Pray for Oklahoma

21 Tuesday May 2013

Posted by in Life, Ministry

≈ Leave a Comment

[image from okumc.org]

A major tornado hit Moore Oklahoma, a suburb of Oklahoma City yesterday. As of this writing, 24 people have died, including 9 children. I cannot image the pain that the family and friends of those who have died are experiencing. And yet, looking at pictures of the area – particularly the two elementary schools that were destroyed – I can’t help but think that the loss of life could have been much worse.

Yesterday’s events have hit me particularly hard because these are my people. Most of my family and many friends live in Oklahoma. My parents, my wife’s parents, and my brother all live in Oklahoma. And many of them live quite close to the damage. I am also a clergy member of the Oklahoma Annual Conference. My home church is in the community next to Moore. I talked to several people yesterday about what was happening. It was a blessing to feel connected to colleagues in ministry in Oklahoma. But it was also really hard. I am serving in extension ministry as a professor at Seattle Pacific Seminary. It is hard to be so far away and feel helpless. My heart is breaking for Oklahoma.

You may be like me, feeling compassion and connection to this community through the news coverage, but also detached by your physical distance from Moore Oklahoma. I would like to ask you to consider joining me in doing two concrete things that will make a difference. First, pray. Pray a lot. Pray for the specific things that come to mind as you think about what this community is going through. Pray for families who have lost loved ones. Pray for families who are searching and hoping. Pray for the injured. Pray for rescue workers, for those who have lost their homes. Please pray. Second, give money. People who work for disaster relief agencies seem to be united that money is the best thing to give in the immediate aftermath of a natural disaster like this. I will be giving to The United Methodist Committee on Relief (UMCOR), because of their track record with disaster relief and because all of the overhead for UMCOR is covered through other giving. This means that 100% of what you give will be directed to helping the people who most need help right now. UMCOR has already set up a specific page for giving for the Oklahoma tornadoes. Click here to donate to tornado recover efforts through UMCOR.

Please pray and give generously.

Wesley Didn’t Say It: “Personal and Social Holiness”

20 Monday May 2013

Posted by in Methodist History, Wesley

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , ,

“Personal and social holiness.”

Wesley did not say this.

Andrew Thompson, who is Assistant Professor of Historical Theology and Wesleyan Studies at Memphis Theological Seminary, reminded me of this phrase that is often attributed to Wesley in a comment on my previous blog in this series. (Andrew also blogs here.)

Here is part of Thompson’s comment:

The one that gets me is the attribution of the phrase “personal and social holiness” to Wesley. There is no evidence I have ever seen that Wesley used this phrase. And in an article I did a couple of years ago, I looked as hard for it in Wesley as anyone ever has. Yet the phrase gets repeated ad nauseam, as if it is a given that Wesley used it. I would argue that it is neither historical to Wesley nor is it “Wesleyan,” in the sense that it bifurcates holiness in a way that Wesley was at pains to avoid (hence the use of the phrase, “no holiness but social holiness,” which is accurately Wesleyan).

At the end of his comment, Thompson cites the quote where Wesley does use the phrase “social holiness.” However, when social holiness is used by contemporary Methodists, it is almost always used in a way that is synonymous with social justice. And yet, in the only passage I know of where Wesley used the phrase “social holiness” he was talking not about justice, but about the importance of other people for growing in holiness. The passage “social holiness” occurs in is the preface to Wesley’s 1739 edition of Hymns and Sacred Poems. Here is the passage in its broader context:

Directly opposite to this is the gospel of Christ. Solitary religion is not to be found there. ‘Holy solitaries’ is a phrase no more consistent with the gospel than holy adulterers. The gospel of Christ knows of no religion but social; no holiness but social holiness.

In this context, then, Wesley is explicitly rejecting “holy solitaries”, or the attempt to become holy in isolation from other Christians. And he is insisting on the importance of community for becoming Christ-like.

I have previously written about this quote and its broader context on this blog here. Andrew Thompson has written about “social holiness” on his blog here and here. He has also published an excellent academic essay on Methodist Review. The essay can be accessed through his personal website here.

