Incarnatio: Scripture & Culture in Wesleyan Perspective

From Methodist to Mainline: The Untold Story by @GeorgeGHunter

noreply@blogger.com (Matt O'Reilly) — Tue, 21 May 2013 15:29:00 +0000

How did Methodists become mainline? In his book, The Recovery of a Contagious Methodist Movement, George Hunter argues that it was no accident. He writes:

At one point in history, following the 1968 merger of The Methodist Church and The Evangelical United Brethren Church that became The United Methodist Church, Methodism was substantially, and quietly, steered toward a generic mainline destination. What I am about to report was never prominent in the public discussions before, or after, the merger (emphasis added). In those years, I was on the staff at the Board of Evangelism, and then on the Perkins faculty, and then on the staff of the Board of Discipleship. In those years, some senior denominational executives were informing staff people that what the merger was really about was becoming a "New Church." These leaders were good people who meant well; like leader-groups in most generations, they convinced themselves that they knew best. So becoming a New Church would involve one major shift: our church would become much less Methodist and much more mainline - like the Presbyterians, Lutherans, Episcopalians, and so on.

We had already drifted in that direction; now we were being navigated in that direction. Ironically, much of Methodism's theological academy was becoming more Methodist; scholars like Albert Outler, William R. Cannon, and Frank Baker produced the greatest generation of Wesleyan scholarship. But a constellation of denominational executives agreed that they knew better than the early Methodists and their own scholars. The accelerated shift from a Methodist to a mainline identity did not just happen. We were pushed.

Indeed, in those years, the 1970s and 1980s, we managed to become more mainline than our partners. Today, Lutherans are more consciously and recognizably Lutheran, Presbyterians-Presbyterian, and Episcopalians-Anglican, than United Methodists are consciously and recognizably Methodist. We gave up much more than our partners did in the hope that they would welcome us into the mainline club of denominations (9-10).

So, the move from Methodist to mainline was not simply a natural shift, though it may have been initially; we were strategically directed and brought down this path. But what are the repercussions of this move for the people called Methodist? Hunter identifies three.

While most mainline churches moved from Europe to North America as institutionalized national churches, Methodism did not. We were a renewal movement within the Church of England. In institutionalizing as a mainline church, we left our identity as a vibrant movement behind.
Drawing on the work of Scott Kisker, Hunter suggests that the shift to mainline "sucked much of the identity, vitality, and reproductive power out of our once-great movement" (10). Hunter provides two quotes from Kisker that are worth repeating here. First, "When we became mainline, we stopped actually being Methodists in all but name." Second, "For us in so-called mainline Methodism, our 'mainline' identity is killing us and we must surgically remove it if we are ever to regain our health" (Hunter, 10).
Another consequence identified by Hunter might be called our Methodist identity crisis. He suggests that most Methodists have no idea what it means to actually be Methodist. What do we believe that sets us apart and gives us a reason to exist? It has long been cliché that one can be a Methodist and believe whatever she wants. But this poses a variety of problems, not least with regard to evangelism and church preservation (not to mention growth), because "we cannot observe, anywhere, a long line of people eager to join a church that does not know what it believes, or who it is, or so easily changes its mind" (10).

What do you think about Hunter's assessment of the shift from Methodist to mainline? Have you observed consequences of this shift other than those observed above? What are the best resources for getting a better handle on this shift? Is renewal possible? Is there a way of regaining our movemental Methodist identity and vitality?

Who are you in the heavenly realm? (@ministrymatters)

noreply@blogger.com (Matt O'Reilly) — Thu, 16 May 2013 15:11:00 +0000

I enjoyed the opportunity to participate in the most recent edition of the Converge Podcast at Ministry Matters with Shane Raynor, Grace Biskie, and David Dorn. The podcast is a companion resource to Shane's four week Bible study on Who You Are in Christ, which is part of the Converge Bible Studies series. Here's the video in which we discuss a variety of topics including grace, access to God, and the blood of Christ.

@GBCSUMC on Gosnell: What's abortion got to do with it? #UMC

noreply@blogger.com (Matt O'Reilly) — Wed, 15 May 2013 16:18:00 +0000

The General Board of Church and Society (GBCS) has released a statement on the guilty verdict handed down earlier this week in the trial of Kermit Gosnell, who killed numerous newborns and at least one woman. I'm glad the statement from GBCS condemned the horrible crimes committed by the former abortion practitioner as reprehensible. They certainly were. I'm also very glad that the statement does not contradict our United Methodist Social Principles. There are, nevertheless, a variety of features that make the statement inadequate.

Unclear?

The most glaring problem with the GBCS statement is the way it plays dumb on the relevance of the Gosnell trial to the ongoing debate over abortion. GBCS says, "the case has become the latest battlefield in the abortion debate, but it is unclear why." Really? Really?To suggest Gosnell's crimes are unrelated to abortion is so remarkably unbelievable that it boggles the mind. The connection between Gosnell and abortion is clear not only to abortion opponents but to a number of abortion advocates also. Each side draws on that connection to support their own aims, of course; the point is that both see the connection . Taking up the substance of those arguments would have indicated a serious wrestling with the significance of the Gosnell proceedings. Unfortunately, the refusal of GBCS to acknowledge why Gosnell matters with regard to abortion only further undermines the Board's credibility.

Not Quite Accurate

The statement goes on to say that both supporters and opponents of abortion find Gosnell's crimes reprehensible. This only is accurate to a degree. It would have been more accurate to say that some abortion supporters find Gosnell's crimes reprehensible. A growing number of abortion advocates are also calling for the legalization of infanticide. Ethicist Peter Singer has been saying this for years, and others are beginning to join him. The key example is the most recent edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics, which is devoted to debating infanticide and contains articles arguing both for and against the killing of newborns. I point to other examples of this trend in a recent piece for The United Methodist Reporter, and you can follow Michael Bird who is chronicling the "Infanticide Blitz". This is a debate we are now having. Certainly not all supporters of abortion reject infanticide, but GBCS should not lead us to think that supporters of abortion are of one mind with regard to infanticide. Many abortion advocates find Gosnell's crimes horrific, but the arguments that gave us constitutionally protected abortion are being applied to newborns in a growing number of diverse arenas. The folks at GBCS need to read the relevant journals and websites and do their homework rather more carefully in order to stay on top of this highly important issue.

Does Location Matter?

The GBCS rightfully expresses sorrow over those who died at Gosnell's hands: "We mourn the tragic loss of life, as well as the pain and loss Dr. Gosnell has caused countless other women and families." Absolutely. I do, too. What I find puzzling, though, is that this sentiment seems inconsistent with other work in which GBCS engages. For example, GBCS is a member of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC), an organization that fights for unregulated and unrestricted access to abortion. They have praised abortion as holy and sacred work. So, when I read that GBCS mourns the loss of these little lives, I can't help but wonder why given their partnership with RCRC in advancing the abortion agenda? Had these babies been located inside their mother's womb just a few inches in the other direction, GBCS would not have mourned their loss. To the contrary, by affiliating with RCRC, GBCS has insisted on and celebrated the so-called liberty to end the lives of the preborn, even going so far as to suggest that such is the work of the kingdom of God. For the GBCS to argue that children in the womb have no right to life and, at the same time, express their sorrow over the deaths of the newly born is regrettably incoherent.

So, while there are praiseworthy elements in the GBCS statement on Gosnell's verdict, it is with great sadness I write that it remains woefully inadequate. I love the United Methodist Church, but today I am deeply grieved by it. United Methodists should be able to expect far more from our Boards. The underlying political agenda of GBCS is covered by a veil all too thin and one that is seen through far too easily. Near the end of the statement, GBCS says, "Each of us must give an account to God for what we do (or do not do) for our fellow brothers and sisters." Indeed, we must, on both accounts.

