Rev. Rickman, I come in the spirit not of a critic but of possibly offering help as a wordsmith (my profession). My thought is to give some feedback from the perspective of a reader of your product. My comments are provided simply for your consideration; they are numbered to match your numbering. Please take this simply as an offering.
1. I am unclear whether your reference is to the church of the Apostolic era (early Christian church) or the early Methodist church. Also, I am unclear what you mean by “the universal (consensual)”.
2. You might consider restating 2 along the following lines: “2. Methodists understand themselves to be sinners who, but for the substitutionary atoning work of Christ Jesus, are justly condemned.
3. You might consider restating 3 along the following lines: “3. Methodists believe those lacking faithful covenant with Christ may face damnation.” [Explanation: This is my personal comment; for I believe it would be presumptive for a human to judge that God in His mercy lacks the power to withhold damnation. The story of Jonah and Neneveh comes to my mind, although it is not directly in point.]
4. I suggest changing “primarily” to “particularly”. [Explanation: For me, I would not emphasize holiness and purity over loving God fully as commanded by the greatest and first commandment.]
6. And 7. I suggest adding “strive to” after the initial word “Methodists”.
9. I suggest restating 9 as follows, to avoid needlessly categorizing the Holy Spirit by gender: “Methodists believe the Spirit is a person, essential for salvation, and still pouring out signs and wonders today.”
10. I suggest restating the final sentence along the following lines: “In dealing with ‘disorderly walkers’ we strive to follow the processes sanctioned by the Apostles in terms of correction of brothers and sisters and excluding members.”
11. Please consider changing “as they abide by” to “as long as they abide by”.
12. I suggest adding “strive to” after the initial word “Methodists”.
Possible Addition: I suggest that you consider an additional distinction regarding the Wesleyan doctrines of Grace. Or, perhaps this could be treated in an introduction.
Some of my phrasing was because of constraints on space. I can't fit much more into the space afforded in the format. But some of it contains theological arguments that I have yet to make. I will do an article on each one that (hopefully) explains what each phrasing is meant to convey. You might still find yourself in a place of disagreement with me on some of these when it is all over, but then, that is probably to be expected! I don't think many will find themselves agreeing with 100% of what I offer in this series. There is going to be a lot of content that is somewhat...disagreeable. The intent is to say the things that very few are saying so that we can go some directions we are reluctant to go. I hope to persuade, but I also know we are living in a time where persuasion isn't very common. I also realize I could be wrong about some of these things. The only way for me to see that is to receive correction. I'll be glad to have folks like you on board to offer helpful feedback, as you already have.
Some interesting ideas here, glad people are thinking these things out. A few thoughts:
I think the ancient church was wise not to make one particular theory or symbol of atonement creedal, because they point to a mystery that is really beyond language--i believe in substitution, and christus victor, and ransom, and all of the biblical language about atonement; but it seems to me that the ephesians 2 language of salvation by faith through grace is the wesleyan way of articulating these things and is more helpful; and salvation obviously implies something we are saved from, but whether people subscribe to annihilationism or eternal damnation, seems to me a matter of reasonable disagreement (as long as universalism is guarded against). I think 2 would be better framed as people who believe in original sin and total depravity, and who can only be rescued from sin by the saving work of Jesus on the cross. I believe that says the same thing, essentially, without tying Methodists to an area where the church has had thousands of years of legitimate, good faith debate.
I also think the language of holy love should be included in any longing for what Methodists are; Wesley very clearly centers love as the key attribute of God, and I think a renewed Methodism needs to reclaim the language of love, holy love, as central to what a life with God and each other is, and perhaps figuring out how to communicate that discipline and accountability in the community is a huge part of how love is expressed, somehow we need to do that. But a definition of who Methodists are without the language of love and grace, to me, is missing a huge chunk of who we are; we are 1 John people, and though "love" is a word that has been horribly misused, it still is the essence of who we want to be, a love defined by the person of Jesus.
I also am concerned broadly that the full inclusion of female leadership, rooted in the biblical witness, be included in any methodist particulars. It's fully apart of the Methodist tradition, and I believe part of the biblical one too. That is an essential that the GMC needs to be particular strong on; I see it as an outflow of our dependence on the Holy Spirit and our obedience to the whole narrative of scripture. I hope we are an Acts 2 movement, and it seems to me that the Holy Spirit calls men and women, young and old, all to preach the gospel. That's an essential to me, and I also predict that support of women in ministry will be a key theological safeguard for the GMC, against the kind of fundamentalism I was always glad to not have in the UMC. Figuring out how to clearly articulate the Wesleyan hermenuetic (after the much needed death of the quadrilateral) to me, will be the most important theological project for orthodox Wesleyans.