You can add “personal and social holiness” to the other quotes that are stubbornly connected to John Wesley, despite the fact that there is no source that connects them to Wesley’s pen. Others I have previously written about are:

“Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as ever you can.” [Original post here.]

“I set myself on fire and people come to watch me burn.” [Original post here.]

“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and, in all things, charity.” [Original post here.]

Experience in the so-called “Wesleyan Quadrilateral”

13 Monday May 2013

Posted by in Christian Living, Methodist History, Wesley

≈ 12 Comments

Tags

, , ,

For many Methodists, the most cherished piece of their heritage is the so-called “Wesleyan quadrilateral.” Yet, as has often been noted, the quadrilateral was largely Albert C. Outler’s invention in the mid-twentieth century. Towards the end of his life Outler wrote:

“The term ‘quadrilateral’ does not occur in the Wesley corpus – and more than once, I have regretted having coined it for contemporary use, since it has been so widely misconstrued” (36)

Nearly thirty years later, I wonder how Outler would feel today about his creation. It certainly continues to be widely misconstrued. The quadrilateral is not doctrine, it is a proposed method for theological reflection. But it is almost never used the way that it was intended. A tool that does not actually do what it is supposed to do is of limited usefulness. A bicycle pump that lets more air out of a tire than it puts in should be set aside. A screen cleaner that scratches the screen should be thrown away, not repeatedly reused.

So why is there such persistent loyalty to a tool for theological reflection that almost never works the way that it is supposed to?

For the sake of space, I will limit my comments here to the part of the quadrilateral that is most “widely misconstrued” – experience.

In his essay, “The Wesleyan Quadrilateral – in John Wesley” Outler described the rationale for Wesley’s theological method:

When challenged for his authority, on any question, his first appeal was to the Holy Bible… Even so, he was well aware that Scripture alone had rarely settled any controverted point of doctrine… Thus, though never as a substitute or corrective, he would also appeal to ‘the primitive church’ and to the Christian tradition at large as competent, complementary witnesses to ‘the meaning’ of this Scripture or that…

But Scripture and tradition would not suffice without the good offices (positive and negative) of critical reason. Thus, he insisted on logical coherence and as an authorized referee in any contest between contrary positions or arguments. And yet, this was never enough. It was, as he knew for himself, the vital Christian experience of the assurance of one’s sins forgiven that clinched the matter. (24)

Did you notice how specific Outler’s understanding of the role of experience is for John Wesley? It is not just any experience that a person has. It is not experience with a person and whether you find them to be a good or decent person. In fact, Outler almost always modifies the word experience with “Christian.” And it is not just any “Christian experience,” it is the particular Christian experience “of the assurance of one’s sins forgiven.”

In case the limited role of experience is missed, he adds that “Christian experience adds nothing to the substance of Christian truth; its distinctive role is to energize the heart so as to enable the believer to speak and do the truth in love” (25)

Outler goes on to argue that it was Wesley’s “special genius” to add experience to the Anglican “triad” of Scripture, tradition, and reason. Wesley did this, on Outler’s account, in order to “incorporate the notion of conversion into the Anglican tradition” (27).

Outler’s understanding of the role of experience in Wesley’s theology, then, is quite particular. It is not any experience that a person has, it is the distinctively Christian experience of assurance of the forgiveness of one’s sins. It is the experience of the witness of the Spirit. Wesley was quite fond of citing Romans 8:16 to illustrate this: “it is that very Spirit bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God.”

When the quadrilateral is deployed as a means of theological reflection; however, experience is almost always defined far more broadly than this. In popular use of the quadrilateral, experience is usually understood as a kind of common sense. Experience is an authority for theological reflection (so the argument goes) because, if we are willing to pay attention, we can see the obvious things that are going on around us. Experience is also usually used to describe one’s encounters with the world around them, which often results in confirming the prevalent perspective of the current popular culture. Rarely, in popular discussions of the quadrilateral, is experience defined in the specific and more technical way that Wesley and Outler did.

