Jeffrey, I’m with you 100 percent on the need for Methodists to reclaim their heritage. Although, I see this need for the entire institutional church to do the same thing. I believe that the time has come for “The Remnant “ of true believers to re-examine how far we’ve really strayed from the ethos and practices of the early church. In your reference to Ephesians chapter 4, just two verses prior, Paul wrote that the purpose of church leadership was for “equipping the saints for work of ministry, to build up the body of Christ, until we all reach unity in the faith, and in the knowledge of God’s Son, growing into maturity with a stature measured by Christ’s fullness. This form of every member ministry was one reason for rapid expansion of the early church in the pre-Constantine era. Most surveys now find that only 20 to 30 percent of most congregations are active in some sort of individual ministry. The so-called “Priesthood of all believers “ is given a lot of lip service, but not really enacted. In my opinion, this is something that begs to be addressed.
There are some rather large chasms between the presuppositions that modern believers make in contrast to those that early. believers made. Most moderns would look at ancients as something akin to cult members. This is a problem. I agree with all of your words here, Bob.
I learn much from you in your substack. I agree with reclaiming early church doctrine and examples. It is hard work. I have to continually ask God for discernment, guidance and biblical understanding. Most of those who call themselves Christians, myself included, are hesitant about being vulnerable, intimate or receiving correction except from a spouse or close family or friend. However, the church is a family or it should be. I don't understand why people attend services once a week but hardly know the people they sit next to in church. How can you "love one another" if you don't know one another. I feel a pang of guilt when I see someone attend church a few times then I don't see them again. Where are they? Who are they? Why did they not come back? Relationships, especially close ones, take time. Are we willing to invest in one another the way our Lord expects? I hope so. I treasure my friends and family almost as much as my Savior. Blessings to you, my brother.
You are 100% right about all of this, Eileen. The phoniness of the average person's faith is exposed by these things. Unless we are really seeking to know and be known by one another in the church, we are selling the faith of Jesus Christ short. The Revised Common Lectionary is currently requiring that we make our way through 1 John, which speaks so consistently and clearly to this matter.
Great thoughts on the early church. Jude had this to say on contending for The Faith. “Beloved, while eagerly preparing to write to you about the salvation we share, I find it necessary to write and appeal to you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.”- Jude 1:3.
Since this faith was entrusted “once for all,” Jude intends to stand against those who claim to receive “new” revelations of truth. So should we.
Hey Jeffrey, this is a good start and what I hear you saying is that we've got to be true to God in the same principles and understandings of the early church as expressed in the scriptures. I hope you'll say more about scriptural holiness along the way. I have one big question after reading. Can you define for me how you define "doctrine"? And then, how do you define the difference between doctrine and practice around "doctrine"? Just to say a bit about why I'm asking, is that for me I'm seeing a mixture of the two within this "essential" and a healthy dose of cynicism. So, cynicism first, seems more appropriate to postmodern culture than to early church history - in my humble opinion? When I think of God I don't think of cynicism. When I think of people or Bishops, I might begin feeling some cynicism. So I also consequently wonder about cynicism, if you might be saying, there are certain beliefs we must not only hold to, but are defining as whether "we're out" or "we're in" a real Christian community. How does doctrine define that and what do we do if an idea is outside of that doctrine? Case in point - the UMC had the structure in place to remove heresy, but not the guts to follow through with the consequences and remove from community. I don't know if that makes sense. I'm invested in not repeating what the UMC has done - in heresy - but also I have seen Christians act in cynicism before asking the Lord to show them scriptures and seek first. Because it's "out of our realm of experience" - doesn't mean it wasn't totally within the early church's experience. For example, the entire book of Acts is all NEW stuff - no one had done this before - they were simply sent to go tell people and act like people who loved Jesus above everything else. I had a humbling experience in Korea. No Korean pastor gets a salary when they become a pastor. They're told instead - go get a congregation and when you have a congregation, come back to the annual conference and you'll be the pastor of that church. That's certainly not the practice of the UMC in America, but I think it might have been actually what was going on in Acts. And perhaps what Wesley was doing with creating horseback riding pastors who went from town to town. I don't think the people and apostles of Acts rode horseback - a practice to take the gospel to every place. The apostles probably were on foot. Today, why not boats, planes, cars, podcast, etc.? So, I'm saying - if we can separate doctrine from practice, we could find that Christ (and Wesley) does new things - for a doctrine; rather than doctrines and practices are codified forever. Also, schools and hospitals exist primarily because of Jesus followers, living out their faith - a new thing at the time. Educating women, totally new thing. So, how do we leave room for following faithfully in practice with complete adherence to doctrine? I'm writing on the fly, so I may not be communicating well. I apologize if you have to figure out what I'm trying to say.
