Discover more from Jeffrey Rickman’s Substack
Methodist Nature: Exclusive & Uncompromising
Why the Methodist countercultural message is explicitly exclusive
With the formation of the Global Methodist Church, a reclaiming of the Methodist heritage is in order. Many voices are submitting ideas with respect to the particulars of Methodist identity. I have my own thoughts, which are being spelled out in a series of articles. This is the tenth of at least twelve. You might read my introduction to this series first in order to know how I have thought through this project and why I care about it.
Our Culture is Aligned Against Methodism
In this segment, I am arguing that Methodism in its authentic form is exclusive. It does not tolerate what early Methodists called, “disorderly walkers.” Rather, it is an intentional society aimed at holiness, kicking folks out who are not interested in that project.
We live in the era of DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion). These principles have come to undergird a large proportion of institutions in western culture. Even before the acronym was invented, the principles prevailed. I remember as a child I was inculcated into the belief that all people should be treated the same in certain historically new ways. On my birthday, I couldn’t bring special treats to share with my friends at school. Rather, if I was to bring something, it was to be for everyone in my class. There could be no special sign of preference or in-group/out-group highlighting.
Of course, the intention behind these measures is good. For those who grew up in a society of snobs, where they didn’t fit in, where they struggled to fit in, they imagined this sort of social engineering would create a future in which all children belong. How is that working out for us?
There are, of course, still snobs, bullies, and cliquish people in all age groups. We did not eliminate social selection. We only made it more uncouth for certain types of people to engage in it.
One of the rules made for us is that we have to make room for everyone at whatever table we are sitting at. There can be no standards of admission or participation; everyone is entitled to a place. This social norm makes many historic functions of people, including the church of Jesus Christ, impossible.
It is easy to confuse this principle with the gospel. Christ himself often sided with those who were rejected by the world, who didn’t fit in, who were hated or reviled for different reasons. He said things like, “The last will be first and the first will be last.” It is easy to come away from a cursory reading of Jesus and think that he was some sort of hippie, just trying to help everyone get along, just trying to make room for everyone.
But that isn’t what he was doing. He was quite clear, actually, that he was establishing a new, exclusive community, which very few people could actually achieve or maintain right relationship within. That is why he warned:
“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.”
- Matthew 7:13-14
In fact, Jesus spoke of the separation of peoples many times. He obviously believed in hell and was not afraid to threaten us with it (just keep reading Matt. 7). He also talked about the purity of the church, of the need to exercise right judgment, to discern wolves in sheep’s clothing, to put people out of the church.
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn
“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’“Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me.”
- Matthew 10:34-38
It is true that Christ dissolved many walls dividing people from one another. It is not true that he got rid of all distinctions. Rather, there is now only one distinction that separates people from one another: those who are in Christ and those who are not. All other distinctions lack importance after the Christ event.
The Early Church
The first few centuries of the Christian movement were quite exclusive. Christianity was considered a secret religion, a mystery religion, and/or a cult by society at large. It was rare that any Christians believed that all people as they are were welcome or invited into the covenant community of Christ. Rather, as described by the Didache and the Apostolic Church Order, they saw themselves as people elected by God and chosen out of the world. The world wasn’t welcome in the early church. Only redeemed adopted children of God had a place at that table.
There are a good number of New Testament and Old Testament scriptures aimed at conveying that God’s covenant people are actually expected to be quite separate from the world. It is not only a different way of life that we are called to claim, but we are to literally come out of the world and be separate from them in our activities. Jesus himself showed concern for this when he told the story of the wheat and the tares. Yes, the world is commingled with saints and sinners, but the new covenant community of Christ is to be pure and holy as the bride of Christ.
“Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, “I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you, and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty.”
- 2 Corinthians 6:14-18
The early church was so concerned with enforcing this separation that deacons were often posted at the entry points of church gatherings to keep uninitiatied persons from entering. One could not worship with believers until one had been officially vouched for to the elder(s) of the church and started on a formal program of initiation that typically lasted for three years. Even when one had begun her official discipleship journey, she was still unable to be present for the sacrament of the eucharist/communion until she had been baptized into the faith. The three years of inculcation focused not only on memorizing massive amounts of scripture, but also on conforming an individual’s life to the pattern of Christ and the first disciples.