We have come a long way from Outler’s qualification that “Christian experience adds nothing to the substance of Christian truth; its distinctive role is to energize the heart so as to enable the believer to speak and do the truth in love” (25)

And yet, it seems to me that one of the reasons that many contemporary Methodists are so loyal to the quadrilateral is precisely because the appeal to experience provides an authority for adding new things to Christian truth.

If Methodists are going to continuing citing the quadrilateral as their distinctive theological method, then we have a choice to make. We can return to an understanding of experience as it was defined by Outler in his creation of the quadrilateral. Or, we can knowingly reject the way that he defined experience as a legitimate source for Christian theology and use it in a way that he explicitly rejected. If we choose the latter, we ought to at least be honest that we are now using a method of theological reflection that neither John Wesley nor Albert Outler would have endorsed.

Remembering Dallas Willard (1935-2013)

08 Wednesday May 2013

Posted by in Christian Living

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

Dallas Willard died today, May 8, 2013. But his witness to the possibilities of transformation by faith in Jesus Christ continues through his writings and the countless lives he impacted for the glory of God.

Willard has been one of a handful of writers who have mentored and discipled me through their writing. I read The Divine Conspiracy at exactly the right time in my life. He reminded me that Jesus matters for the details of my life, for the way that I live. He reminded me that the best life is life in Christ. As he wrote in The Divine Conspiracy:

“God’s desire for us is that we should live in him. He sends among us the Way to himself. That shows what, in his heart of hearts, God is really like – indeed, what reality is really like. In its deepest nature and meaning our universe is a community of boundless and totally competent love.” (11)

Willard helped me avoid “bar code faith,” a faith that would impact where I went when I died, but not what I did in the meantime. And he pointed me to God’s desire in Christ not only to forgive me of my sins, but to transform and renew me in the image of the Son through the Holy Spirit.

Dallas Willard also played an important role in helping me begin to see discipleship as normative for the Christian life, not an option only for an elite few. I still remember the first time I read this passage from The Great Omission:

“For at least several decades the churches of the Western world have not made discipleship a condition of being a Christian. One is not required to be, or to intend to be, a disciple in order to become a Christian, and one may remain a Christian without any signs of progress toward or in discipleship. Contemporary American churches in particular do not require following Christ in his example, spirit, and teachings as a condition of membership – either of entering into or continuing in fellowship of a denomination or local church. I would be glad to learn of any exception to this claim, but it would only serve to highlight its general validity and make the general rule more glaring. So far as the visible Christian institutions of our day are concerned, discipleship clearly is optional.” (4)

Richard Foster, author of Celebration of Discipline, notes Willard’s impact on his faith journey and writing. James Bryan Smith does the same in his trilogy, The Good and Beautiful God: Falling in Love With the God Jesus Knows; The Good and Beautiful Life: Putting on the Character of Christ; and The Good and Beautiful Community: Following the Spirit, Extending Grace, Demonstrating Love.

I wish I had been able to meet Dallas Willard. I thank God for his life and his literary legacy, which points not to himself but to the possibilities of life with God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Willard refused to settle for less than the fullness of what God has actually offered to us. I am grateful for his legacy. May his family and friends experience the comforting and sustaining presence of the Triune God in this time.

“It is a world that is inconceivably beautiful and good because of God and because God is always in it.” – Dallas Willard (1935-2013)

Ordination: Communal Rite or Individual Right?

06 Monday May 2013

Posted by in Accountability, Ministry

≈ 9 Comments

Tags

, , ,

“Ordination is a communal rite, not an individual right.”

After reading this quote from D. Stephen Long’s Keeping Faith, I began mentally reviewing many of the conversations I have had with candidates for ordination. In my admittedly far from perfect mental scan of tweets, blog posts, and personal conversations, most (but not all) of the comments I could remember fit in the ordination as “individual right” camp. Viewing ordination as an individual right, and not a communal rite, can lead to a sense of entitlement and defensiveness, particularly if the person pursuing ordination feels like the church owes it to them.

But ordination is a communal rite and is not understood as an individual right.

