formal, written liturgy, we are not only linking ourselves with other Christian brothers and sisters who are saying those prayers right now, but we also link ourselves with our Christian brothers and sisters who went before us into glory.

4) Formal, written liturgy helps us to pray when we don't have the words to pray ourselves, especially those of us who have not been given the gift of speaking in tongues. People often testify to being held in the practice of prayer during times of emotional distress by saying the Daily Office. Also, one benefit of saying the daily office is that you get into the habit of praying whether you 'feel like' it or not.

I think that the number one criticism I hear of formal, written liturgy is that it is rote and insincere and done by people who don't 'really believe'. As someone who values liturgy and who believes and feels that she is 'really and sincerely worshipping' when she uses it, that can often be hard to hear. That said, I know I've certainly seen and heard liturgies where it appeared that neither the worship leader nor the congregation were getting much out of it. But I think that flags up a danger with respect to written liturgy. I don't think it's correct to say that all practice of formal liturgy must necessarily be insincere.

One of the things I love about Methodism is our 'wide church' approach. We are theologically wide and liturgically wide. I hope that Methodists can respect each other no matter what form of worship they prefer.

N.b. This post is not a criticism of any individual or any group in Methodism. I hope it's not perceived that way. It's been born of some discussion about 'worship styles' both on the internet and In Real Life.

Sermon - Judgement and the Light of Christ

Today's sermon: Judgement and the Light of Christ.

A Blog for 'The Methodist Recorder'???

OK, I'm flummoxed. There is a relatively new blog in cyberspace entitled The Methodist Recorder.

For those who are not 'in the know', the Methodist Recorder is a weekly newspaper for the British Methodist Church. Something like The Church Times, except that The Methodist Recorder doesn't have competitors in the way that The Church Times has The Church of England Newspaper.

Anyway reading through The Methodist Recorder blog, I'm inclinded to think that it is a wind-up. However, it's using the logo and the address of The Methodist Recorder.

Wondering what others think?

The Religious Right

Caveat: This is meant to be an expression of personal opinion. I hope I reason fairly well. I do not, however, make any representation that my opinion has any sort of 'academic' or 'objective' basis. It is merely opinion from observation.

What is the 'Religious Right' and does it have anything to do with being a 'born again' Christian? Indeed does the American 'Religious Right' have anything to do with British Christianity? I think not for a number of reasons.

First of all, I don't think that the 'theology wars' as they are raging in US and UK Christianity are perfectly contiguous. There does seem to be one central issue (homosexuality), and there are intersections between the two battles but I don't think that there is perfect symmetry. That is, I don't think that 'conservatives' or 'liberals' on both sides of the Pond are necessarily battling for all the same things. Show me a conservative Christian in the UK, for example, who is in favour of the death-penalty. There might be an individual or two out there (there always is) but this is hardly a loud voice in conservative British Christianity.

But what is the 'Religious Right'? Let me quote one blogger who identifies as 'Religious Right' rather than quoting the myrid pejorative definitions of 'Religious Right' in cyberspace. This particular blogger thinks that the 'Religious Right' hold as core to their belief system that human beings have a God-given right to life, liberty and private property.

My whole objection to this approach is that it's not even Christian, let alone 'born-again Christian'.

First of all 'rights language' is hugely problematic in the context of orthodox Christianity. I believe (and someone more informed than I can correct me if I'm wrong) that rights language is based in Enlightenment humanism and not Christianity. It might be a reasonable secular translation of the Christian concept of prevenient grace; a secular humanist can hardly quote Psalm 139 or say that God loves everyone equally. But 'I have rights' is an ontological concept - about my very being - that belies what the bible tells us about our original sinful nature. In Christian terms, none of us has rights, but God does offer his love, forgiveness and salvation (grace) to everyone.

The other issue that have a huge problem with as a Christian is the idea that every human being has a right to individual property and individual wealth. This philosophy is the antithesis of the great commandment to love God and love one's neighbour and to be our neighbour's keeper. The love of individual property and the belief in an individual's 'right' (sic) to amass as much wealth as he or she likes is at the heart of the idolatry of American culture.

Note that I'm not talking about 'what economic system works best in a secular context'; that may very well be the political right to individual ownership. But I hope that this is the kind of pragmatism that I believe will be eliminated in The Kingdom when we are all able to follow God's commandments in perfect obedience.[1] My objection is that, in my experience, 'the right to invididual ownership' is truly viewed as a core spiritual value by both the Religious Right and much of American culture. I think it's genuine idolatry.