Love the focus on holiness though; that to me is the key thing God is calling us as a movement to focus on and pray for and long for.
I fully support your expansion of atonement. I would go a bit further with the expansion on holy love - we need to explain the faith in PERFECT love: a love for God and one another that is so strong that the experience of sin is no longer part of our experience! Rather than redefining behaviors as "not sin" we stop fully involving ourselves in sinful behaviors. Perhaps #4 could be rephrased to include this "grand depositum" of Methodism.
I only see the second point about the substitutionary atonement an issue if that's where we end. I personally think that stopping at that point can be just as problematic as rejecting it. Those who stop there typically end in a form of limited atonement, while those who reject it seem to drift into a utopian belief of sinless humanity. I think to be faithful to Scripture, we need to recognize and accept the reality of substitutionary atonement without dismissing the aspects which do not conform to that model. At least, that's the opinion I've come to from watching people wrestle with this concept as Wesleyans.
Responding to the larger content as a whole, I think that this speaks a lot to what Rickerman should be aiming for. You speak to a reclaiming of the church as a body of believers who gather together to worship and pursue God. There is a sense of true and honest inspiration that comes from reading this article; you don't talk about reclaiming anything material, but reclaiming the heart of Christianity - Christianity, even if the emphasis is Methodism. I could go on, but I want people who read my comment to take this away more than anything else:
Your article here is very encouraging and inspiring. Thank you very much for this, I definitely needed this at this point in my life.
I really like this list. It sets Methodism not only firmly in its true roots but positions us to be a distinct part of the body from most of western Christianity and therefore useful. This is a list I will live by even if the GMC doesn’t.
I am really interested in what is meant by throwing out "unruly walkers." ??? From my experience in Methodist churches, the only people that are ever forced out are the ones that actually speak up about heresies preached in the pulpit, witnesses (or victims) of abuse, or even people that demand transparency about finances. Methodist Churches (at least here on the East Coast!) NEED MORE complainers! People avoiding all conflict have gotten Methodism into the mess it is in today! Hopefully GMC lay leaders, pastors, presiding elders and bishops will allow people (hopefully, even encourage!) to complain about what goes wrong in their congregations without being forced out! If we don't allow complaining we will be back in the same sinking boat as the UMC.
Mary Ann, the phrase was "disorderly" walkers. It is used in the 'General Rules of the United Societies' document that was foundational to the Methodist Revival. It connotes someone who unrepentantly persists in sin. You are right to say that people of faith should not go along with corrupt institutions and practices. You are wrong, however, I believe, to validate complaint as a valid form of critique. We may have different understandings of what complaining constitutes. In the life of the church, however, complainers are known to punch holes in things uncharitably while proposing no remedies. That creates toxic churches and should be corrected quickly. Remember that the Lord punished the Israelites whenever they complained in the wilderness, and it is condemned as a sin more than once. I'm of the mind that you were not validating this practice condemned by God, but that you're defending the rights of individuals not to go along with charlatan pastors and church leadership. I wholeheartedly agree with such a sentiment.
If you want to know more about the General Rules document, I would point you to a video series I did on it, which will be a good primer for what I have to say about "disorderly walkers" in this series: The Nature, Design, & General Rules of the United Societies (Part 1)
https://youtu.be/O7pEvX3b7lc. If you want to only address the section dealing with disorderly walkers, then that would be Part 3 of the series.
Good morning! I know you are trying to offer something different to add to the conversation. So you may be avoiding these things. What I'm looking for in your list is something about grace specifically (prevenient, justifying and sanctifying and John Wesley's Scripture Way of Salvation); which makes Methodism quite distinct. And I would add that grace is not wishy-washy allow anything grace but grace is where love and truth intersect. And in my conversations with current United Methodists, the pull to "love people" is greater than scripture because our understanding of what scripture is is weak and misunderstood. So, I believe teaching scripture as a whole and means of grace itself has to become a renewed practice in church/small groups to recover Methodism - just my opinion.