How will the #UMC respond to the #Gosnell horror? (@umreporter)

noreply@blogger.com (Matt O'Reilly) — Tue, 07 May 2013 14:25:00 +0000

I am grateful to the editors of The United Methodist Reporter for the opportunity to write a piece on the trial of Kermit Gosnell and how the United Methodist Church should respond. I argue that the system that enabled Gosnell was built on the foundation of Roe v. Wade, and, on that basis, I call for United Methodist agencies to break ties with the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC), an inter-religious abortion advocacy organization. Here's an excerpt:

We must begin by recognizing that this tragic situation follows from the widespread efforts to normalize abortion in the United States. Not all will agree with that conclusion, but a variety of factors suggest its accuracy. Since abortion was declared a constitutional right in the landmark case of Roe v. Wade, the pro-choice movement has worked hard to undermine the full personhood of the preborn. We have been told again and again that the child in the womb is a fetus, not a baby. We are told that abortion is not the ending of a life; it is the termination of a pregnancy. This cold and detached terminology is intended to downplay any emotional reaction to abortion.

The problem is that if a preborn child in the eighth or ninth month of gestation does not have the moral status of a person, why should we think a change of geography from inside the womb to outside the womb suddenly establishes personhood? There is no substantive difference between the preborn and the newly born. If we are desensitized to the death of the former, it will lead us to be decreasingly sensitive to the latter. The road from Roe to Gosnell is a downhill slope.

This connection can clearly be seen in a variety of recent arguments made by abortion advocates. In 2012, bioethicists Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva argued in the peer-reviewed Journal of Medical Ethics for what they called “post-birth abortion.” They claimed that newborns, like fetuses, do not have the moral status of a person and, therefore, the killing of a newborn should be permissible even when the newborn has no disability or defect. Upon the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Mary Elizabeth Williams wrote a piece for Salon.com titled, “So what if abortion ends life?” in which she argued that the child inside the womb is as much a life as the one outside. She did not go as far as Dr. Giubilini and Dr. Minerva by arguing for infanticide, but when you agree that the preborn and the newly born are alive in the same sense, it is a short and logical step from pre-birth abortion to infanticide. More recently, a representative of Planned Parenthood argued to Florida lawmakers that the decision to offer life-saving care to a child born alive after a botched abortion should be left to the mother and her physicians rather than guaranteed by law.

The Reporter also published a response by Rev. Steve Copley on behalf of RCRC. The General Board of Church and Society and the United Methodist Women are both members of RCRC, and both declined the invitation of the editors to respond.

The continued membership of United Methodist agencies in RCRC should disturb us all. Despite the official position of the UMC to support the legal option of abortion, our Social Principles declare: "Our belief in the sanctity of unborn human life makes us reluctant to approve abortion" (Book of Discipline para. 161.J). In contrast, rather than affirm the sanctity of unborn human life, RCRC insists on the sanctity of destroying unborn human life. In a collection of worship resources published and endorsed by RCRC and entitled Prayerfully Pro-Choice, abortion is described as a "God-given right" (8) and "a sacred choice" (88). The positions of the UMC and RCRC are mutually exclusive. United Methodists should hold our agencies accountable and call upon them to exit the abortion advocacy business.

Are denominations worth it? (@9MarksOnline)

noreply@blogger.com (Matt O'Reilly) — Wed, 01 May 2013 14:57:00 +0000

I'm grateful for the opportunity to take part in a roundtable discussion for the 9 Marks Journal on the question: are denominations worth it? The other participants are pastors from a variety of contexts and denominational backgrounds and include Tim Keller, Carl Trueman, Tom Ascol, Tim Cantrell, and Rick Phillips. You can preview the roundtable discussion here, and the full journal should be available soon.

Most of us answered the question with a generally positive view of denominations, though as you read each response you may get the sense that some find denominations to be more "worth it" than others. Several responses focused on the value of connection to foster cooperation between churches in a single denomination. Ascol suggested that denominations are useful in bringing autonomous local churches in the same denomination together as partners in mission. Cantrell praised the cooperation of the Sola5 association of churches in South Africa for their strategic partnership to plant new churches and engage in mission. Keller and Truman, both Presbyterian, find worth in the role of denominations in keeping local church leaders accountable to the larger connection, and Phillips sees value in denominations as long as they don't begin to think that their boundaries are the same as the boundaries of Christ's kingdom.

Taking a somewhat different approach, my own contribution focused on the value of denominations in relationship to each other. I've learned a lot from reading and studying those with backgrounds in other denominations. I hope that exposure to the strengths and distinctives of other traditions has and will continue to improve my own understanding and practice of ministry. I also hope that people in other denominations will learn from the strengths and emphases of our Methodist heritage.

What do you think? Are denominations worth it? Why? Why not? Share your thoughts in a comment below.

Key United Methodist Beliefs by Abraham and Watson (#andcanitbe)

noreply@blogger.com (Matt O'Reilly) — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 16:06:00 +0000

It has sometimes been suggested that "Methodist beliefs" is an oxymoron. Fortunately, an increasing number of voices are working to dispel this false notion. Aside from the simple sociological reality that a group with no common and definitive beliefs is no group at all, United Methodism falls within the broad stream of Protestant orthodoxy, as even a quick look at our Articles of Religion will easily demonstrate. Key United Methodist Beliefs is a new book from William J. Abraham and David F. Watson that clearly sets forth those doctrines that are most basic and central to our Wesleyan heritage and is a must-read for anyone interested in what it means to be a United Methodist.

Practical Orthodoxy

Methodists have long recognized the importance of Christian experience. Sometimes, however, doctrinal integrity has been sacrificed at the altar of personal experience. Perhaps the greatest strength of this book is the way Abraham and Watson consistently hold doctrine and experience together. Each of the first nine chapters begin with a section called "A Wesleyan Faith", in which the basic belief that is the topic of the chapter is explained with particular regard to the life and thought of John Wesley. The initial section is then followed by another called "A Lived Faith", which discusses practical implications of the doctrine, and then there is a section on "A Deeper Faith", which takes up some of the more challenging aspects of the belief under consideration. The authors then summarize the topic through a series of catechetical questions and answers before concluding each chapter with a series of questions designed to aid the reader in working through the issues in their own words. This intentional movement from orthodoxy to orthopraxy - right belief to right practice - will challenge the reader to experience doctrinal contemplation as a formative spiritual discipline rather than a detached intellectual exercise.

Distinctly Methodist

While the authors show how Methodist theology falls squarely within the the boundaries of historic Protestantism, they also do a great job of pointing us to that which distinguishes the Methodist voice from others. This is seen especially in their discussion of sanctification in chapter 6, which takes up the question: "What is Salvation?" Wesley is known for his doctrine of Christian perfection or entire sanctification, which Abraham and Watson explain with clarity:

With God's help, however, we can reach a point whereby we do live without sinning. At least, we do not sin intentionally. Wesley called this Christian perfection or entire sanctification. Wesley did not mean that we become perfect in the sense that we are free from error, mental or physical disabilities, or temptation. Rather, he simply meant that the Holy Spirit can work within us to such an extent that we no longer willfully sin (78, italics original).

This aspect of our Wesleyan heritage has been neglected in much recent and contemporary Methodism. Hopefully, Abraham and Watson will help us to recapture this doctrine for which Wesley himself believed God raised up the people called Methodists with the specific purpose of proclaiming.

This little book will be useful in a variety of settings and will be suitable in a local church adult education course, a new member class, or even as a textbook in a seminary course on United Methodist doctrine. Whether you are a lifelong Methodist or new to our denomination, Key United Methodist Beliefs will illumine and sharpen your understanding of what it means to be a part of the Wesleyan tradition. It will be the first resource I turn to in order to help others gain a better understanding of the transformative power of Wesleyan doctrine. I hope others will do the same.

Were Paul's Letters Really Substitutes for his Preaching?

noreply@blogger.com (Matt O'Reilly) — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 20:51:00 +0000

It's fairly common to hear that Paul's letters were crafted in order to communicate what he would have said were he able to be present with the communities to which he wrote. He would rather be there to speak to them face-to-face, but since that is not possible, for whatever reason, he resorted to letters. While it's certainly true that Paul often desired to and did visit his churches in order to minister in person, I wonder more and more to what degree he really intended the letters to function as regrettable substitutes for personal presence. Two verses in 2 Corinthians drive the question.