I saw this in a Presbyterian tenets of faith recently and have been mulling this over - because I am keenly interested in doctrine (beliefs, basic tenets, theological stances) being more about scripture than about cultural ideas. Here's what their essential tenets said, "The revelation of the incarnate Word does not minimize, qualify, or set aside the authority of the written
Love what you wrote here, having invested years and money in the UMC for most of my adult life, "If we have changed the faith so as to be unrecognizable to that first generation, or if we prohibit things that were acceptable in early Methodism, then we have done something wrong."
When I talk about doctrine, the word is pretty much replaceable by the word “teaching.” There have been certain definable teachings throughout the history of the church that must be made known and protected. Your concerns about cynicism are not fully understood by me. But then, I can be quite dense. I think our posture towards one another needs to be different from the posture that we have towards God. Yet our relationships with one another should reflect how we understand God to be in relationship with us. Does he love us? Yes. Does he trust us? No, I don’t think so. While Christians have done new things across history, and some of those have been good, I find myself quite reluctant to acknowledge that new things are generally good. I guess I think they are generally bad, with some exceptions. Thank you for your kind words about my writing. I hope you enjoy the rest of the series.
I think I am now a substack payer. I don’t know. It’s confusing to me.
I just checked, and you are. And THANK YOU! You and your husband have been good supporters in many ways for a long time!
Our son has been trying to have us watch the Jesus Revolution. We told him we lived it. 😲
Jeffrey, I’m with you 100 percent on the need for Methodists to reclaim their heritage. Although, I see this need for the entire institutional church to do the same thing. I believe that the time has come for “The Remnant “ of true believers to re-examine how far we’ve really strayed from the ethos and practices of the early church. In your reference to Ephesians chapter 4, just two verses prior, Paul wrote that the purpose of church leadership was for “equipping the saints for work of ministry, to build up the body of Christ, until we all reach unity in the faith, and in the knowledge of God’s Son, growing into maturity with a stature measured by Christ’s fullness. This form of every member ministry was one reason for rapid expansion of the early church in the pre-Constantine era. Most surveys now find that only 20 to 30 percent of most congregations are active in some sort of individual ministry. The so-called “Priesthood of all believers “ is given a lot of lip service, but not really enacted. In my opinion, this is something that begs to be addressed.
There are some rather large chasms between the presuppositions that modern believers make in contrast to those that early. believers made. Most moderns would look at ancients as something akin to cult members. This is a problem. I agree with all of your words here, Bob.
I learn much from you in your substack. I agree with reclaiming early church doctrine and examples. It is hard work. I have to continually ask God for discernment, guidance and biblical understanding. Most of those who call themselves Christians, myself included, are hesitant about being vulnerable, intimate or receiving correction except from a spouse or close family or friend. However, the church is a family or it should be. I don't understand why people attend services once a week but hardly know the people they sit next to in church. How can you "love one another" if you don't know one another. I feel a pang of guilt when I see someone attend church a few times then I don't see them again. Where are they? Who are they? Why did they not come back? Relationships, especially close ones, take time. Are we willing to invest in one another the way our Lord expects? I hope so. I treasure my friends and family almost as much as my Savior. Blessings to you, my brother.
You are 100% right about all of this, Eileen. The phoniness of the average person's faith is exposed by these things. Unless we are really seeking to know and be known by one another in the church, we are selling the faith of Jesus Christ short. The Revised Common Lectionary is currently requiring that we make our way through 1 John, which speaks so consistently and clearly to this matter.