And just in case the understanding of ordination as an individual right is more appealing to you than the approach of ordination as a communal rite, it may be helpful to point out that no denomination understands ordination as an individual right. Even in churches that have a congregational polity, it is the local church community that votes on whether to ordain the person. The individual is not the sole judge who claims their right, which the community is required to give.

So, what is going on? Why do so many people seem to feel entitled to be ordained, rather than viewing it as a process of communal discernment?

While I have two initial thoughts, my broader purpose with this post is to stimulate a larger conversation. I hope you will comment here. You can also connect with me and respond to this post on twitter @kevinwatson. Either way, I hope you will share your thoughts.

At this stage I will offer two thoughts. The first one is much more extended than the second. 1) People view ordination as an individual right more than a communal rite because the church has formed them to think about ordination in this way. 2) Ordination as an individual right may be a litmus test for a broader unwillingness of individuals to submit to the authority and wisdom of a broader community.

First, as I have been thinking about this quote and processing it with others, I have found myself seeing this as a basic issue of formation. Thinking back to my initial engagement with the ordination process, I don’t remember having hardly any expectations of the process beyond an initial desire to serve God and feeling that the local church was the best place to begin to work this out. I was almost completely ignorant of what the process entailed. In fact, in my first conversation with my pastor, I don’t think I knew there was a process. I was formed into a particular understanding of what ordination is and how it works.

One of the main things I initially learned was that I should expect that not only would I discern whether I felt that God was calling me to ordained ministry, but that my denomination would likewise discern whether God was calling me to ordained ministry in their midst. Where ordination is a communal rite, discernment is a two-way street.

I am concerned that many are being taught to expect that the ordination process will be, and for various reasons must be, one where the gifts one already feels one has are simply affirmed and celebrated by others. I wonder if an unintended consequence of the emphasis on being inclusive and accepting has led some people to view ordination as an entitlement. The thought process could go like this: If I feel like I want to be ordained, you must accept my sense of calling and include me in the order of ordained clergy, otherwise you are being exclusive. When this is seen in its most extreme form, even to examine someone’s calling is seen as invasive, unnecessary, and a problematic use of power by the church.

There are at least two problems with an understanding of ordination that demands that it be given as an individual right. First, people who should be ordained have room to grow and improve in the gifts and grace that have been given to them, no matter how gifted they are. Candidates for ordained ministry should be prepared to accept constructive criticism. They should expect to learn more about themselves and to grow in their sense of calling as a result of the process. Everyone, even experienced pastors, has room to grow. And discerning that one is not called to ordained ministry should actually be viewed as a successful outcome, not as a failure. Second, some people should not be ordained. And they may not always agree with the decision of the church. If ordination is the culmination of a discernment process by both the individual considering ordained ministry and the church that will ordain them, both parties must continue to affirm that they are headed in the right direction.

Before moving on to the second thought, I feel compelled to acknowledge that Boards of Ordained Ministry are not infallible. They make mistakes. And sometimes the criticism they give is not constructive, or honest. Making distinctions about when Boards of Ordained Ministry get it right and when they get it wrong gets messy quickly. And yet, as long as our polity understands ordination as a communal rite and not an individual right, we ought to try to correct mistakes and improve the process, rather than resist the authority that is rightly invested in the community.

My second main thought is that ordination as an individual right may be a litmus test for a broader unwillingness of individuals to submit to the authority and wisdom of a broader community. A few pages after the quote from D. Stephen Long that prompted this post, he wrote something that is an even more aggressive challenge to the contemporary idolatry of the individual:

We Methodists find the rites and ceremonies of our church to be so important that openly breaking them should issue in a rebuke, even if that rebuke must be given to a pastor, superintendent, or bishop. The rites and ceremonies belong to the whole church. When a pastor, superintendent, or bishop changes those rites and ceremonies because of her or his individual conscience, she or he violates the trust that the church places in her or him to guard and preserve the faith. (59)

My guess is that Long’s call for individuals to submit to the whole church, (including even their conscience!) would be contested by many. A key question, though, would be whether the disagreement is precisely an assertion of individual rights over that of the community.

What do you think? How do you think ordination is perceived by most people discerning a calling to ordained ministry? Is Long right that ordination should be understood as a communal rite and not as an individual right?