First is 2 Corinthians 10:10, "I myself, Paul, appeal to you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ - I who am humble when face to face with you, but bold toward you when I am away." Paul here recognizes that his face-to-face interaction with the Corinthians is of a different character than his letters. His presence is marked by humility; his letters by boldness. He is so aware of this difference that he seeks to mitigate the typical perception of his letters as bold by declaring the gentle nature of the present appeal. The second instance comes just a few sentences later as Paul is describing what others say about him, "For they say, 'His (Paul's) letters are weighty and strong, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible" (10:10). Here again Paul acknowledges that his speech is perceived differently than his written letters.

Two things. First, all this leads me to wonder whether Paul really saw his letters as substitutes for what he would say if present with the churches. If he knew that his verbal interaction with the Corinthians was distinctly different from his written correspondence, why should we think his letters record what he would have said were he present? Further, if there is something Paul really wants to say, but is concerned that his poorer ability to engage in person might negatively effect the success of his argument, then we might expect him to write a letter instead, especially if he thought his letters more rhetorically effective. Perhaps, knowing he had a rather difficult and important case to make, he preferred to use a letter instead of a personal visit in order to avoid coming off as weak and unpersuasive. Being more proficient at writing than oratory, he opted for the former. Not to say this is always the case, but it may sometimes be.

Second, in the case of 2 Corinthians 10, we may actually be hearing what Paul would say were he present with the Corinthians. Indeed, he seems to indicate that in 10:11. He intentionally reminds them that he is humble in person and goes to great lengths to help them hear his meek and gentle tone. He's propping up the argument by appealing to the character of his personal presence. So, in this instance, he may be writing what he would have said were he present. But, it seems, this could be the exception to his normal practice. Thoughts?

When Convictions Collide: #Gosnell, Abortion, and Capital Punishment

noreply@blogger.com (Matt O'Reilly) — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 14:48:00 +0000

I've said before that I oppose the death penalty for the same reason that I oppose abortion. When it comes to questions of life and death, we should err on the side of life. But in the last week these twin convictions have come into tension, perhaps I should even say conflict. One of these two convictions, both of which are based on the principle of the immutable value of human life, has been challenged, and by the other conviction no less.

What has precipitated this conflict of conviction? It is the capital murder trial of abortionist Kermit Gosnell. Abortion is the greatest moral and justice issue of our day. It is a horror, and the crimes of which Gosnell stands accused are particularly horrific. He delivered these little ones, endowed with the image of their creator, and he decapitated them. It is exceedingly unlikely that he will be acquitted of the charges. And since he is charged with capital murder, he may face the death penalty.

In recent years I've found myself increasingly hesitant to support capital punishment. I don't think capital punishment is necessarily unjust. I don't think that the government has no right to deliver capital punishment. It is simply that, in matters of life, I believe mercy is to be preferred. Such mercy is usually undeserved, but that is, after all, what makes it mercy.

I believe that God has made all people in his image and they are, therefore, persons of sacred worth, and nothing they can do can strip them of the divine image they bear. They may mar and profane that image, but the image remains. God desires that all people come into a saving relationship with him, a relationship of life-giving love. The conditions of entrance into this relationship are repentance and faith in Jesus Christ, who was crucified for our sins and raised bodily from the dead that we might be justified in God's sight. I also believe in hell. And when a person dies an unnatural and premature death, no matter how evil their acts, my heart cringes as the possibility that they might not enjoy forever the fullness of the presence of God in the new creation. I want people to get every possible chance to be found by Christ, to be joined to him in his death in order that they might also share his life. To borrow from C.S. Lewis, "Die before you die; there is no chance after."

But as I learned last week in greater detail the heinous crimes of which Gosnell stands accused, I found myself not wanting to maintain my principled stance against capital punishment. My opposition to abortion was embattled with my opposition to the death penalty. I am generally opposed to capital punishment, but in this case, in the case of countless slaughtered babies, I found myself willing to make an exception. So much for principle.

Then an article by Robert George came across my feed. It was titled, "A Plea for Mercy for Kermit Gosnell". Here is what he said:

Kermit Gosnell, like every human being, no matter how self-degraded, depraved, and sunk in wickedness, is our brother—a precious human being made in the very image and likeness of God. Our objective should not be his destruction, but the conversion of his heart. Is that impossible for a man who has corrupted his character so thoroughly by his unspeakably evil actions? If there is a God in heaven, then the answer to that question is “no.” There is no one who is beyond repentance and reform; there is no one beyond hope. We should give up on no one.

If our plea for mercy moves the heart of a man who cruelly murdered innocent babies, the angels in heaven will rejoice. But whether it produces that effect or not, we will have shown all who have eyes to see and ears to hear that our pro-life witness is truly a witness of love—love even of our enemies, even of those whose appalling crimes against innocent human beings we must oppose with all our hearts, minds, and strength. In a profoundly compelling way, we will have given testimony to our belief in the sanctity of all human life.

Our objective should be "the conversion of his heart." I almost wished I had not read it, but George nailed me at the very place in which I was beginning to negotiate my principles. I couldn't argue the point. He was right. It took me a couple of days to admit it, but he was right.

Let me be clear. If Gosnell is guilty of the crimes with which he is charged, he deserves the death penalty. If he did the things of which the grand jury indictment accuses him, if he is guilty of the acts of evil described by the witnesses against him, capital punishment would be justice done. I do not dispute that.

But what sort of message would it send to the world if we who define ourselves as "pro-life" plead for the life of Kermit Gosnell? What if granting him the very mercy that he withheld from those defenseless children and vulnerable women could be used as a means of grace by the God who raised Jesus from the dead to penetrate the cold, hard, and murderous heart of that abortionist doctor? What if he spent the rest of his days in prison confronted with knowledge that the people of God who hated his crimes were praying for his redemption? What if?

For these reasons, and despite my sinful desire for retribution, I'm adding my voice to the pleas for mercy for Kermit Gosnell. May he live out his days in prison, but may he live. And may the grace of God overcome the hardness of his heart that he may know and enjoy the God who has life in himself. May God grant him to become that which he is not, a man of mercy; and may God fill his heart with perfect love. And may the world know that the God who raised Jesus from the dead is God alone.

The Gospel and Dr. #Gosnell (@TheIRD)

noreply@blogger.com (Matt O'Reilly) — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 15:19:00 +0000

The team at Juicy Ecumenism was kind enough to publish my reflections on a few things the church must learn from the initial silence on the Gosnell trial by mainstream media outlets. Here's an excerpt:

Abortion and infanticide are two stops on a single road, and the road has a downhill slope. Make no mistake. The current situation in which abortion practitioners are engaging in infanticide is the result of our desensitization by the decades long effort to devalue and destroy the lives of the preborn. Sin and death always look for new territory to conquer, and having eradicated the safety of the womb, they now proceed to do violence against the newly born. They will not stop until infanticide is canonized as a basic constitutional right of free choice. Then they will move on to wreak havoc and destruction elsewhere.

Don't believe me? It's already happening. As I've indicated above, a representative of Planned Parenthood has argued that ending the life of a child born after a botched abortion should be a decision left to the woman and her doctor. Sound familiar? The exact same language that was used to normalize abortion-on-demand is now being applied to infanticide. In 2011, two bioethicists argued in the peer-reviewed Journal of Medical Ethics that ending the life of a newborn, which they nonsensically call "after-birth abortion", is moral and should be permitted under law. Sure, there is outrage now, but give it a little time. Congressional testimony and the scholarly opinions of allegedly respected ethicists are significant steps down the path to what will one day be horrifically called safe, legal, and rare infanticide. It would take only a single lawsuit heard by the Supreme Court in which the petitioner claims an undue burden in maintaining the life of a newborn baby to change the law of the land. We aren't there yet, but we are closer than we think.

