Methodists are Mythical Creatures #2

For those who did not read last Thursday's post, this is a continuation of it.  You don't necessarily need to read that post to get the gist of what is being said here, but you would do well to read it.  What I am doing is making the assessment that a Methodist is a mythical creature (ie a true Methodist does not exist) if you define Methodist by the same definition of John Wesley.  Again, I point you to the previous post if you are looking for a little more background info and context. (Please don't comment on this post unless you have at least skimmed the beginning of last Thursday's post.)

Again, this post is a response to a tract Wesley wrote entitled "The Character of a Methodist" and we continue in paragraph 6.

6. [A Methodist] is therefore happy in God, yea, always happy, as having in him "a well of water springing up into everlasting life," and overflowing his soul with peace and joy. "Perfect love" having now "cast out fear," he "rejoices evermore." He "rejoices in the Lord always," even "in God his Saviour;" and in the Father, "through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom he hath now received the atonement."

 Again, we see John Wesley declaring, only not explicitly, that a Methodist is perfect.  Of course we know that Wesley taught Christian perfection, but this tract goes a long way toward telling us what this "Christian Perfection" looks like.  Wesley uses very absolute terms to describe a Methodist, a Methodist is "always happy".  This is a standard which the Christ Himself, though perfect, never obtained.  Happy always is a perfection beyond perfect, an utter impossibility.  Can you yet be happy when the name of God is blasphemed before you?  My fellow United Methodist, are you a Methodist by Wesley's standard?  I have never met a man or woman who was happy for 24 straight hours, let alone happy 'always'.  Beyond always being happy, the Methodist also "rejoices in the Lord always",  um, yeah... no comment.  Essentially what we see Wesley saying is that the Methodist is someone who perfectly keeps the Law.  Now let's be fair, Wesley is not saying that a Methodist is justified by the Law, he is saying that a justified Methodist upholds the Law completely.  Again let's be fair, I know that many will falsely make this accusation, but he is not falling into the Galatian error of justification by works.  Let's move on to the eight paragraph.

8. For indeed he "prays without ceasing." It is given him "always to pray, and not to faint." Not that he is always in the house of prayer; though he neglects no opportunity of being there. Neither is he always on his knees, although he often is, or on his face, before the Lord his God. Nor yet is he always crying aloud to God, or calling upon him in words: For many times "the Spirit maketh intercession for him with groans that cannot be uttered." But at all times the language of his heart is this: "Thou brightness of the eternal glory, unto thee is my heart, though without a voice, and my silence speaketh unto thee." And this is true prayer, and this alone. But his heart is ever lifted up to God, at all times and in all places. In this he is never hindered, much less interrupted, by any person or thing.

Does this even need comment?  I certainly believe this tract to adequately describe the desire which the Spirit grants believers.  We long in our inward parts for this perfection, this perfect union, this absolute uprightness.  Yet let us be clear that we still struggle and fail constantly to reach the standards of God, the very standards which we desire to reach.  However according to Wesley a Methodist is someone who does not fail, does not sin, does not cease in prayer... EVER.  The Methodist is "never hindered, much less interrupted, by any person or thing."  Are you convinced yet that a Methodist in Wesley's terms is a figment of the imagination?  Again, I am not saying that it is okay to NOT pray without ceasing, it is sin to stop, which is why we continually need the blood of Christ!

10. For [The Methodist] is "pure in heart." The love of God has purified his heart from all revengeful passions, from envy, malice, and wrath, from every unkind temper or malign affection.

 11. Agreeable to this his one desire, is the one design of his life, namely, "not to do his own will, but the will of Him that sent him." His one intention at all times and in all things is, not to please himself, but Him whom his soul loveth. He has a single eye.

As if this is not enough, and I have skipped much, to prove that a Methodist is a mythical creature, let me sum up the whole shebang with the entire 13th paragraph.  For those who love Wesley (and much of what he has done and said I love) please explain what follows to me.

 13. All the commandments of God he accordingly keeps, and that with all his might. For his obedience is in proportion to his love, the source from whence it flows. And therefore, loving God with all his heart, he serves him with all his strength. He continually presents his soul and body a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God; entirely and without reserve devoting himself, all he has, and all he is, to his glory. All the talents he has received, he constantly employs according to his Master's will; every power and faculty of his soul, every member of his body. Once he "yielded" them "unto sin" and the devil, "as instruments of unrighteousness;" but now, "being alive from the dead, he yields" them all "as instruments of righteousness unto God."