Wesley Didn’t Say It: Do all the good you can, by all the means you can…

29 Monday Apr 2013

Posted by in Methodist History, Wesley

≈ 18 Comments

Tags

,

“Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as ever you can.”

Wesley did not say this.

You may have seen this quote in a nice frame on the wall of a Methodist Church, or even published in a book, citing John Wesley as its author. (For example, it was cited in Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations.) Despite the persistence of the quote being attributed to John Wesley, you will not find in anywhere in his writing.

You can add this quote to other quotes that are stubbornly connected to John Wesley despite the fact that there is no source that connects them to Wesley’s pen. Two I have previously written about here are:

“I set myself on fire and people come to watch me burn.” [Original post here.]

“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and, in all things, charity.” [Original post here.]

There are many things I have come to appreciate about twitter, but one of the things that I find the most frustrating is the persistence of misquotes of historical figures. And due to my own area of specialization, misquoting John Wesley gets to me the most. Wesley and others were frequently misquoted before social media, but with the advent of twitter misquoting Wesley seems to be more regular. Wesley said enough interesting, surprising, and even controversial things that we should not need to attribute things to him that he did not actually say. Historical accuracy matters.

Richard P. Heitzenrater discussed these quotes and some other ways Wesley is misquoted or misunderstood in a piece published in Circuit Rider in 2003. You can view a PDF of that article here.

The United Methodist Reporter also wrote a similar piece titled “Wesley, misquoted” in 2011.

In any event, regarding this particular quote, there is no evidence that Wesley said this. We should stop saying that he did.

Welcome, Eden Hope!

25 Thursday Apr 2013

Posted by in Life

≈ 2 Comments

On Tuesday we welcomed Eden Hope into our family. Eden was born weight 8 lbs and measuring 19 3/4 inches long. Both mom and baby are doing great. My wife is an amazing women! And Eden is truly a gift from God!

Our kids both seem to be excited to have a baby sister.

Coming Soon: Reclaiming the Class Meeting

18 Thursday Apr 2013

Posted by in Accountability, Christian Living, Class Meetings, Methodist History, Ministry, Wesley

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

photo (8)If I had to pick one thing that I believe would be most likely to be used by the Holy Spirit to bring renewal to the church, it would be a return to the early Methodist class meeting.

And that is why I have finally gotten around to writing a book that is designed to introduce people to what a class meeting is and to help create and sustain these groups. I have just submitted my manuscript and am excited to see this book in print.

Class meetings were groups of seven to twelve people who gathered together to discuss the state of their relationship with God. The question used in the eighteenth-century was, “How does your soul prosper?” Today it might be translated, “How is your life in God?” Regardless of how the question is phrased, the most important thing is that the group is focused on each person’s relationship with God.

In my experience, when people want to grow in their faith, they typically assume that they need to know more. The problem of a lack of formation is often perceived to be a lack of information. I agree that all of us could stand to learn more about our faith and there is a key role for catechesis.

However, following Jesus is ultimately a way of life, not a body of knowledge about him. Too often, Christians do not practice what they do know.

The key contribution that the early Methodist class meeting would make for contemporary Christianity is that it would help people learn to look for encounters with God in every part of their life. They have the potential to help Christians learn to interpret every part of their lives through the lens of the gospel.

Above all else, contemporary Christianity needs Christians who are Christian not in name only, but women and men who are passionate and confident in their faith in Christ and who can speak to the ways that they have seen and experienced God’s work in their lives and in the lives of others.

I believe that the Holy Spirit wants to use this form of communal Christian formation once again to help people have an active faith in Christ, not merely a passive intellectual faith. And I believe that if this practice were to be reclaimed, it would be used by the Spirit to bring renewal.

If you are interested in reclaiming the class meeting in your faith community, stay tuned! I will update the progress and availability of the book here and on twitter (@kevinwatson).

If you’d like to read more about the class meeting, check out the series of posts I wrote here.

Arrogance vs. Confidence in the Truth of the Gospel

10 Wednesday Apr 2013

Posted by in Christian Living, Ministry

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

Does absolute certainty about the truth of the gospel mean that one is arrogant and lacks humility? Can people know for certain that they are God’s beloved children?