Just an aside ... I think seminary historical biblical criticism (making the scriptures a book to decide which was true and which was not) and contemporary society's me-ism culture along with homosexuality issues have degraded Scriptural authority. If we don't reclaim that in a way that is true to the Trinity and the scriptures themselves, I think we will lose real Christianity, not just Methodism.
Yours wasn't the first response along these lines. You're not wrong. So I have added these words to the article in this series that I published on Saturday: "A good deal of pushback has been issued in response to my list of essentials failing to include doctrines of love and grace. It is here that the scripture way of salvation and the essential nature of love should be emphasized. These were not new doctrines, but reclaimed doctrines, that came to be so central in Methodism.
Grace must be understood as a singular phenomenon issued from our Triune God: preventing, convicting, justifying, sanctifying, and perfecting. Love must be understood as the chief Christian virtue, the principle and personality under which everything we do is organized and undertaken. The culture of Methodism must be defined by and saturated with grace and love. Without these theologies firmly ensconced, any Methodism rebuilt will be no Methodism at all."
Rev. Jeff, I propose for your consideration an introduction along the following lines. In order to avoid a reader's misunderstanding of the features you list, I believe such an introduction would be helpful
Introduction
Jesus said,
“‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” – (Matthew 22:34-40)
We recognize that God loves all his children and that we are able to love because God first loved us. Our first calling as children of God is to love God fully. We also are called to love our neighbor as we love ourselves.
The primacy of our response to God’s love for us must be our fully loving God. In that loving relationship with God, and guided by our articles of faith (which are common to a number of Christian traditions), the Wesleyan tradition has developed certain features that serve to distinguish it from other Christian traditions.
Having personally received God's bountiful, unlimited Grace and bearing in mind Wesley's emphasis on God's Grace, I would suggest that Grace should be included in the Methodist distinctions.
I have gotten some pushback from a few folks who note that any concern for grace and love (and hymnody) is lacking in my list. Admittedly, my list is concerned with the less-emphasized characteristics of Methodism. There is very little contemporary pushback against those things, so I don't feel the need to insist upon them. But I would agree with you that a Methodism that did not stress the role of grace in our salvation would not much resemble authentic Methodism at all.
Rev. Rickman, I come in the spirit not of a critic but of possibly offering help as a wordsmith (my profession). My thought is to give some feedback from the perspective of a reader of your product. My comments are provided simply for your consideration; they are numbered to match your numbering. Please take this simply as an offering.
1. I am unclear whether your reference is to the church of the Apostolic era (early Christian church) or the early Methodist church. Also, I am unclear what you mean by “the universal (consensual)”.
2. You might consider restating 2 along the following lines: “2. Methodists understand themselves to be sinners who, but for the substitutionary atoning work of Christ Jesus, are justly condemned.
3. You might consider restating 3 along the following lines: “3. Methodists believe those lacking faithful covenant with Christ may face damnation.” [Explanation: This is my personal comment; for I believe it would be presumptive for a human to judge that God in His mercy lacks the power to withhold damnation. The story of Jonah and Neneveh comes to my mind, although it is not directly in point.]
4. I suggest changing “primarily” to “particularly”. [Explanation: For me, I would not emphasize holiness and purity over loving God fully as commanded by the greatest and first commandment.]
6. And 7. I suggest adding “strive to” after the initial word “Methodists”.
9. I suggest restating 9 as follows, to avoid needlessly categorizing the Holy Spirit by gender: “Methodists believe the Spirit is a person, essential for salvation, and still pouring out signs and wonders today.”
10. I suggest restating the final sentence along the following lines: “In dealing with ‘disorderly walkers’ we strive to follow the processes sanctioned by the Apostles in terms of correction of brothers and sisters and excluding members.”
11. Please consider changing “as they abide by” to “as long as they abide by”.
12. I suggest adding “strive to” after the initial word “Methodists”.
Possible Addition: I suggest that you consider an additional distinction regarding the Wesleyan doctrines of Grace. Or, perhaps this could be treated in an introduction.
Some of my phrasing was because of constraints on space. I can't fit much more into the space afforded in the format. But some of it contains theological arguments that I have yet to make. I will do an article on each one that (hopefully) explains what each phrasing is meant to convey. You might still find yourself in a place of disagreement with me on some of these when it is all over, but then, that is probably to be expected! I don't think many will find themselves agreeing with 100% of what I offer in this series. There is going to be a lot of content that is somewhat...disagreeable. The intent is to say the things that very few are saying so that we can go some directions we are reluctant to go. I hope to persuade, but I also know we are living in a time where persuasion isn't very common. I also realize I could be wrong about some of these things. The only way for me to see that is to receive correction. I'll be glad to have folks like you on board to offer helpful feedback, as you already have.