So member of the United Methodist Church, or other Wesleyan tradition, have you met the standard of Wesley's sect?  Later in the tract Wesley asserts that what he has put forth is just basic fundamental Christianity.  The reality is that he has just expressed the Law from the New Testament to the utter neglect of the Gospel.  This tract is an utter fail, one which could lead followers of Wesley in only two possible directions, the first being despair, for they will never achieve the 'Methodist' standard.  Or the other being delusion, actually believing they have met that standard, though they obviously have not.

I'd love to hear from a real 'Methodist' respond here, I've always wanted to meet a fairytale creature.

Methodists are Mythical Creatures #1

While doing a little research on the internet I came across a tract written by John Wesley called The Character of a Methodist which I found in many places to be a bit disturbing and very much counter to my understanding of the scriptures.  If you do decide to follow that link, please note that what is written by Wesley is meant to point out what distinguishes Methodists, not requirements for salvation.  Also note that this document is not a denominational standard for what it means to be a United Methodist.  The following is an excerpt from the opening paragraph of this tract which will give you an idea of what it proposes to do.

SINCE the name first came abroad into the world, many have been at a loss to know what a Methodist is; what are the principles and the practice of those who are commonly called by that name; and what the distinguishing marks of this sect, "which is everywhere spoken against."

The rest of the tract seeks to answer question "what are the distinguishing marks of this sect?" Or as the title conveys, what is "The Character of a Methodist"?

This post really cuts straight to the heart of this blog.  It shows the difficulty and  tension of ministering within a body that finds guidance into the scripture from Wesley at its core of belief, while personally coming to a theology that is in numerous places at odds with Wesley.  Also realize you do not have to agree with Wesley to be a member of the United Methodist Church, the point is that our system is Wesleyan at its core so though our thinking diverges  at times from Wesley his theology still shapes ours significantly.

So without further introduction let's get into the body of this tract, which will take a few posts to deal with.  Please note that I attempt to be honest a fair to the context of this tract as I pull various statements from it.

The first 3 paragraphs of the tract deny that a Methodist is a legalist, and affirms unity with those outside of the Methodist sect, and then we are met with these words at the beginning of the fourth paragraph.

4. Nor, lastly, is [a Methodist] distinguished by laying the whole stress of religion on any single part of it. If you say, "Yes, he is; for he thinks 'we are saved by faith alone:'" I answer, You do not understand the terms. By salvation he means holiness of heart and life. And this he affirms to spring from true faith alone.

 This statement is troubling for a number of reasons.  The first being that it gets certain categories wrong.  I can certainly agree that Ephesians 2:4-10 express that much of the purpose of salvation is indeed to create a holy people, 'created for good works'.  Let us not deny sanctification is a very intentional by-product of justification on the part of God.  Let us also not deny the fact that our salvation is intended to have tangible results in this world, and it does not simply end with right standing before God.  However if salvation is defined as "holiness of heart and life" then the category is wrong.  Of course the true Wesleyan would say "holiness of heart and life" is a result of grace, but clearly "holiness of heart and life" is dependent in some measure upon the performance of man.  Therefore if salvation is truly defined as "holiness of heart and life" it is syncretism and not at all "apart from works" (Eph 2:8).  This also affects our assurance of salvation immensely.  If you strip salvation of grace and render it to be a state of practical holiness of heart and life then nobody... NOBODY... experiences salvation.  Essentially Wesley with this definition has said a Methodist is one who believes that salvation is the equivalent of Christian Perfection.

The reality is that salvation is our participation in the life death and resurrection of Christ by faith.  In other words, our salvation is rooted in what Christ has done for us.  Yes salvation does result in progressive sanctification and becoming holy in our heart and life, yet that is results of a finished action, not the action itself.

Another quote from this tract that I found disturbing (and there are many) was found in the very next paragraph. (#5)

Who is a Methodist, according to your own account?" I answer: A Methodist is one who has "the love of God shed abroad in his heart by the Holy Ghost given unto him;" one who "loves the Lord his God with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his mind, and with all his strength. God is the joy of his heart, and the desire of his soul; which is constantly crying out, "Whom have I in heaven but thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee! My God and my all! Thou art the strength of my heart, and my portion for ever!"