These questions were on my mind after reading a tweet from Donald Miller this morning. And I have been wrestling with his words all day. Here is what he wrote:

Many follow leaders who sell confidence rather than truth. Arrogant people assume they’re right. Humble people understand many perspectives.

This comment has stuck with me today because I think it summarizes how many people today feel about the relationship between truth and certainty and tolerance and humility.

I have no idea what prompted Miller to tweet this, and to be fair, twitter is a very limited platform for nuance. It is entirely possible I will take the rest of this post in a direction that Miller would not disagree with. My purpose is not to slam Miller or even argue with him. He has simply provided stimulus for my further thinking about the ways we think about truth, confidence, arrogance, and humility.

The first sentence of the tweet seems to suggest that leaders should sell truth and not confidence, or that it is bad to sell confidence rather than the truth. I think the most charitable reading of this would be that Miller means that some leaders sell confidence even in the face of the truth, or that they are pushing certainty even if the truth is more complex. If this is correct, I would say that I agree. The goal of a pastor, for example, should not be to peddle certainty. Rather, it should be to introduce people to a relationship with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Certainty can sometimes be a hindrance to this relationship.

So, if my reading is right, there is much that I agree with about this statement.

But, I think there is also a subtext here. And I think the subtext is actually of greater urgency to address. That is, I don’t think there are many people who would defend pushing certainty over and against the truth.

The deeper concern that I have is this: Can Christians be confident of the truth of the gospel, can they assume they are right – can they be absolutely certain that they are right – about who Jesus is and his significance for human flourishing without being arrogant?

I think this question is of deep significance for the current cultural moment in American Christianity. There seems to me to be pretty significant pressure on Christians to hold their truth claims loosely, otherwise they are by definition intolerant, arrogant, and/or closed-minded.

The second sentence in Miller’s tweet states: “Arrogant people assume they’re right.”

While this is a beautifully written sentence, it strikes me as nonsense. Is it assuming that you are right that makes you arrogant? If so, who doesn’t assume they are right? And what is the value of a person who assumes that they are wrong in order to avoid being arrogant? If you think you are wrong about something, you should change your mind so you think rightly about it. And then you should assume you are right until you are convinced otherwise. In other words, I think arrogance is something much different than thinking you are right. Someone who carefully considers an issue and comes to a strong conclusion is not by definition arrogant. If they were, conviction and arrogance or belief and arrogance would be the same thing. Believing something was true would by definition be arrogant.

Charity requires me to assume that this is not what Miller means, particularly because there is still one more sentence to his tweet. (But, though I do not think this is Miller’s position, I do think that many people feel this way when they encounter someone who has strongly held convictions. So, again, I think it is pointing to something deeper going on in our cultural moment.)

The final sentence of Miller’s tweet is: “Humble people understand many perspectives.” So, I think Miller means that arrogant people assume they are right, without understanding opposing points of view (and probably without even considering them). This understanding of arrogance, a sense of superiority that leads one to believe they are right without even weighing the evidence, fits well with my own understanding of arrogance. And I think it should be rejected.

However, again, I think it is absolutely essential to affirm that someone can be humble and confidently affirm that the gospel is true. In other words, a person could understand many perspectives on Jesus and strongly reject all of them as inadequate in favor of a firm conviction that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. In other words, I think some people would see the conviction that Jesus is the only way to the good life as by definition arrogant. I don’t think it is.

N.T. Wright describes part of what I am trying to get at in his book Simply Christian:

One of the regular tactics the skeptic employs at this point is relativism. I vividly remember a school friend saying to me in exasperation, at the end of a conversation about Christian faith, ‘It’s obviously true for you, but that doesn’t mean it’s true for anybody else.’ Many people today take exactly that line.