People whose lives persisted in sin were not allowed to be initiated into the faith and were eventually expelled. Those who were initiated into the church were expected to continue in holy living in order to continue in fellowship. The primary act of fellowship, the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, was only for the initiated, on the condition that they were at peace in the community. If one was not at peace, they could not have communion until reconciliation had been reached. Unrepentant sinners, initiated and uninitiated, were given over to the world and removed from the church.
A modern person would expect that such a movement would sputter and die out. Rather, it grew exponentially, such that it eventually became the majority religion in the West. Even after it was widely adopted, the church continued to be exclusive in many ways. The chief way this was expressed, and continues to be expressed throughout most historic traditions of the faith, is by limiting communion to those who have been initiated into the faith through baptism.
Originating Methodist Societies
Remember that Methodism is defined in a primary sense by what the early church did. Mr. Wesley claimed the movement was nothing except a reclaiming of the primitive nature of the church. Of course, Methodism began as a revival movement within the Church of England, rather than a denomination all its own. Even so, it was an exclusive community that regularly booted folks out according to the standards established at the beginning in The General Rules of the United Societies. This was (and, in my opinion, still should be) the foundational document of Methodism. Here is how it ends:
“These are the General Rules of our Societies; all which we are taught of God to observe, even in His written Word, which is the only rule, and the sufficient rule, both of our faith and practice. And all these we know His Spirit writes on all truly awakened hearts. If there be any among us who observe them not, who habitually break any of them, let it be known unto them who watch over that soul, as they who must give an account. We will admonish him of the error of his ways; we will bear with him for a season; but, if then he repents not, he hath no more place among us; we have delivered our own souls.”
This was not all talk. Rather, as John Wesley traveled throughout his ‘connexion,’ he was known for regularly and strictly kicking folks out of the Methodist membership. These were not small numbers of people, but sometimes going up to 1/3 of any given society was summarily removed upon his review. Entire Methodist societies were dramatically reduced based on how many were earnestly seeking the Lord, evidenced by outward acts, verified by brothers and sisters in their class meetings.
This level of oversight was only possible because of the cooperation of class leadership, who lovingly watched over the souls entrusted to them. One could not be a Methodist without participating faithfully in a class meeting and submitting to the authority of his class leader. Those who insisted on their own way, who were willful and rebellious in their disposition, were excused from fellowship. Sometimes expulsion was immediate and public, but other times one was simply disfellowshipped by being refused a ‘ticket’ from Mr. Wesley. There were regular gatherings of Methodist societies that were exclusively only for those Methodists who were in good standing. Everyone had to have a ticket, otherwise they were excluded from the community of faith. Modern notions of ‘due process’ or a ‘just resolution process’ were not really known. The primary concern was the holiness of the movement; not the feelings of the individual.
Once again, one would think that this would result in Methodism becoming a fringe movement. While they were indeed hated and spoken evil of (like early Christians), the movement grew leaps and bounds.
The American Context
When Methodism traveled to North America, for a time it retained its status as a revival movement under the Church of England. However, in time, it separated from its English roots and became an American denomination.
Even so, American Methodists retained the quality control measures established in its revival days. Local churches required folks to participate faithfully in class meetings, observe the General Rules, and seek holiness in all things. Otherwise they were dismissed from church membership and excluded from the covenant community of Christ. It was not until almost a century of American Methodism had passed in the US that mandating this level of commitment was gradually undone.
A modern worldly person would assume that American Methodism, with its high standards and exclusivity would have resulted in a precipitous decline in the Methodist tradition in America, especially when measured against more tolerant and permissive expressions of the Christian faith. No. American Methodism grew exponentially, such that eventually 1 in 3 American churchgoers was a Methodist. We were the majority denomination.
It was only once we lessened our standards and lowered the bar in a bid to get even more folks in that we lost our momentum. Today, of course, Methodism is a name that means very little to most people, because for over a century a person could believe pretty much whatever they wanted and still be considered a Methodist. Methodist discipline was effectively undone more than a century ago, and the results have been disastrous.
Why Kick People Out?
Humans are social creatures, and we influence others when in relationship with them. Churches that allow unpenitent sinners to participate welcome corruption into their midst. There is no way to have fellowship with someone and to be unaffected or uncompromised by them.