 Essentially Wesley has said that a Methodist is one who perfectly keeps the Law of God, knowing that the sum of the Law is loving the Lord with ALL heart, ALL soul, ALL mind, and ALL strength.  Here we see that Wesley has a very different understanding of the purpose of the Law than the reformers did, and that the Apostle Paul did.  I believe this tract had its initial publication prior to Wesley's Aldersgate experience in 1738 but I am not sure.  However I know that the version of this tract which is linked to above was the final publishing of it in 1777 some 40 years after Aldersgate.  The reason I mention Aldersgate is that the above portion of this tract runs completely counter to Luther's preface on the Romans which Wesley was 'strangely warmed' upon hearing.  I would contend that, by Wesley's definition, other than Christ there has never been a Methodist on the face of the earth..  A Methodist (by Wesley's definition) is a mythical creature.

Essentially Wesley's argument is that a Methodist is one who has been perfected.  So to my Methodist friends who have read this far... I hope you are not reading this blog to kill time, or for simple recreation, because if you are... then ALL your mind has not been devoted to the love of God and you are no longer Methodist!! at least according to Wesley.  But don't worry, we still love you, and you are welcome to explore with us the possibilities of unmerited favor of God based on what he has done for you in Christ.  Even if you aren't living with perfect "holiness of heart and life".

I will continue this in coming weeks.  Expect updates to the blog on Mondays and Thursdays.  I am working at getting ahead and scheduling the posts to drop on those days.  By the time this posts I should be a week or two ahead.

Hymns the UMC Catechism

If there was ever a tradition that should have violently held to their traditional hymnody it would be the Wesleyan tradition.  Let me be clear, I am not a hyper-traditionalist, there are good a number of contemporary hymns, praise songs, and choruses that I like and think are valuable to the church.  This posting is in no way a rant against contemporary worship per se.  I’ll admit that I personally find myself annoyed with most contemporary worship, but I will be the first to admit that there really is some lyrically excellent music being produced in our day and being used in the contemporary setting.  Nonetheless the trend in the UMC toward using more contemporary popular worship songs is a huge problem for Methodism, larger than it would be for a Lutheran, Reformed, or even the Catholic Church.

Awhile back I posted regarding Creeds and Catechisms, and expressed my disappointment in the fact that the UMC is very sporadic (at best) in their use these historic statements.  I stand behind that post, especially in the way we see the UMC’s incredibly (dare I say fatally) broad theological spectrum.   Methodism has not always been that way.  The Wesley’s were adamant about ‘catechesis’ yet their method was music.  Consider the thousands of hymns written by the Wesleys alone all with the purpose of expressing doctrinal truth in a repetitive and memorable manner.  They wrote the hymns to the tune of familiar entertaining pieces of the day which served to enhance the ability to memorize the key doctrine which the hymns were to communicate.  The Wesleys were specific in how hymns should be sung, and adamant about not taking artistic license to improve upon them, knowing that artistic license created individualism out of what was meant to be community worship and dare I say a form of covenantal catechesis.  In many ways this method of songs, hymns, and spiritual songs as a method of catechesis could be seen as having more biblical support than the standard question and answer format of the reformation and catholic traditions.  Clearly the Hebrews did this with their Psalms, and Timothy was commanded by Paul to continue in this vein.

The point is that in Methodism our entire ‘indoctrination system’ hinges upon hymnody.  Other traditions continue to recite creeds, catechisms, and so on, but we rarely do so.  Instead historically we have been a people who use hymns for that purpose.  Now as we see Methodism going contemporary and choosing songs based partly upon doctrine, partly upon singability, and largely upon popularity we have created a more appealing worship setting but have removed our primary method of indoctrination.  (I use the word indoctrination in the instruction sense, not the propaganda sense).  This is a serious problem for us.

Whenever you attempt to address this you will find Methodists telling you “we originated the contemporary scene when Charles and John started putting all their music to the tune of popular tunes sung in the pubs”, or they say something similar to that.  However they miss the original intent of this.  ‘Pub music’ was not used to make hymn singing popular and fun, in fact the Wesleys put very stringent guidelines as to how hymns could be sung, and it was clear they were not doing it just to be attractive.  The reason for using the bar tunes was because they provided an already clear framework for memory of doctrine.

Now that we have forgone an intentional hymnody and replaced it with a series of contemporary songs that people enjoy, we fail to commit our whole theology to memory.  Again, much of the new music is doctrinally excellent, but it is not intentional in the same way that the early hymns of Methodism were, and the newer music has not been written with the same intent that the original Methodist hymns were written.

Other traditions can survive being loose with their music because there is a consistent system for imparting their theology to their adherents.  Methodists’ music is our system, so we do not have the liberty to be loose with it.