You'll hardly be surprised that I agree that 'The Religious Right is neither'. As someone who considers myself 'born again' and as someone who believes that the concepts of 'New Birth' and 'The New Creation' are absolutely central to Methodist spirituality and tradtion, I honestly believe that 'The Religious Right' is sub-Christian. Dare I invoke the famous statement: 'There I stand. I can do no other.'

[1] For the avoidance of doubt, I do not believe in 'works-based salvation'. I believe that The New Creation is eschatological and founded on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. The Kingdom is 'not yet' but it is also 'here and now'. The 'Religious Right' also disagrees with the 'the here and now' bit.

Jesus Meme

Over at Perspectives, Crystal has tagged me for the Jesus Meme.

The rules are that those tagged will share 5 things they "love" about Jesus. Then they must choose 5 others to tag. I'm going to break the last rule as I'm on holiday at the moment. I'm also feeling 'blogger's block' in case anyone hasn't noticed!

1) I love Jesus because he is my brother, God incarnate. I love the incarnation because, to me, it means that God cares enough to 'get alongside' humanity.

2) I love Jesus because he is my Saviour. Not content to simply 'get alongside' humanity, the incarnate second person of the Trinity came to save us from our own sinful natures.

3) I love Jesus because he teaches me how to be fully human. By both word and example Jesus sets the example for how God means humanity to be.

4) I love Jesus because he teaches me how to love. Jesus displays a love that is practical and real, a love that perserveres through thick and thin.

5) I love Jesus because he is a healer; his healing love displays the heart of the Father. If we have seen Jesus, we have seen the Father.

Alan Johnston freed

The BBC reporter, Alan Johnston has been freed.

Good news!

Jesus - Suffering Servant, not Conquering Messiah

Here is another excellent commentary on tomorrow's gospel reading, this time from Preaching Peace.

We reject Jesus self-identification [as the Suffering Servant] too when our Christology sacrifices Jesus on the altar of the violent God. Some espouse a Christology in which God has a wrathful (if temporal) relationship with Jesus; a Christology that demands propitiation; a Christology wherein Jesus is scapegoated by God as well as by us. This Jesus gets even in the end, brings justice through violence, “his terrible swift sword.” To the extent that we claim all or part of this Christology, we stand rebuked as well.

Why do I keep going on about this and why do I think it's important? Well, first of all, there is currently a debate going on about 'theories of atonement'. In plain English, Christians are discussing how it is that we come to be reconciled with God. Why does God forgive us?

Some people are quite concerned to say that God forgives us only after his anger at our sin and / or his anger at sinners has been satisfied by the death of his Son. I do not agree with this view and may therefore be representing the view unfairly because it's not my own. As I see it, people who believe this are worried that those of us who don't hold to their view don't believe that sin is a serious thing.

The reason that I have a problem with this view is that I believe that Jesus was quite clear that he came as the Suffering Servant and not as the conquering Messiah. Tomorrow's Gospel reading actually makes that quite clear.

Sin is very serious indeed. The problem is that the idea that violence can be conquered by violence just plays into the 'worldly' agenda in my view. The great myth that our human nature would love us to buy into is the myth that if only my enemies could be destroyed, peace will reign in my heart. It will do. Temporarily. Until I find another person or group to hate.

The only way to achieve peace is to become peacable and act peacfully.

Threats of Judgement: an evangelising tool?

Both in real life and in blogdom, the issue has come up of whether or not threatening unbelievers or heretics with God's judgement is a way of focussing the mind. Some seem to argue that God's judgement is real and therefore should be cited. Others argue that threats of judgement will get the attention of people and possibly convert them where proclamations of God's grace might not.

On that subject, there is an interesting statement mad by Fred Craddock in his Commentary on Luke regarding verse 54 of this Sunday's Gospel reading, Luke 9:51-62.

Craddock writes:

Jesus' disciples remember quite well scriptural precedent for calling down heaven's fire (II Kings 1:9-10), but they have forgotten the recent words of Jesus: when on a mission, acccept the hospitality offered you. If none is extended, shake the dust off your feet and move on (9:1-6). Is it not interesting how the mind can grasp and hold those Scriptures which seem to bless our worst behavior and yet cannot retain past the sanctuary door those texts which summon to love, forgiveness, and mercy? Jesus rebukes James and John for an attitude of revenge and retribution, an attitude totally foreign to his ministry and theirs.

If the apostles were called to leave judgement to the Lord, then I believe we are too.