The rest of the essay considers how the gospel should inform the church's response to the Gosnell horror. Read it here.

Enemy Love and the Challenge of Holiness (#andcanitbe)

noreply@blogger.com (Matt O'Reilly) — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 15:14:00 +0000

Here's an extended quote from Marcus Borg that does a great (and somewhat discomforting) job applying Jesus' command for enemy love by considering it in light of the original context.

"Love your enemies" thus had the connotation of "Love your non-compatriots." What would this have meant in teaching directed to Israel in the late twenties of the first century? It had an inescapable and identifiable political implication: the non-Jewish enemy was, above all, Rome. To say "Love your enemy" would have meant, "Love the Romans; do not join the resistance movement," whatever other implications it might have had. That it would carry this meaning in a milieu of political conflict is illustrated by what the saying would be understood to mean when uttered in a modern situation of conflict, whether in Northern Ireland or Central America or elsewhere. To say "Love your enemies" would have a concrete as opposed to generalized meaning. It would not simply inculcate a discarnate attitude of benevolence, but would meant to eschew acts of terrorism and revenge" (Conflict, Holiness, and Politics in the Teaching of Jesus, 142).

The most important feature of this paragraph is the way it pushes us to think concretely about the identity of our enemies. Borg is right that when we read Jesus' command to "Love your enemies" we tend to think of that as vague kindness or simply being a generally nice person. You know, not getting too mad when someone cuts you off in traffic. But the implications are much more striking and serious when we consider that Jesus spoke those words in a day when Israel was being occupied and heavily taxed by the world's most powerful military. Borg argues that Jesus' conflicts with various parties arose out of competing visions of holiness. Some saw holiness as rigorous law observance; others as purifying and preparing oneself to do battle with the enemies of God and his people. It was a time when powerful social and cultural forces pressured young Jewish men to join resistance movements against Rome. Against these movements, Jesus challenged his hearers to think of holiness in terms of love, and love for enemies not least. He taught that holiness was manifest in bearing the burdens of the occupying forces and interceding before God on behalf of those who levied taxes so heavy it was near impossible to put food on the table. That's tough. Real tough. Jesus' command for enemy love stands in stark counter-cultural contrast to the typical perspectives of his day.

How do we appropriate this for the church today? Borg's book was originally published in 1984; so his references to modern day conflict are somewhat dated. But if you want to feel the force of Jesus' command, pause for a moment to consider it in light of ongoing world conflicts. Then read Matthew 5:46-48 and ask yourself (if you dare): Who are my enemies? Who are the people who seek to do me harm? Do I love them? Do I pray for them? Do I believe Jesus? Am I obeying him? Am I holy?

A Must-Read for Theology Students

noreply@blogger.com (Matt O'Reilly) — Mon, 08 Apr 2013 15:32:00 +0000

If you are in seminary or thinking of going, Michael P. Jensen has written a book that you need to read. It's called How to Write a Theology Essay, and it will only benefit you as you prepare for the task of serious theological writing. Jensen teaches at Moore Theological College in Sydney, and in this book he has summarized countless conversations with students on crafting and composing a solid theology paper. The focus is on the theological writing in general, but it could be easily applied to biblical studies or historical theology with minimal adjustment. I wish I'd had a resource like this before beginning seminary. Jensen covers a number of topics about which I asked professors as I worked on papers for their classes. Many of the issues he covers were ones I simply had to learn the hard way or figure out by looking at model papers. If you read this short book before you get started or while you are still in your theology degree, it will save you a lot of trial and error time. Read it now to save yourself a lot of guesswork.

All the chapters are practical and full of important tips. Especially helpful were the chapters on analyzing questions, how and what to read, advice on quoting, and different types of argumentation. Read and re-read the chapter on how to treat your opponents. The book is bound together in that all of the chapters are working to help you move beyond summary work to engaging in the higher learning skills of evaluating, synthesizing, and analyzing, which are essential to balanced and critical thought.

This book is also important because, in my experience, there was not a great deal of instruction on how to write a paper in seminary. It is generally assumed that graduate students in the humanities know how to write a research paper. But seminary is something of a different bag. Many students who come to seminary don't have a background in the humanities. They may have math, science, or engineering backgrounds and, having experienced a call to ordained ministry, decided to go to seminary. Sadly, even many students who come out of a humanities undergraduate program are still quite weak on their writing. Jensen's book will help you through the challenges and get you up to speed on how-to matters that your seminary profs will expect you know.

This book will only help you learn to communicate more effectively and elegantly. It is a witty and humorous read that you will want to keep around for consultation. You will not be disappointed.

What has been your experience with paper writing in seminary? Do you feel well-prepared or under-prepared for the task? If you have finished seminary, what do you think about as you look back at paper writing? Did you find it important? If so, why? If not, do you think more instruction on writing a good paper would have made the exercise more productive?

Three Things this Methodist Learned from Calvinists

noreply@blogger.com (Matt O'Reilly) — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 14:00:00 +0000

The Gospel Coalition was kind to publish a piece of mine on a few ways I've been influenced by reading and listening to Reformed authors and teachers. Here's the intro:

C. S. Lewis once cautioned against the blindness inherent in every age. Like others in our day, he warned, we are "specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes." For Lewis, the solution was reading old books. New books share the presuppositions of our time; old books challenge our generational narrow-mindedness. The same warning could be issued with regard to theological tradition. If we read only those who share our basic framework and agree with us on most things, then we nurture devotional and theological nearsightedness. To counteract this tendency, we ought to be disciplined in reading other traditions and perspectives, not just to critique them but also to discover what we can take in from them. We may be surprised to find how much we have to learn.

I'm a United Methodist pastor, but I've learned a lot from reading Reformed authors and listening to Reformed preachers. While we certainly disagree on some important matters, we also stand together in the broad stream of Protestant orthodoxy. I've learned there is great wisdom and insight to be gained from Reformed voices both past and present. Here are three ways in particular that I've benefited from the Reformed tradition.

Click through to find out what those three things are.

Christ the Lord Is Risen Today

noreply@blogger.com (Matt O'Reilly) — Sun, 31 Mar 2013 12:21:00 +0000

Ye choirs of new Jerusalem

Your sweetest notes employ

The Paschal victory to hymn

In strains of holy joy.

How Judah's Lion burst his chains,

And crushed the serpent's head;

And brought with him, from death's domains,

The long-imprisoned dead.

From hell's devouring jaws the prey

Alone our Leader bore;

His ransomed hosts pursue their way

Where he hath gone before.

Triumphant in his glory now

His sceptre ruleth all,

Earth, heaven, and hell before him bow,

And at his footstool fall.

While joyful thus his praise we sing,

His mercy we implore,

Into his palace bright to bring

And keep us evermore.

All glory to the Father be,

All glory to the Son,

All glory, Holy Ghost, to thee,

While endless ages run. Alleluia! Amen.

-N. T. Wright

A Meditation for Holy Saturday

noreply@blogger.com (Matt O'Reilly) — Sat, 30 Mar 2013 13:57:00 +0000

Here's the opening chorus from N.T. Wright's Easter Oratorio, a meditation of hope for this Holy Saturday.

On the seventh day God rested

in the darkness of the tomb;

Having finished on the sixth day

all his work of joy and doom.

Now the word had fallen silent,

and the water had run dry,

The bread had all been scattered,

and the light had left the sky.

The flock had lost its shepherd,

and the seed was sadly sown,

The courtiers had betrayed their king,

and nailed him to his throne.

O Sabbath rest by Calvary,

O calm of tomb below,

Where the grave-clothes and the spices

cradle him we did not know!

Rest you well, beloved Jesus,

Caesar's Lord and Israel's King,

In the brooding of the Spirit,

in the darkness of the spring.

Athanasius on the "Conquest of the Cross"

noreply@blogger.com (Matt O'Reilly) — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 19:59:00 +0000

Easter is around the corner. So, I thought I'd share this gem from St. Athansius' On the Incarnation.