Creeds, Confessions, and Catechisms

The idea of this blog is to express the implications of a Methodist discovering of the reformation, and one of the things we find very common in both Lutheran and Reformed churches is the extensive use of catechisms and creeds.  In the Methodist Church, at least in our day we see creeds going the way of the dodo bird, and I know of nobody using catechisms in the UMC, and I am unaware (I have not researched) if there is such thing as a Catechism approved by and readily used in United Methodism.  If there is, I have never seen or heard of it in my 20+ years as a United Methodist.  I, along with most other conservative United Methodists have insisted on scripture memorization as paramount for our confirmands and youth, yet have spent little time on creeds, and even less on catechisms.  Many fundamentalists would celebrate that "scripture only" focus, but I think it is horribly flawed.

Scripture memorization is an important discipline, but I would contend that it is a less important discipline than catechesis or the memorization of the creeds that accurately depict the faith.  Now I can hear my fundamentalist brethren getting really bent out of shape with that statement and I can certainly understand why.  What I am essentially saying is that you would be better off to memorize a creed which is not inspired, than to memorize portions of the inspired word of God.  At the outset it seems like an absurd argument for me to make, but it is not.

The simple reality is that verses individually taken outside of their context have no meaning.  A verse without its context is just a phrase dangling in space.  However a creed or a catechism that honestly deals with the entire cannon of scripture provides an overall context which an individual verse can be understood within.  This is incredibly important to see.  Confusion around many doctrines exist because the debates always seem to float around one isolated verse being quoted against another isolated verse.  How many times have you heard someone say “this verse presents a real problem to the insert particular theological view point here.”  Yet often times if you read the entire context that contains that particular verse you will see that it actually supports the view point being argued against.  My point is that you cannot make a biblical theology with a simple list of verses.

This is why creeds and confessions are so valuable, yes you should test them against the whole cannon of scripture, and yes you should not just assume the creed writers got it perfect, but at the same time you should realize that the historic creeds and confessions have been based off of scripture in its entirety and are not easily sunk by one verse here or there.

A quick scan of the evangelical landscape will show you a lot of people who know bits and pieces of Christian teaching, and most people know a few verses, and can tell you that God loves the world or that you should not judge others... yet  the sad reality is that it is a small percentage that can actually articulate what the entirety of scripture is about.  Few can look at the whole history of redemption with Christ at the center and just see it for what it is.  Everyone is so used to regurgitating particular new testament comfort verses that they cannot show how God’s goodness was displayed even in Israel’s slaughter of the people who dwelt in the promised land.

Preachers need to take heed here as well.  When I am expositing a passage of scripture to our congregation I am always directly quoting the scripture I am presenting, and continually coming back to it throughout the message.  Yet, as I preach and pull in different events from the biblical narrative, or pull in different teachings from other portions of scripture, I am not so concerned with direct quotation and giving a chapter and verse, instead I am concerned with pulling the common theme of the passage being exposited by pulling in examples from other places in scripture.  The point is that as preachers and teachers we need to be preaching and teaching the whole counsel of God, and that means to preach it as a whole.

Catechisms, and creeds are wonderful ways of teaching the whole counsel of God without having to memorize all 1100+ chapters of the scripture, and is more profitable than only taking bits and pieces of scripture to heart.  As I teach confirmation this year I will be using the Heidleberg Catechism, though I will omit a couple of sections near the end, but I trust that it will be more profitable to the students in the long run than if I had them memorize 50 isolated scriptures which I deemed were important.

A Methodist's Discovery of the Reformation

Well, I am dusting off the blog and beginning to post again, only now with a very specific purpose in mind that will hopefully at least intrigue a couple of people.  I have grown up in the United Methodist Church, and have been employed by the United Methodist Church for the last 4 years of my life, 3 in youth ministry, and now as a Sr. Pastor in a mid-sized congregation.  Over the course of these last four years I have experienced a drastic shift in my theology as I have discovered the doctrines of the reformation.

This blog's new intention is to document some of the things I wrestle with as my belief becomes increasingly reformed, yet while I also minister in the UMC, and how I minister in the UMC in a way that does not violate my core 'reformed' beliefs.  My goals are in no way to disparage the UMC, but to offer a unique viewpoint that might be intriguing both to my Methodist and 'reformed' (Lutheran and/or Calvinistic) brothers and sisters.

Peace,

Jay Miklovic