Saying ‘it’s true for you’ sounds fine and tolerant. But it only works because it’s twisting the word ‘true’ to mean, not ‘a true revelation of the way things are in the real world,’ but ‘something that is genuinely happening inside you.’ In fact, saying ‘It’s true for you’ in this sense is more or less equivalent to saying ‘It’s not true for you,’ because the ‘it’ in question – the spiritual sense or awareness or experience – is conveying, very powerfully, a message (that there is a loving God) which the challenger is reducing to something else (that you are having strong feelings which you misinterpret in that sense). This goes with several other pressures which have combined to make the notion of ‘truth’ itself highly problematic within our world” (26-27).

But here is the key reason that this tweet got my attention. I believe that one of the most basic things pastors should be doing is teaching that by the power of the Holy Spirit we can know, with certainty, that Jesus is who the church says he is and that we are God’s beloved child. John Wesley described this sense of certainty as assurance. In his sermon “The Witness of the Spirit, I” he expanded on Romans 8:16, “it is that very Spirit bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God.” Wesley described the witness of the Spirit as follows:

The testimony of the Spirit is an inward impression on the soul, whereby the Spirit of God directly ‘witnesses to my spirit that I am a child of God’; that Jesus Christ hath loved me, and given himself for me; that all my sins are blotted out, and I, even I, am reconciled to God…

The Spirit of God does give a believer such a testimony of his adoption that while it is present to the soul he can no more doubt the reality of his sonship than he can doubt of the shining of the sun while he stands in the full blaze of his beams. (274, 276)

This is good news! But, if we separate truth from certainty (within or without the church) we have a problem. I believe the church needs more leaders who help people find deep, abiding confidence in the truth of the gospel. I believe the church needs leaders who can be agents of the Holy Spirit, to help people find certainty in the truth of the resurrection and the whole new way of living that is made possible in the grace soaked world in which we are currently living. The church could use more people who boast in the resurrection and the transforming power of the Holy Spirit.

I’d love to see this tweet in the future:

The church has many leaders who help people embrace passionate faith in Christ. They are certain Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. And they are desperate for every single person to hear and embrace this news.

But, alas, it isn’t 140 characters.

[I’d love to connect with you online. Feel free to follow me on twitter @kevinwatson.]

Recent Wesleyan/Methodist Scholarship

04 Thursday Apr 2013

Posted by in Book Review, Christian Living, Methodist History, Wesley

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, ,

I have recently found myself either purchasing or adding to my “wish list” a number of books in Wesleyan/Methodist studies. Here a few books that are newly released, or soon to be released.

New Releases:

The Ashgate Research Companion to World Methodism, edited by William Gibson, Peter Forsaith, and Martin Wellings, 537 p. ($149)

From the book description:

This Companion brings together a team of respected international scholars writing on key themes in World Methodism to produce an authoritative and state-of-the-art review of current scholarship, mapping the territory for future research.Leading scholars examine a range of themes including: the origins and genesis of Methodism; the role and significance of John Wesley; Methodism’s emergence within the international and transatlantic evangelical revival of the Eighteenth-Century; the evolution and growth of Methodism as a separate denomination in Britain; its expansion and influence in the early years of the United States of America; Methodists’ roles in a range of philanthropic and social movements including the abolition of slavery, education and temperance; the character of Methodism as both conservative and radical; its growth in other cultures and societies; the role of women as leaders in Methodism, both acknowledged and resisted; the worldwide spread of Methodism and its enculturation in America, Asia and Africa; the development of distinctive Methodist theologies in the last three centuries; its role as a progenitor of the Holiness and Pentecostal movements, and the engagement of Methodists with other denominations and faiths across the world.

Keeping Faith: An Ecumenical Commentary on the Articles of Religion and Confession of Faith of the United Methodist Church, D. Stephen Long, 118 p. ($18)

From the book description:

Keeping Faith offers resources to help Christians reclaim the importance of doctrine and thereby to know and love well God and God’s creation. Although it gives particular attention to the Wesleyan and Methodist tradition, it is of necessity an ecumenical effort. Neither the Wesleyans nor the Methodists invented Christian doctrine. In fact, the Wesleyan tradition contributes little that is distinctive or unique. This is a good thing, for unlike other disciplines where originality and uniqueness matter greatly, Christian doctrine depends on others and not the genius of some individual… This work is an ecumenical commentary on the Confession of Faith and the Articles of Religion found in the Wesleyan tradition and also draws on ancient and modern witnesses to God’s glory.