A very strong proof of this destruction of death and its conquest by the cross is supplied by a present fact, namely this. All the disciples of Christ despise death; they take the offensive against it and, instead of fearing it, by the sign of the cross and by faith in Christ trample on it as on something dead. Before the divine sojourn of the Savior, even the holiest of men were afraid of death and mourned the dead as those who perish. But now that the Savior has raised His body, death is no longer terrible, but all those who believe in Christ tread it underfoot as nothing and prefer to die rather than deny their faith in Christ, knowing full well that when they die, they do not perish, but live indeed, and become incorruptible through the resurrection...So has death been conquered and branded for what it is by the Savior on the cross. It is bound hand and foot, all who are in Christ trample as they pass and as witness to Him deride it, scoffing and saying, "O Death, where is thy victory? O Grave, where is thy sting?"

We often focus on the importance of Christ's work on the cross in purchasing our forgiveness for sin. It is that, and we must not ignore that. However, Athanasius would have us see the implications of the cross more broadly. Christ's death and resurrection is nothing less than the defeat of death, and followers of Christ now deride it as no terrible thing, for it is utterly defeated. Gospel indeed!

360-Degree Holiness: @calvintsamuel Lectures @WesleyBiblical (#andcanitbe)

noreply@blogger.com (Matt O'Reilly) — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 15:16:00 +0000

I finally got around to downloading and listening to the Chamberlain Holiness Lectures delivered last fall by Rev. Dr. Calvin T. Samuel at Wesley Biblical Seminary. I'll say first that I wish had not waited so long. Anyone interested in what the Bible has to say about holiness needs to listen to these talks - multiple times. Samuel is Director of the Wesley Study Centre in Durham, England, and his work in these lectures is winsome, wise, relevant, and scholarly. These talks have challenged and illumined my thinking on biblical holiness in a variety of ways. Here's a quick overview and a couple of points that I found particularly important.

The first lecture takes up a variety of introductory issues related to the importance of holiness, what holiness looks like, and how it is attained. If you only listen to one of the talks, be sure it is this one. It will give you a good introduction to the significance of holiness not only in our readings of scripture but in all of life. The second lecture provide a rich picture of holiness by tracing the motif in the Old Testament through the priestly, prophetic, and wisdom traditions. The third looks at holiness in Paul, and the fourth takes up the relationship between holiness and purity in the ministry of Jesus. All in all, Samuel demonstrates an impressive knowledge of holiness in both testaments and in the secondary literature that will push us to think more carefully about the way scripture deals with the topic.

Missional Holiness

I greatly appreciated what Samuel calls "360-Degree Holiness", which is also the name of the lectures. By this, Samuel means that God's sharing of his own holy character with us should transform us in such a way that we engage the world in mission to further spread God's holiness. One of the ways Samuel fleshes this out is by contrasting holiness as a defensive posture with holiness as an offensive posture. A defensive attitude toward holiness seeks to protect holiness from the things that defile it. In contrast, an offensive attitude toward holiness sees holiness itself as an agent that transforms the unclean into that which is pure. This offensive posture, Samuel argues, characterizes the ministry of Jesus. When Jesus touched a dead body, he wasn't worried about becoming ceremonially unclean. Rather, the dead body was transformed into a living body. That which once defiled has become pure by means of his touch. This raises questions with regard to our own posture toward holiness. Do we see holiness as something that needs to be protected? Or do we see it as a powerful agent that transforms the world?

The Eschatological Nuance

One particularly important topic that Samuel takes up is what he calls the eschatological nuance. This is a way of getting at the tension in scripture (and particularly in Paul) that we live in a time of tension in which the reign of Christ and the kingdom of God have been inaugurated even though sin and death have not been finally exiled from God's good creation. Samuel emphasizes that holiness belongs to the age to come and is experienced presently only in anticipation of the consummation of the kingdom.

This is something Wesleyans need badly to wrestle with. We tend to refer to entire sanctification as full salvation. However, all holiness is an anticipation of the ultimate (and full) salvation that will be ours when Christ comes and raises our bodies from the dead. The perfection of our holiness in the present serves to point forward to the magnificence of God's transforming power that will be fully manifest when he transforms our bodies from humility to glory and from death to life. The present transformation of our character points forward to the final transformation of our whole self, including our bodies. As far as I can tell, and I've looked into it a bit, this is not something that Wesleyans have generally taken on board in the way we talk about holiness. It is, nevertheless, the way the Bible talks about holiness. In this way, Samuel's work in these lectures challenges Wesleyans to constantly ground our vision of holiness in biblical revelation.

These are just a couple of ways these lectures have impacted my thinking with regard to holiness. They can be downloaded from the WBS podcast page. Scroll down until you see the four entries titled "Chamberlain Lectureship Series." Or, if you prefer, the transcripts can be downloaded from the main event page; the transcripts include footnotes which will aid you in tracking down the sources with which Samuel interacts. If you are at all interested in holiness - and you very well should be! - attend to these talks with care.

Review: The Quest for the Trinity (@ivpacademic) by Stephen R. Holmes

noreply@blogger.com (Matt O'Reilly) — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:30:00 +0000

We continue in the midst of what has often been called a "Trinitarian revival," but with The Quest for the Trinity, Stephen Holmes argues that the revival would be more properly termed a revision. He writes:

I argue that the explosion of theological work claiming to recapture the doctrine of the Trinity that we have witnessed in recent decades in fact misunderstands and distorts the traditional doctrine so badly that it is unrecognizable (xv).

Having spent the last several years dipping into the literature on the doctrine of God, both ancient and modern, I was, to say the least, somewhat jarred by this claim. The so-called revival has been received with enthusiasm by many in all the major Christian traditions, and welcomed as a promising foundation for ecumenical dialog. After all, if there is one thing Christians can agree on, it is the Trinity. That Holmes would challenge the consensus by arguing that the contemporary debates are in fact a departure from the historic formulations of the doctrine of God points to the value of this book. Whether or not one agrees with Holmes, anyone interested in the doctrine of God and the way it has been handled by modern theologians will have to engage the argument of this book.

That argument begins with a survey of 20th century treatments of the Trinity including the particularly noteworthy contributions of Barth, Rahner, and Zizioulous (chapter 1). Among the contemporary writers Holmes finds a common interest in locating the doctrine of God in the gospel narratives, a focus on the personal nature of God, the entanglement of the life of God with world history, and the univocal use of language with regard to God and the created order. Chapter 2 takes up the biblical material and provides a critical analysis of the way the relevant texts have often been read. The rest of the book (chapters 3-9) traces the way the doctrine of the Trinity has been handled from the Patristic period to the present.

Holmes finds general consensus with regard to the doctrine of the Trinity up through the time of the Reformation. He even casts doubt on the oft repeated idea that the doctrine of the Trinity was lost prior to the present revival of interest. Even during the anti-Trinitarianism of the Enlightenment, there were numerous theologians arguing for the historic doctrine. From the ancient church through to the Reformation, Holmes identifies a common interest in using all of scripture (not just the gospels) as a basis for Trinitarian thinking, an insistence on the ineffable and simple unity of the divine nature, and the recognition that language about God could be adequate, though always inexact. When compared with the many and various approaches to the Trinity in the modern period, Holmes finds these concepts generally absent and sometimes even rejected. As a result, he sees the extensive interest in and writing on the Trinity as a departure from the historic doctrine. Holmes certainly recognizes what is at stake if he is right about the irreconcilable differences between the ancients and the moderns. If the more recent formulations are right, then "we need to conclude that the majority of the Christian tradition has been wrong in what it has claimed about the eternal life of God" (2).