Moreover, if churches are called to be holy and pure (and they are), then quality control has to be practiced. It is a fairy tale, and a silly one at that, to believe everyone is going to magically get with the program. Especially in the willful, narcissistic West, individuals very commonly insist on doing things there own way even while also insisting they are entitled to membership in a body. If biological human body cannot protect itself from invading bacteria, it will die. If the spiritual body of Christ will not protect itself from nonChristian people, it will be overrun and killed. Many churches today think themselves alive, but they are actually coopted cadavers. Zombies. The Lord can breathe new life into old bones, but tons of communities are perfectly happy to remain spiritually (un)dead. Does a zombie know it is dead? It moves, but that doesn’t mean it is alive. This is a metaphor for many churches today.
There is also some basic sense to the truth that, if something isn’t worth offending people, making them uncomfortable, then it isn’t worth very much. If a community is simply unwilling to do the uncomfortable things to protect the integrity of the body, then the body must not be worth very much. While some are offended at exclusivity, others know that it conveys a deep honor for the body that is being defended.
Blind Spots
A healthy anthropology (theology of human nature) is key to walking rightly with God. In other words, we must know who we are in order to discern how it is that God is interacting with us. If we misunderstand who we are, then we will not be able to be in right relationship with God. Know thyself.
Modernity has facilitated a very warped view of self. Ever since the Enlightenment and the explosion of material wealth in the West, we have isolated ourselves from the uglier sides of life. We convince ourselves that we are basically good, that life isn’t that bad, that we don’t need a radical reorientation or new birth, that God is basically pleased with us, that we only need a few adjustment here or there to walk rightly with him.
The reality is and always has been that we are born broken, that we are, in our natural state, basically evil and bad, and that God’s wrath is upon us. Early Methodists understood this. That was why the only confession of faith to become a Methodist was that one had to have “a sincere desire to flee from the wrath to come and be saved from one’s sins.” People who are basically good don’t flee from any wrath because it isn’t upon them.
Moralistic Therapeutic Deism, Prosperity Gospel, and other forms of easy beliefism infiltrated the Western church traditions long ago. We made faithful Christian living a democratized group consensus rather than a submission to a Heavenly King. Today, those who live like early Christians or early Methodists are seen as something approximating cult members. We have made the earnest collective pursuit of holiness to be strange and suspect. This mindset is, scandalously, the majority mindset within American churches today, especially in the mainline Methodist tradition. We inverted and perverted the whole thing.
Humans are naturally selfish, self-justifying, and lazy. Our spiritual forebears in the faith knew this because all people with common sense know this. Those who have lived outside of this highly synthetic brainwashed society have known this about humans broadly. One does not have to be a Christian to know that humans are fundamentally sinful. One need only look at nature, at natural human interactions, and one can quickly conclude that humans are not naturally noble or virtuous, let alone holy.
Discipline
In order for humans to be truly converted, we must be disciplined (Heb. 12:6). Anyone who wants to become an athlete knows the importance of discipline (1 Cor. 9:24-27). Take anything worthy in life and understand that it takes great diligence, great care, hard work, fortitude, and a number of other virtues to be reformed into a master of a craft. In this sense, the Christian faith is like anything else: it requires great virtue to render many results in the faith. Yes, the Holy Spirit is mandatory, and he does the bulk of the work, but the Holy Spirit is not the only one working. In fact, if we do not work with him, then we actually scandalize, offend, and grieve the Holy Spirit (Eph. 4:30).
What prevails today is a cheap grace knockoff that preaches the salvation we have in Christ requires no response, that the blood of Christ is applied to our hearts and remains efficacious regardless of how we live. It teaches that we can love Jesus without obedience (cf. John 14:15), or that we can be creatures of light while living comfortably alongside people of darkness. This is not the Christian faith, even if it is preached and observed by people who attend church and call themselves Christian. It is a counterfeit faith aimed at robbing the gospel of its power.
We want to imagine that we just need an encounter with the Holy Spirit, and then something like instant sanctification takes place. However, that is not the historic Christian faith. The faith that was once and for all entrusted to the saints requires a long pattern of faithful response to the salvation offered to us in Christ.
The role of the Holy Spirit is not only to justify us, but to sanctify us. This means submitting ourselves to the joyful obedience toward and discipline from the Lord.