Eileen, my thoughts exactly, about weekly gatherings of perfect strangers.
Great thoughts on the early church. Jude had this to say on contending for The Faith. “Beloved, while eagerly preparing to write to you about the salvation we share, I find it necessary to write and appeal to you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.”- Jude 1:3.
Since this faith was entrusted “once for all,” Jude intends to stand against those who claim to receive “new” revelations of truth. So should we.
Hey Jeffrey, this is a good start and what I hear you saying is that we've got to be true to God in the same principles and understandings of the early church as expressed in the scriptures. I hope you'll say more about scriptural holiness along the way. I have one big question after reading. Can you define for me how you define "doctrine"? And then, how do you define the difference between doctrine and practice around "doctrine"? Just to say a bit about why I'm asking, is that for me I'm seeing a mixture of the two within this "essential" and a healthy dose of cynicism. So, cynicism first, seems more appropriate to postmodern culture than to early church history - in my humble opinion? When I think of God I don't think of cynicism. When I think of people or Bishops, I might begin feeling some cynicism. So I also consequently wonder about cynicism, if you might be saying, there are certain beliefs we must not only hold to, but are defining as whether "we're out" or "we're in" a real Christian community. How does doctrine define that and what do we do if an idea is outside of that doctrine? Case in point - the UMC had the structure in place to remove heresy, but not the guts to follow through with the consequences and remove from community. I don't know if that makes sense. I'm invested in not repeating what the UMC has done - in heresy - but also I have seen Christians act in cynicism before asking the Lord to show them scriptures and seek first. Because it's "out of our realm of experience" - doesn't mean it wasn't totally within the early church's experience. For example, the entire book of Acts is all NEW stuff - no one had done this before - they were simply sent to go tell people and act like people who loved Jesus above everything else. I had a humbling experience in Korea. No Korean pastor gets a salary when they become a pastor. They're told instead - go get a congregation and when you have a congregation, come back to the annual conference and you'll be the pastor of that church. That's certainly not the practice of the UMC in America, but I think it might have been actually what was going on in Acts. And perhaps what Wesley was doing with creating horseback riding pastors who went from town to town. I don't think the people and apostles of Acts rode horseback - a practice to take the gospel to every place. The apostles probably were on foot. Today, why not boats, planes, cars, podcast, etc.? So, I'm saying - if we can separate doctrine from practice, we could find that Christ (and Wesley) does new things - for a doctrine; rather than doctrines and practices are codified forever. Also, schools and hospitals exist primarily because of Jesus followers, living out their faith - a new thing at the time. Educating women, totally new thing. So, how do we leave room for following faithfully in practice with complete adherence to doctrine? I'm writing on the fly, so I may not be communicating well. I apologize if you have to figure out what I'm trying to say.
I saw this in a Presbyterian tenets of faith recently and have been mulling this over - because I am keenly interested in doctrine (beliefs, basic tenets, theological stances) being more about scripture than about cultural ideas. Here's what their essential tenets said, "The revelation of the incarnate Word does not minimize, qualify, or set aside the authority of the written
Word."
Love what you wrote here, having invested years and money in the UMC for most of my adult life, "If we have changed the faith so as to be unrecognizable to that first generation, or if we prohibit things that were acceptable in early Methodism, then we have done something wrong."
When I talk about doctrine, the word is pretty much replaceable by the word “teaching.” There have been certain definable teachings throughout the history of the church that must be made known and protected. Your concerns about cynicism are not fully understood by me. But then, I can be quite dense. I think our posture towards one another needs to be different from the posture that we have towards God. Yet our relationships with one another should reflect how we understand God to be in relationship with us. Does he love us? Yes. Does he trust us? No, I don’t think so. While Christians have done new things across history, and some of those have been good, I find myself quite reluctant to acknowledge that new things are generally good. I guess I think they are generally bad, with some exceptions. Thank you for your kind words about my writing. I hope you enjoy the rest of the series.