In my judgment, Holmes is correct that many modern theologians depart in substantial ways from the historic formulations of the Trinity, though I am hesitant to issue a blanket statement that all recent writers commit such a departure. I think we must recognize that the task of modern Trinitarian theology is not quite the same as that of the ancients. The ancients had the great responsibility of forging language that accurately reflected the truth about God in scripture and the worship of God in the church. Theirs was a foundational task, and we do not have to repeat the work that they have already done so well. The task of Trinitarian theology in the present is to explore the implications of the historic doctrine. It sometimes sounds as if Holmes is suggesting that anything other than a repetition of the ancient formulations is a departure from them; but is it not the case that we can stand on their work to consider further and unforeseen implications? Holmes is certainly right that some modern writers completely revise the doctrine of the Trinity. However, the charge is less clearly substantiated against others. Each new contribution must be weighed on its own merits and evaluated with regard to the degree that it faithfully builds on those who have gone before.

The Quest for the Trinity has much to commend it. Holmes' detailed account of the doctrine of God from the early church up to the present will greatly benefit anyone interested in understanding the historical development of Trinitarianism and will make it a valuable text in courses on the doctrine of God and historical theology. The summaries of the historic formulations give us a criteria to help us judge the degree to which new contributions stand in continuity with or break from the central components of the doctrine. All in all, this is a very valuable book that will help us approach the doctrine of God with heightened care and increased critical awareness.

_____

*Many thanks to InterVarsity Press for a complimentary review copy of The Quest for the Trinity.

Practicing Freedom: A Lenten Reflection

noreply@blogger.com (Matt O'Reilly) — Fri, 22 Mar 2013 12:53:00 +0000

My homily from Ash Wednesday has been published at Seedbed and can be found here. This reflection was born out of reading Douglass Campbell's work on Romans 6. Here's the key quote:

Freedom is not a matter of sheer choice…but of an incremental creation of new possibilities for bodily action that must be learned and internalized...Freedom is therefore complex, communally mediated, and embodied. Above all, it is learned and hence taught, much as someone is only free to play a violin beautifully after years of practice and instruction (Four Views on the Apostle Paul, 132).

What a remarkable thing to say. Campbell's description of freedom cuts against the grain of the way we usually think about freedom as the ability to choose one option or the other. It's not clear to me that such an approach deals adequately with the biblical insistence that we come into the world as slaves to sin and that we are only freed through the gracious act of God in Christ and on the condition of faith in him. Neither does the typical understanding of freedom deal adequately with activities that require the cultivation of a particular skill through extended training and discipline. I am free to play the guitar, but I am not free to play it as well as those who have instructed me over the years. A student who has just learned to form the C chord is not free to play like Robert Johnson. I wonder if this is not one reason that the Christian life and discipline is so difficult for so many of us. Do we recognize that a relationship with the God who formed us in his image cannot be reduced to single moment of choice? Is not our walk with Christ and the freedom that is found in him something that must be practiced? Something in which we must have ongoing training?

I'm interested to hear from you. Does the Campbell quote challenge the way you think about freedom?

James Dunn on Biblical Holiness (#AndCanItBe)

noreply@blogger.com (Matt O'Reilly) — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:10:00 +0000

I was struck by this quote from James D.G. Dunn on holiness in the Bible:

I still want to maintain that wherever the concept of 'holiness' appears in the biblical material, underlying it is the sense of the mysterious otherness and aweful power of the divine, of God, and that the holiness of people, places and things is essentially derivative from that primary source of holiness, 'holy' as related to the divine, to God (169).

This is from Dunn's chapter entitled "Jesus and Holiness: The Challenge of Purity" in Holiness: Past and Present (ed. Stephen Barton; T&T Clark, 2003). A couple of reflections:

Holiness is essentially mysterious in the sense that, apart from divine revelation, it would remain hidden from us. It is other than us and alien to us. Thus, any holiness that is manifest in the life of a human being is derived; it is not absolute. God alone is perfectly holy. God alone is the origin of holiness, the "primary source." We can only be holy if God shares his essential holiness with us.
This means that the character of true holiness is not up for debate or negotiation. God is who he is, and God's holiness is what it is. If we want a part in the holiness of God, we must accept it as God gives it. We do not have the authority to define holiness as we like, and any attempt to do so is a departure from true holiness.
That holiness necessarily comes from God highlights the reality that the holy life is a work of grace. We can actually be holy because it is something God does in us. "Now may the God of peace sanctify you completely...He who calls you is faithful; he will surely do it" (1 Thes 5:23-24).
Taken this way, holiness must also be understood in relational terms. If God alone is holy, and if holiness in us comes only from God, then we must be properly related to God in order to receive his holiness. The people who are in covenantal relationship with God are holy and are to be holy.

Embodied Orthodoxy: In Reply to @umjeremy (#AndCanItBe)

noreply@blogger.com (Matt O'Reilly) — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 12:36:00 +0000

One of my tweeted excerpts from Tom Noble's essay on authentic Wesleyan theology has met with some interesting response. Here's the tweet in question:

Our UMC must listen to Tom Noble: "When they abandon Nicaea & the Reformers, they cease to be 'mainline' & become sidelines."

The replies to that post were varied (and which can be read here), and that exchange has elicited a somewhat more lengthy response from Jeremy Smith, a United Methodist pastor in Oklahoma. Jeremy's concern appears to be twofold. First, he is critical of my view that a joint website to propagate Wesleyan theology ought to have a statement of faith that reflects not only Wesleyan distinctives but historic Christian orthodoxy as well. Second, Jeremy is concerned by readings of Wesley that (he charges) over-systematize his thought. He is also worried about what he sees as "creedal zeal" among some present day interpreters of Wesley, which, Jeremy contends, was foreign to Wesley's own theology. He writes:

Wesley gave us more than Creeds. Wesley gave us more than a systematic theology to ascribe to. He gave us journals, commentaries on the bible, sermons and letters: the lived realities of faith as a model for us to build on. A lived faith-a practiced faith-is closer to John Wesley than any Creed could possibly be (bold original).

A "lived faith", we are to understand, more accurately authenticates Wesleyan theology today, and certainly more than any creeds. I hope I've accurately summarized Jeremy's view, and let me say here that I'm grateful to him for this post. Anytime someone takes the work of another seriously enough to engage with it in an extended way (regardless of the extent to which they agree) it is to be appreciated. I aim to take Jeremy's points with likewise care and seriousness.

To the first of the above criticisms I'll simply say that, were a joint website to come into being, the desirability of some sort of statement of faith or statement of unifying beliefs has been suggested and commended by a number of people involved in the #andcanitbe discussion. This idea is not uniquely mine, and I cannot take the credit, regardless of how much I might like to have it and of how deeply Jeremy desires to grant it.

I want to engage the second concern a bit more deeply. But first we need to be sure we are clear on the nature of the disagreement. The story is told of how Matthew Arnold once fielded the critique that he was becoming as dogmatic as another fellow named Carlyle. Arnold replied, "That may be true; but you overlook an obvious difference. I am dogmatic and right, and Carlyle is dogmatic and wrong." I am defending creedal orthodoxy (with a Wesleyan accent), which is an activity sometimes (and often unfairly) maligned as unhelpfully dogmatic. But when two people are disputing one another's claims about authentic expressions of a particular theological perspective, the question is not of who is being dogmatic but of who is right. As Chesterton said, "Truths turn into dogmas the instant they are disputed," and we are certainly in the midst of dispute. Clarity about the nature of the disagreement will go far in keeping it a charitable one.

Jeremy objects dogmatically to the boundaries by which I define authentic Wesleyan theology. He has an alternative definition with necessarily alternative boundaries. What must not be missed is that we agree that boundaries exist; we agree that not every voice gets it right; we also agree that those voices that get it wrong should be corrected. Otherwise, we wouldn't be writing these long essays on why the other one is wrong. Jeremy's concern results in a double criticism of (1) the way I define authentic Wesleyan theology and of (2) my critique of those who, in my view, use the label inappropriately. What must be recognized is that Jeremy is liable to his own critique. I understand "Wesleyan" like this and not that. He wants it like that and not this. He is worried that my view excludes voices that are properly Wesleyan, but his view is likewise exclusive; the difference is which group gets excluded. He wants me to be more open; I'm asking the same of him.

