AMEN to Methodist authenticity. Let's get serious about this Holy Spirit deity - there is so much more to do than offering repeated 'Come Holy Spirit' pleas for His manifestation into our meetings and congregation - let's acknowledge, be attentive to and obey our existing, ever-present inner-self Holy Spirit that was placed into every believer's heart at the moment of their conversion. God is already at work in us - it is time for us to learn and be what 'diligent discipleship' is all about.
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.
Question: Who makes the rules? Some of John Wesley's rules for the society don't make sense for today. Example: What does not using many words in buying or selling even mean? Forbidding gold or costly apparel would ban wedding dresses and wedding rings. Who would make up the rules for people to keep? Bishops? Wouldn't people care more about what people in their small group thought of them insteas of God? Cleaning up the outside of the cup can still leave the inside dirty. I really never understood how class meetings and band meetings worked and what people "confessed" to the random people in the group. Why would talking people something about your life assure that they were telling everything? Frankly, the whole Wesleyan system seems like a means to make everybody act alike with no means of changing how people think, which is where sin actually lives.
The questions of "Who decides" is relevant in any case of setting standards. Once upon a time, the answer was 'John Wesley.' Now it is 'the General Conference.' If we are going to stand together, then we need to know what we stand for, what we stand against, and where we can allow for some difference of opinion. I'm not arguing for a new autocrat to arise. I'm wanting to push for a prolonged conversation about what standards were set in the beginning that we should reclaim. I'm less concerned about the specifics of where we land than I am that we at least have the conversation.
While Christ did obviously raise a very important concern about those who are concerned about the outside but not the inside, I think it is wrong to then conclude that the outside doesn't matter. Rather, 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.
Class meetings weren't filled with random strangers or a rotating crew of casual acquaintances. They were people with whom one was in spiritually familial relations. Trust was built and earned over many years, especially with the class leader, who was often more of a pastor than the actual elder. It is hard for people in a society as surface-level as ours to imagine such a consistent group of people, but it has happened and continues to happen.
It is worth spending some time reading the accounts of folks who were a part of Methodism back then. The surprising thing is not how different they were to us, but how similar. It helps us to understand that things really can be simpler and more effective when we learn to just step outside of ourselves a little bit.
AMEN to Methodist authenticity. Let's get serious about this Holy Spirit deity - there is so much more to do than offering repeated 'Come Holy Spirit' pleas for His manifestation into our meetings and congregation - let's acknowledge, be attentive to and obey our existing, ever-present inner-self Holy Spirit that was placed into every believer's heart at the moment of their conversion. God is already at work in us - it is time for us to learn and be what 'diligent discipleship' is all about.
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.
Question: Who makes the rules? Some of John Wesley's rules for the society don't make sense for today. Example: What does not using many words in buying or selling even mean? Forbidding gold or costly apparel would ban wedding dresses and wedding rings. Who would make up the rules for people to keep? Bishops? Wouldn't people care more about what people in their small group thought of them insteas of God? Cleaning up the outside of the cup can still leave the inside dirty. I really never understood how class meetings and band meetings worked and what people "confessed" to the random people in the group. Why would talking people something about your life assure that they were telling everything? Frankly, the whole Wesleyan system seems like a means to make everybody act alike with no means of changing how people think, which is where sin actually lives.
The questions of "Who decides" is relevant in any case of setting standards. Once upon a time, the answer was 'John Wesley.' Now it is 'the General Conference.' If we are going to stand together, then we need to know what we stand for, what we stand against, and where we can allow for some difference of opinion. I'm not arguing for a new autocrat to arise. I'm wanting to push for a prolonged conversation about what standards were set in the beginning that we should reclaim. I'm less concerned about the specifics of where we land than I am that we at least have the conversation.
While Christ did obviously raise a very important concern about those who are concerned about the outside but not the inside, I think it is wrong to then conclude that the outside doesn't matter. Rather, 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.
Class meetings weren't filled with random strangers or a rotating crew of casual acquaintances. They were people with whom one was in spiritually familial relations. Trust was built and earned over many years, especially with the class leader, who was often more of a pastor than the actual elder. It is hard for people in a society as surface-level as ours to imagine such a consistent group of people, but it has happened and continues to happen.
It is worth spending some time reading the accounts of folks who were a part of Methodism back then. The surprising thing is not how different they were to us, but how similar. It helps us to understand that things really can be simpler and more effective when we learn to just step outside of ourselves a little bit.