If we are self-interested and lazy, that means the only thing that compels change is discomfort. Natural man, no matter how uncomfortable he is, cannot be made good. It is only the activity of the Holy Spirit that can do that. It is the Spirit that discomforts us, then it is the Spirit that enables us to be transformed or converted. That isn’t the question before us. The question before us is if we are going to allow our local churches to be reflections of the nature of the Holy Spirit. Are we creating and maintaining communities of discomfort and discipline? Or are we comforting people who are already too comfortable? Are we running cruise ships or battleships?
The answer, of course, is that American churches, even small ones, are basically cruise ships. They identify more as consumers than soldiers. American Christianity is broadly flaccid and dull. It lacks the vibrancy, temerity, and resilience that the true church has required throughout history. Methodism, a revival movement that was specifically authored to combat this trend, seems to have jettisoned some of its primary means for reclaiming our heritage in Christ. It’s a real shame.
I truly believe that, on the Day of the Lord, the sheep and the goats will largely correspond with those who have submitted themselves to the uncomfortable and painful life of discipleship/discipline. They will, by and large, belong to churches that practiced quality control and held their membership to a higher standard. Tons of them will not be Methodist. Those that belonged to easy churches that kept them comfortable will be those who appear before the judgment seat of Christ and are crestfallen to find that Christ never knew them and they will not be welcome in that heavenly mansion (Matt. 7:21-23).
The strength of Methodism, for over a century, was that anyone who wanted to claim the title was subjected to an intense and rigorous standard that many flunked out of. Authentic Methodists were hated by lukewarm Christians, and accusations of works righteousness abounded, but the Spirit rewarded such faithfulness among our covenant body with growth and transformation. Not only individual souls were reformed, but also the national fabrics in which Methodism flourished.
There is power in compelling members to conform. The immediate power is that reprobate members become so uncomfortable as to take offense and leave. This is discouraging to those with worldly eyes, but it is the first step in purifying the body. Afterwards, the church can have true unity in seeking holiness together and, by the power of the Spirit, they will find it.
Anticipating Detractors
Many will say that this just cannot work today. Perhaps Christian exclusivity scratched a consumer itch in the first century, and then maybe it was a welcome culture shift in the eighteenth century, but today it just wouldn’t work with people. Have you ever heard someone issue this canard? Are you yourself thinking it right now?
First, the church isn’t called to do what “works.” Rather, we are called to be faithful. That’s it. Our success shouldn’t depend upon our own work, but upon the blessing of the Holy Spirit. Why do we imagine that the Holy Spirit will bless any effort that sells him short or waters him down? A knockoff church might grow, but if it doesn’t uphold and maintain the high standards of biblical discipleship, it isn’t really a church.
Second, even cursory reading of these historic times of strict revival will rob any sober person of the notion that the church was somehow scratching a consumer itch. These societies hosting the early church and early Methodism were no more tolerant to godly righteousness than ours today. Rather, they were less tolerant and more violent. When was the last time a Methodist preacher got beat up for his preaching? It used to happen frequently. Today, that would be seen as scandalous, and maybe even indicative that he had done something wrong. John Wesley used to get upset with himself when he had gone any significant amount of time without making someone angry with him. He understood what we have (perhaps intentionally) forgotten.
Western Christianity swallowed a lie a long time ago that we should be liked, respected, and valued by the godless world around us. It has made us effete and sterile. We now run with the attractional church model, hoping that we can draw more flies with honey than with vinegar. Except…we aren’t called to attract flies. We are fishers of men. It is the Holy Spirit who draws people in, but “when the Son of Man returns, will he find any faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8) If we keep going in this direction, neglecting all of the tools at our disposal, then when Christ returns, there will be very few true Christians in America.
At any time of effective revival that beats back the gates of hell, that transforms the conscience of a nation, the people have been moved to holy discipline. This can only be protected and encouraged when high standards are erected for the people by churches with integrity. We will no have holy churches if we do not make holiness prerequisite. We have no right to expect or hope for that, at our current state. No matter how much we pray, God is not going to bless a people with holiness who do not properly value it, protect it, or insist upon it. It isn’t that he can’t, it is that he won’t. He has made very clear his expectations for the church, and it is a far cry from the lukewarm counterfeit version that commonly passes for local churches in America today.
The primary measure of the integrity of a church is its willingness to give people over to their sins (1 Cor. 5:5) and practice the process described by Jesus himself in Matthew 18. The bogeyman of the judgmental church that unnecessarily pushes people towards biblical righteousness is just that: a bogeyman. It is a spectre that is unworthy of our concern. Meanwhile thousands of lukewarm churches are leading all of their people directly to hell. We should be alarmed!