Now on to the matter of creeds and their alleged contrast with a lived faith. Leaving aside for the moment the issue of "faith" and "creed" being virtually synonymous (a reality that only elevates the peculiarity of the supposed contrast), I would argue that Jeremy unnecessarily creates a dichotomy where none truly exists, between doctrine and life, creed and experience.

To set the "lived faith" of Wesley as manifest in his sermons, letters, journals, and commentaries over and against "Creed" is problematic and misleading if only because Wesley's many and various writings, those "lived realities of faith" that he modeled for us so well, are full of creedal and doctrinal language. The suggestion that Wesley was more interested in the lived experience of faith than he was doctrinal formulation is at best an over-simplification and at worst a false dichotomy. He was interested in both. He gave us both.

This double gift can be seen in the way Wesley's lived faith was intertwined with creedal language and doctrinal formulation. Commenting on the well-known opening verses of the Gospel of John, Wesley speaks of the "unity of essence" between the Father and the Son. This is language that anyone acquainted with the development of the ecumenical creeds will recognize as drawing directly on the homoousios of Nicaea. I agree with Jeremy that when Wesley gave us these commentaries, he gave us a lived experience of faith. And it is in that very place of Wesley's lived experience that he also gives the Nicene Creed.

Jeremy also points to the sermons as evidence of Wesley's non-creedal lived faith. But one need only peruse the table of contents to find homiletic titles like "Justification by Faith", "Original Sin", "On Divine Providence", "Of Hell", and "On the Trinity". Would a man uninterested in passing along creed and doctrine give his sermons such doctrinally formulaic titles? Wesley's sermons were certainly about the lived reality of authentic faith, and they were full of dogma and creed. This is a good place to point to Wesley's interest in placing himself firmly within the stream of the Protestant Reformation. In Sermon 20, "The Lord our Righteousness", Wesley gives extended quotes from Calvin's Institutes to substantiate his commitment to a Protestant formulation of justification. The sermons are precisely where his dogmatic material is to be found.

Perhaps most telling is Wesley's published Journal. Every seminarian knows of Wesley's strangely warmed heart at the meeting on Aldersgate Street. Perhaps no other passage from Wesley presents us more clearly with "the lived realities of faith." And yet there we also find doctrine. Here's the famous quote from May 25, 1738, with the underlying doctrines added in parentheses:

In the evening I went very unwillingly to a society in Aldersgate Street, where one was reading Luther's preface (influence of the Continental Reformers) to the Epistle to the Romans. About a quarter before nine, while the leader was describing the change which God works in the heart (the new birth) through faith in Christ, I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ alone for salvation (salvation by faith); and an assurance (the witness of the Spirit) was given me that He had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death (justification by faith).

That Wesley published his journal for public reading may even suggest that he wanted the reader to pick up on these underlying doctrines. It wasn't mere reflective happenstance; he put it this way on purpose. Wesley intentionally described what is arguably the most important experience of his life with the very language we find in his articulations of key doctrines. These few examples (and there are many more) show clearly why Tom Noble can say that any authentic expression of the Wesleyan tradition will embrace both Nicaea and the Reformers.

So, Jeremy's assertion that "a lived faith...is closer to John Wesley than any Creed could be" falls rather flat because it perpetuates a false dichotomy that cannot stand up to scrutiny when measured against Wesley's own writings. Rather than setting life and creed against one another, Wesley weaved them together into a magnificent tapestry that tells the story of transformation and renewal. Wesley's lived faith embodied historic Christian orthodoxy. He brought the Creeds to life in his preaching and writing. For him, experience and doctrine were inseparable. Indeed, we might even say that, for Wesley, experience brought doctrine to life, and doctrine gave him the language to articulate his experience of God's kindness.

John Wesley did not abandon creed in favor of the lived realities of faith. He transmitted the catholic faith line by line in the many pages that came from his pen. On every page he calls us to experience the very One of whom the creeds speak, the One who is "one in being with the Father," and who "for us and for our salvation...came down from Heaven." Wesley would have us enjoy the life given only by him who "rose again on the third day," and he would have us seek the kingdom that "will have no end." And just as Wesley longed to see renewal in the Church of his day, he would likewise have us encounter afresh "the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life." There is no lived experience of faith apart from the confession: "I believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ his only Son." Soli Deo gloria.

Joel Green on the Centrality of Scripture for Wesley (#AndCanItBe)

noreply@blogger.com (Matt O'Reilly) — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 15:07:00 +0000

Given the ongoing discussion with regard to our "invisible Wesleyan message" and my recent reflections on finding our Wesleyan voice, I thought I'd point to a couple of paragraphs from Joel Green's book, Reading Scripture as Wesleyans. These quotes illustrate the centrality of scripture for Wesley and for the tradition that bears his name.

For the heirs of John Wesley - I will call them "methodists" - the central importance of Scripture in the formation of God's people is nonnegotiable. Evidence for this claim in Wesley is easy to document. Consider Wesley's own words: "Bring me plain, scriptural proof for your assertion, or I cannot allow it" (1). "You are in danger of enthusiasm every hour if you depart ever so little from Scripture" (2). In his eighteenth-century Britain, Wesley and his movement were slandered for their emphasis on Scripture. Like rotten tomatoes, names like Bible-bigots and Bible-moths were tossed at them by their detractors. Wesley wore these derisive words as badges of honor (p. vii).

To push further, we need to recognize that our heritage as Wesleyans is a tradition that underscores the importance of theological formation for biblical interpretation. As Wesleyans, we read with a constant eye to what Wesley called, "the Scripture way of salvation." We read with a constant eye toward the ongoing formation of the people of God in holiness. There are other ways to read the Bible, to be sure. But methodists locate their reading of the Bible within the larger Wesleyan tradition. We read the Bible as Wesleyans. And we need to know what that looks like (p. ix).

Green certainly recognizes that the role of scripture in Methodism has been debated. Nevertheless, his comments help us to take stock of our heritage as we look to the future reflecting on the essential role of scripture in regaining our Wesleyan message.

____
1. John Wesley, Advice to the People Called Methodists with Regard to Dress, 5.1.
2. John Wesley, Farther Thoughts on Christian Perfection.

Related Posts
John Wesley and the Trustworthiness of Scripture
Wesley & God's Concern for His Own Glory

Further Thoughts on Wesleyan Renewal: A Respone to @CraigAdams49 (#AndCanItBe)

noreply@blogger.com (Matt O'Reilly) — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 15:24:00 +0000

I'm grateful to Craig Adams for his thoughtful interaction with my previous post on finding our Wesleyan voice. Craig made some good points to which I'd like to add a few further comments.

Out of Step

I'm glad Craig agreed that entire sanctification is the right place to begin an effort to reclaim a Wesleyan voice. But in his view the challenge is the reality that this is out of step with where most Methodists are theologically. I agree completely, and I think Craig's observation that most Methodists are shocked or confused to learn that something called "Christian perfection" was central to the birth and spread of the Wesleyan tradition. In fact, this was my experience. Though I have been United Methodist from childhood, I didn't start reading Wesley until college. And I was very surprised to discover that he had written a book called A Plain Account of Christian Perfection. I was well into the United Methodist ministerial candidacy process when I discovered this was the defining point of our theological tradition. At first, I was frustrated; then I began studying Wesley's understanding of sanctification and reading books by some living theologians who thought Wesley was on to something. What I found was stunning and compelling. I remember thinking long ago that there had to be more to Christianity than forgiveness, as vital and beautiful as that is. My discovery of Wesley's doctrine of entire sanctification became that something more for which I was looking.

Swimming Upstream

Given the lack of emphasis on Christian perfection among Methodists, Craig further suggests that beginning a renewal effort with a focus on this doctrine will "be an exercise in swimming against the stream." I think he's absolutely right. The point I want to make in response is simply this: that's what makes it renewal. All efforts to renew anything, not least the church, are a matter of swimming upstream. We wouldn't need renewal if something important were not lost; and finding something that has been lost so long that it is no longer missed presents real challenges. We must not be discouraged. Wesley himself knew this reality well. His efforts to renew the Church of England were nothing if not an uphill battle, and entire sanctification was essential to the effort. We may be swimming against the current, but that is in the DNA of Wesleyan revivals.