Key United Methodist Beliefs, William J. Abraham, and David F. Watson, 172 p. ($15.99)

Read my recent review here. From the book description:

Deepen your faith and enrich your life through this study of core Methodist beliefs. Written by popular seminary teachers, this book will connect you to the life and ministry of John Wesley, demonstrating relevance for the lives of Christians today as it offers an introductory examination of each.

Wesley, Wesleyans, and Reading Bible as Scripture, edited by Joel B. Green and David F. Watson, 350 p. ($39.95)

From the book description:

The theology of John Wesley has proven exceedingly influential in the religious and spiritual lives of Wesley’s followers and his critics. However, Wesley did not leave behind a written doctrine on scripture. This collection presents an array of diverse approaches to understanding John Wesley’s charge to read and interpret the Bible as scripture. Contributors move beyond the work of Wesley himself to discuss how Wesleyan communities have worked to address the difficult scriptural–and theological–conundrums of their time and place.

Coming Soon:

The Sermons of John Wesley: A Collection for the Christian Journey, edited by Kenneth J. Collins and Jason E. Vickers, 608 p. ($49.99)

From the Book Description:

With an eye on serious Christian development, Kenneth Collins and Jason Vickers have arranged this collection of the sermons of John Wesley in terms of the way of salvation in general and the “ordo salutis” in particular. This book contains the sermons that John Wesley approved, in addition to the standard 52 of the North American tradition, organized to correspond to the logic of Christian discipleship and formation. The editors include an outline and short introduction to each sermon detailing its importance and context. Sermons include “Sermon on the Mount,” which is key to understanding Wesley’s ethics, “Free Grace,” “On Working Out Our Own Salvation,” and “The Danger of Riches.” The book is designed to enhance the reader’s understanding of Wesleyan practical theology and written in an accessible style that will be appealing to the wider Wesleyan family of churches. Also included are all of the 44 standard sermons of the British tradition.

Wesley and the People Called Methodist 2nd ed., Richard P. Heitzenrater, 352 p. ($29.99)

This second edition of Richard P. Heitzenrater’s groundbreaking survey of the Wesleyan movement is the story of the many people who contributed to the theology, organization, and mission of Methodism. This updated version addresses recent research from the past twenty years; includes an extensive bibliography; and fleshes out such topics as the means of grace; Conference: “Large” Minutes: Charles Wesley: Wesley and America; ordination; prison ministry; apostolic church; music; children; Susanna and Samuel Wesley; the Christian library; itinerancy; connectionalism; doctrinal standards; and John Wesley as historian, Oxford don, and preacher.

The Works of John Wesley, vol. 13 Doctrinal and Controversial Treatises II, edited by Paul Wesley Chilcote and Kenneth J. Collins, 944 p. ($57.99)

From the book description:

The second of three volumes devoted to Wesley’s theological writings contains two major sets of material. The first set (edited by Paul Chilcote) contains writings throughout Wesley’s ministry devoted to defense of the doctrine of Christian perfection, including “A Plain Account of Christian Perfection.” The second set (edited by Kenneth Collins) collects Wesley’s various treatises focused on predestination and related issues, often in direct debate with Calvinist writers, including “Predestination Calmly Considered.”

The Cambridge Companion to American Methodism, edited by Jason E. Vickers, 398 p. ($32.99)

A product of trans-Atlantic revivalism and awakening, Methodism initially took root in America in the eighteenth century. In the mid-nineteenth century, Methodism exploded to become the largest religious body in the United States and the quintessential form of American religion. This Cambridge Companion offers a general, comprehensive introduction to various forms of American Methodism, including the African-American, German Evangelical Pietist, holiness, and Methodist Episcopal traditions. Written from various disciplinary perspectives, including history, literature, theology, and religious studies, this volume explores the beliefs and practices around which the lives of American Methodist churches have revolved, as well as the many ways in which Methodism has both adapted to and shaped American culture.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 744 other followers