I understand. I doubt that you and I will have any disagreements over basic Wesleyan theology.
I wrote this before I read your response regarding Grace.
Some interesting ideas here, glad people are thinking these things out. A few thoughts:
I think the ancient church was wise not to make one particular theory or symbol of atonement creedal, because they point to a mystery that is really beyond language--i believe in substitution, and christus victor, and ransom, and all of the biblical language about atonement; but it seems to me that the ephesians 2 language of salvation by faith through grace is the wesleyan way of articulating these things and is more helpful; and salvation obviously implies something we are saved from, but whether people subscribe to annihilationism or eternal damnation, seems to me a matter of reasonable disagreement (as long as universalism is guarded against). I think 2 would be better framed as people who believe in original sin and total depravity, and who can only be rescued from sin by the saving work of Jesus on the cross. I believe that says the same thing, essentially, without tying Methodists to an area where the church has had thousands of years of legitimate, good faith debate.
I also think the language of holy love should be included in any longing for what Methodists are; Wesley very clearly centers love as the key attribute of God, and I think a renewed Methodism needs to reclaim the language of love, holy love, as central to what a life with God and each other is, and perhaps figuring out how to communicate that discipline and accountability in the community is a huge part of how love is expressed, somehow we need to do that. But a definition of who Methodists are without the language of love and grace, to me, is missing a huge chunk of who we are; we are 1 John people, and though "love" is a word that has been horribly misused, it still is the essence of who we want to be, a love defined by the person of Jesus.
I also am concerned broadly that the full inclusion of female leadership, rooted in the biblical witness, be included in any methodist particulars. It's fully apart of the Methodist tradition, and I believe part of the biblical one too. That is an essential that the GMC needs to be particular strong on; I see it as an outflow of our dependence on the Holy Spirit and our obedience to the whole narrative of scripture. I hope we are an Acts 2 movement, and it seems to me that the Holy Spirit calls men and women, young and old, all to preach the gospel. That's an essential to me, and I also predict that support of women in ministry will be a key theological safeguard for the GMC, against the kind of fundamentalism I was always glad to not have in the UMC. Figuring out how to clearly articulate the Wesleyan hermenuetic (after the much needed death of the quadrilateral) to me, will be the most important theological project for orthodox Wesleyans.
Love the focus on holiness though; that to me is the key thing God is calling us as a movement to focus on and pray for and long for.
I fully support your expansion of atonement. I would go a bit further with the expansion on holy love - we need to explain the faith in PERFECT love: a love for God and one another that is so strong that the experience of sin is no longer part of our experience! Rather than redefining behaviors as "not sin" we stop fully involving ourselves in sinful behaviors. Perhaps #4 could be rephrased to include this "grand depositum" of Methodism.
I only see the second point about the substitutionary atonement an issue if that's where we end. I personally think that stopping at that point can be just as problematic as rejecting it. Those who stop there typically end in a form of limited atonement, while those who reject it seem to drift into a utopian belief of sinless humanity. I think to be faithful to Scripture, we need to recognize and accept the reality of substitutionary atonement without dismissing the aspects which do not conform to that model. At least, that's the opinion I've come to from watching people wrestle with this concept as Wesleyans.
Responding to the larger content as a whole, I think that this speaks a lot to what Rickerman should be aiming for. You speak to a reclaiming of the church as a body of believers who gather together to worship and pursue God. There is a sense of true and honest inspiration that comes from reading this article; you don't talk about reclaiming anything material, but reclaiming the heart of Christianity - Christianity, even if the emphasis is Methodism. I could go on, but I want people who read my comment to take this away more than anything else:
Your article here is very encouraging and inspiring. Thank you very much for this, I definitely needed this at this point in my life.
I really like this list. It sets Methodism not only firmly in its true roots but positions us to be a distinct part of the body from most of western Christianity and therefore useful. This is a list I will live by even if the GMC doesn’t.