Both Theology and Practice

I'll take the conversation a step further by pointing to another theme that has come up in the #AndCanItBe discussion on Wesleyan essentials: we need a structure to cultivate the realization of the holiness for which we call. We must have practices that support our theological distinctives. Wesley accomplished this by organizing the early Methodists into groups of varying sizes for discipleship, formation, and accountability. An authentically Wesleyan vision of Christianity will involve both an emphasis on entire sanctification and the practices that enable and cultivate that transformative growth in holiness. The method is essential to the successful appropriation of the theology. The distinctive combination of these two emphases will be essential for another Wesleyan revival.

Finding Our Wesleyan Voice (#AndCanItBe)

noreply@blogger.com (Matt O'Reilly) — Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:55:00 +0000

A conversation has recently begun taking up the question of why the Wesleyan tradition has so very little presence on the web and in social media. UM pastor and Wesley scholar Kevin Watson got the discussion started with a Facebook post which he then followed up with a longer entry on his blog in which he suggested that

"we are not doing a very good job of getting our message out. For at least five years I have heard people raise the lack of visibility of Wesleyans in print publications, for example, with some regularity and frustration. I once heard a UM leader make the point that you would not find hardly any books in Barnes and Noble that were written from a Wesleyan perspective."

I think Kevin's observations are spot on. We Methodists don't have people who are writing books, curricula, and other resources that are widely used outside our tradition. And our web presence in minimal. As a result, our message is not finding a wider audience. This raises the question: How do we find our Wesleyan voice? And how do we get the message out? Here are a few brief reflections on those questions.

Is there a Wesleyan Message?

One challenge that faces any effort to establish a Wesleyan voice to a wider audience is the reality that a variety of groups with very different theological perspectives and agendas lay claim to Wesley's name. Some groups focus heavily on a renewal of John Wesley's own theology and practice while others who take doctrinal stances very different from those of Wesley still invoke his name to advance their particular social program. With this disparity among those who see themselves as heirs of the Wesleyan tradition, it is difficult to find a single and unified voice. And with no particular voice, it's tough to get your message out. Contrast this to another group that is presently growing in influence; when someone tells you they are Reformed, you basically know what they mean.

Discovering our Roots; Finding our Voice

In a more constructive direction, I want to suggest that any authentically Wesleyan message will intentionally emphasize what John Wesley himself emphasized (and I am, by no means, the only person to make this suggestion). You don't have to read much Wesley to recognize that he was convinced that God raised up the people called Methodists to renew the church with the message of entire sanctification. This is our primary distinctive. This is our contribution. We are the people who believe that God's grace is powerful enough and big enough to deal with our sin and produce in us the life of holiness in a comprehensive way. We believe that God can actually transform us such that we live in a way that consistently glorifies his name. We need to rediscover our roots in this doctrine and let it define our voice. Little to nothing else is distinctive about Wesleyan theology. If we do not articulate what is distinctive, then we have no contribution and no voice.

Getting the message out

It's clear that we need to do a better job getting our Wesleyan message out to a wider audience, not least in web and social media. One step towards accomplishing this would be to create a central site that hosted key Wesleyan blogs by scholars, pastors, and other writers. The Gospel Coalition has become a central site for Reformed thinking and, judging by how often you see their material show up in various places, they appear to be doing it with some effectiveness. Any group with a message must have unified voice and a platform, a central website would go a long way in creating both.

What do you think? How can we Wesleyans find our voice and effectively articulate our message to a wider audience?

Why evangelism? It's about worship.

noreply@blogger.com (Matt O'Reilly) — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 16:28:00 +0000

Why must we do evangelism? What is the goal? A great many answers to these questions have been put forward. We do it to see people converted, to see them become disciples of Jesus increasingly conformed to his image. We evangelize out of obedience to Christ, love for the lost, and for the glory of God. All of these reasons are good and right. But there's another word that comes to mind, one that we don't always hear associated with evangelism. What is that word? It's worship. Evangelism is about worship.

In the opening chapter of 1 Thessalonians, Paul celebrates the manner in which the the good news first came to the believers in that city. He says that when he first preached the gospel to them, it came "not in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction" (1:5). For Paul, the gospel is about the saving work of God through the death and resurrection of the exalted Lord Jesus Christ (cf. Rom 1:16-17; 1 Cor 1:18-25; 15:1-4). And evangelism, as the announcement of that good news, is a means of grace by which the Holy Spirit works powerfully to produce conviction in the one who hears enabling them to respond with believing obedience to the message they've heard.

But that is not all that Paul celebrates. That means of grace serves a greater end. Near the end of the same chapter he commends the Thessalonians because word about them has spread to other regions. And what were people saying? They were talking about how the Thessalonians had turned "to God from idols" (1:9). Why does Paul get really excited about evangelism? Why did he give his life to evangelizing the Roman Empire? He did it because there were people out there who did not worship the God who raised Jesus from the dead (cf. 1:10). The goal of evangelism is to bring people into the worship of the one living and true God.

One pastor is well-known for saying that, "Mission exists because worship does not." We can easily, and for the same reasons, say that evangelism exists because worship does not. There are great and untold numbers of people who have not yet come into the life-giving worship of the God made known in Jesus of Nazareth. When they do, our evangelistic imperative will come to an end. But until that day, God has granted his people the privilege of announcing the good news of "the one who loved us and gave himself for us." This is our joyful duty until that day.

Maybe, Maybe Not: Reflecting on Roe 40 Years Later

noreply@blogger.com (Matt O'Reilly) — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 17:51:00 +0000

Forty years ago today the Supreme Court handed down it's decision in the landmark case of Roe v. Wade making abortion-on-demand a constitutionally guaranteed right in every state. I've always been pro-life (my parents left me no choice), but I've never before read the Court's decision in this all-important case. So, yesterday I decided to learn for myself just what it said. The Court's opinion was written by Justice Harry A. Blackmun. The entirety of the document is quite interesting; some of it struck me as naive, though I'm certain it was not; one aspect was shocking.

It appears that the State of Texas made the argument that, "apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy and that therefore the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception." Writing on behalf of the majority, Blackmun simply responded, "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer." This, in my view, is stunning. Allow me to explain why.

Some time ago, I heard John Piper draw an analogy between abortion and hunting. If you go into the woods, he said, and you see something moving but can't quite tell what it is, you don't shoot. It could be the animal you are after, but it could be a person. It could even be your hunting buddy. The potential exists that this movement could be a human being. And if that potential exists, then you don't shoot your weapon at the movement. If you did, and it turned out to be a person, then you would face the criminal charges of manslaughter or perhaps even murder. The point, Piper said, is that if the potential exists that you are destroying a human life, then you do not shoot your weapon. Likewise, when it comes to abortion, if we don't know whether the preborn should be considered human beings, even if we conclude they are potential persons, then we should not abort them. If the potential is there that this is a person, you don't fire your weapon.

Two problems with the Court's reasoning should be clear. First, by finding in favor of Roe and overturning every state statute outlawing abortion, the Supreme Court effectively did precisely what it said it need not do. The written decision may have remained explicitly agnostic with regard to the beginning of life, but by legalizing abortion and denying legal protection to the preborn the Court implied that they are not alive. They are not persons. Second, the Court did not give due weight to the possibility that there may be life there, at least in potential. The Court simply said that it did not know and did not care. If the Court were to walk into the woods and see movement behind a tree, expect a barrage of more than fifty million shells to be unleashed. "Wait," you urge, "might that movement be caused by a human being?" The Court simply responds, "Maybe, but maybe not. No one really knows, after all. So, fire away."
_____
Image courtesy of Salvatore Vuono / FreeDigitalPhotos.net