Call to Action for the Global Methodists
If the Global Methodist Church is serious about claiming the form and power of righteousness, it is going to foster a serious conversation on the nature of membership and identity. We would be wise to reclaim a tradition of exclusivity and conditional relationship, no longer throwing the pearls of the faith to swine. Rather than the counterfeit polity of the UMC, in which they talked about ‘making disciples’ but could never define what one looked like, we need a robust and rigorous polity that expects biblical righteousness on the part of all members. We need to reclaim the truth that Christian worship is not an attractional event for unbelievers, but a covenant renewal service for the initiated and those preparing for initiation. We need to seriously consider that our open table theology has directly corresponded with a cheapening of grace and salvation, and consider again making communion conditional upon covenant faithfulness.
I sense that many in leadership in the GMC are drunk on American consumerist notions that we can achieve the victories of the past without utilizing the stick. Folks, we need both carrot and stick. If the GMC is going to expect to be taken seriously, it needs to boot out disorderly walkers, no matter how rich or influential they are. The GMC also needs to establish and maintain high standards for member churches, and it must regularly disfellowship those churches that flaunt our covenant.
In short, the church today should resemble the true church throughout history. We aren’t anything special or new. By nature, we are only truly the church when we tap into the ancient and eternal. A new church that uses only sugar to attract and no vinegar to chase away, all shepherd’s crook to pull in and no rod to beat away, all positivity to encourage and no admonishment to condemn…that isn’t a church. It is a cheap similitude that has no power to save.
If we want to participate in God’s saving work in the world, then we will, without shame, reclaim our exclusive ways of church discipline, once again guaranteeing that the title “Methodist” means something. We will not be governed by fear that our churches won’t grow or we will run out money, or that we will be hated or seen by the world as bigots or fundamentalists. We will only have a right fear of standing before God’s judgment seat and exposed for the charlatans we have been.
One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. We have a couple of centuries of churches in our culture, racing to the bottom in standards of membership and participation. How is that working for us? Sure, the churches that excel in this venture seem to grow, but do you notice the overall trend? Secularism and godlessness in the church, and even worse in society abroad. The illusion of growth in a few places belies the degradation of our society. Now many in the GMC want to imagine that by talking about the Holy Spirit more and praying more, we are going to replicate the success of early Methodism. I find this idea somewhat insane. Without biblical obedience and discipline, most of our prayers aren’t even doing what we think they are doing. Without church discipline, we are actually mocking the Lord. He will not bless a people who are too afraid to offend people. He will not bless a people who are all ‘yes’ and no ‘no.’
Do we want God’s blessing? Do we want to please him? Do we want to see the form and the power of righteousness? Reclaim biblical expectations of righteousness in the body. Kick people out, unapologetically, who refuse to grow in holiness. Stop being afraid of getting small or poor, of losing respect or esteem from the world. Learn to fear the Lord rightly so that we don’t fear anything else. Then, and only then, will we see the power and blessing of the Holy Spirit poured out upon all flesh. Then, and only then, will we be fit to reclaim the title ‘Methodist.’
Good reply. Thank you for writing this thoughtful article. You made many salient points. “Christ seems to state pretty clearly in Matthew 5 that good works (the outside of the cup) are actually quite important. They just aren't at all connected with salvation when they don't correspond to an inner cleanliness.” Amen. 👍
Jeffrey, overall I’m in agreement with your emphasis on the need for a return to strict church discipline. Without it, you have what amounts to allowing a cancer to spread throughout the body. I’m not sure that the parable of the wheat and tares is the appropriate one to use though. It seems to me that the lesson there is not to be too hasty in pulling out the weeds within the church, since you might unintentionally uproot some of the wheat in the process. In my opinion, the example in 1 Corinthians 5, which you alluded to, is a much clearer example, since there, the sin was manifest and unrepentant. I also agree with your comment regarding communion. I do not agree with J.W. that communion is a converting ordinance, rather I believe it’s a nurturing sacrament reserved for baptized members in good standing. I recently read that where Christianity is thriving, whether in the early church or now, it’s always accompanied with two criteria, fervent prayer and some sort of persecution. If the GMC were to adopt your suggestions, the persecution would be a given.