I am really interested in what is meant by throwing out "unruly walkers." ??? From my experience in Methodist churches, the only people that are ever forced out are the ones that actually speak up about heresies preached in the pulpit, witnesses (or victims) of abuse, or even people that demand transparency about finances. Methodist Churches (at least here on the East Coast!) NEED MORE complainers! People avoiding all conflict have gotten Methodism into the mess it is in today! Hopefully GMC lay leaders, pastors, presiding elders and bishops will allow people (hopefully, even encourage!) to complain about what goes wrong in their congregations without being forced out! If we don't allow complaining we will be back in the same sinking boat as the UMC.
Mary Ann, the phrase was "disorderly" walkers. It is used in the 'General Rules of the United Societies' document that was foundational to the Methodist Revival. It connotes someone who unrepentantly persists in sin. You are right to say that people of faith should not go along with corrupt institutions and practices. You are wrong, however, I believe, to validate complaint as a valid form of critique. We may have different understandings of what complaining constitutes. In the life of the church, however, complainers are known to punch holes in things uncharitably while proposing no remedies. That creates toxic churches and should be corrected quickly. Remember that the Lord punished the Israelites whenever they complained in the wilderness, and it is condemned as a sin more than once. I'm of the mind that you were not validating this practice condemned by God, but that you're defending the rights of individuals not to go along with charlatan pastors and church leadership. I wholeheartedly agree with such a sentiment.
If you want to know more about the General Rules document, I would point you to a video series I did on it, which will be a good primer for what I have to say about "disorderly walkers" in this series: The Nature, Design, & General Rules of the United Societies (Part 1)
https://youtu.be/O7pEvX3b7lc. If you want to only address the section dealing with disorderly walkers, then that would be Part 3 of the series.
Well done Jeff.
Good morning! I know you are trying to offer something different to add to the conversation. So you may be avoiding these things. What I'm looking for in your list is something about grace specifically (prevenient, justifying and sanctifying and John Wesley's Scripture Way of Salvation); which makes Methodism quite distinct. And I would add that grace is not wishy-washy allow anything grace but grace is where love and truth intersect. And in my conversations with current United Methodists, the pull to "love people" is greater than scripture because our understanding of what scripture is is weak and misunderstood. So, I believe teaching scripture as a whole and means of grace itself has to become a renewed practice in church/small groups to recover Methodism - just my opinion.
Just an aside ... I think seminary historical biblical criticism (making the scriptures a book to decide which was true and which was not) and contemporary society's me-ism culture along with homosexuality issues have degraded Scriptural authority. If we don't reclaim that in a way that is true to the Trinity and the scriptures themselves, I think we will lose real Christianity, not just Methodism.
Yours wasn't the first response along these lines. You're not wrong. So I have added these words to the article in this series that I published on Saturday: "A good deal of pushback has been issued in response to my list of essentials failing to include doctrines of love and grace. It is here that the scripture way of salvation and the essential nature of love should be emphasized. These were not new doctrines, but reclaimed doctrines, that came to be so central in Methodism.
Grace must be understood as a singular phenomenon issued from our Triune God: preventing, convicting, justifying, sanctifying, and perfecting. Love must be understood as the chief Christian virtue, the principle and personality under which everything we do is organized and undertaken. The culture of Methodism must be defined by and saturated with grace and love. Without these theologies firmly ensconced, any Methodism rebuilt will be no Methodism at all."
Rev. Jeff, I propose for your consideration an introduction along the following lines. In order to avoid a reader's misunderstanding of the features you list, I believe such an introduction would be helpful
Introduction
Jesus said,
“‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” – (Matthew 22:34-40)
We recognize that God loves all his children and that we are able to love because God first loved us. Our first calling as children of God is to love God fully. We also are called to love our neighbor as we love ourselves.
The primacy of our response to God’s love for us must be our fully loving God. In that loving relationship with God, and guided by our articles of faith (which are common to a number of Christian traditions), the Wesleyan tradition has developed certain features that serve to distinguish it from other Christian traditions.
Having personally received God's bountiful, unlimited Grace and bearing in mind Wesley's emphasis on God's Grace, I would suggest that Grace should be included in the Methodist distinctions.
I have gotten some pushback from a few folks who note that any concern for grace and love (and hymnody) is lacking in my list. Admittedly, my list is concerned with the less-emphasized characteristics of Methodism. There is very little contemporary pushback against those things, so I don't feel the need to insist upon them. But I would agree with you that a Methodism that did not stress the role of grace in our salvation would not much resemble authentic Methodism at all.