Discover more from Jeffrey Rickman’s Substack
Introducing the series
Several months ago, I interviewed an ordained deacon from the Northeast who was working to help facilitate a conversation on the essential beliefs and practices of the people called ‘Methodist.’ We had a two-part conversation about each of the distinctives that he recommended, the first of which you can find here. While we had a productive conversation, I did not, at the conclusion of our time together, find myself in agreement that his list corresponded with the most important or essential features of the Methodist historical identity as I understood it.
It seems to me that a number of people are trying to answer this question at the moment, bidding for the culture of the nascent Global Methodist Church (GMC) to adopt a shared understanding of the nature of what we are hoping to reclaim together. I see this in an episode of Rev. Andrew Thompson’s Spirit Power and Grace Podcast, ‘What Is a Methodist?’ I see it in the Reconstructing Methodism Conference, which features probably at least a dozen renown Methodist leaders. I see it in the concerns of Dr. Ryan Danker as he facilitates the School of Methodism that is traveling the United States. This project has begun in earnest.
As it currently stands, the bulk of Global Methodists are united to one another, not yet out of a shared sense of identity or theological commitment, but primarily out of a rejection of the excesses of The United Methodist Church. If the GMC is to cohere for a prolonged period of time, and even grow, as so many are hoping and expecting, then it is essential that a portrait be drafted of a reclaimed Methodist identity. It seems to me that Methodism was a tapestry that was already masterfully woven, yet largely dismembered and disregarded. I am hoping that the GMC might lovingly restore the Methodist heritage and hang it proudly above the mantle in our spiritual homes, so to speak. The project of reclaiming authentic Methodist identity is a worthy one. I would like to do my part to advance such a conversation.
Why am I chiming in?
I should acknowledge at the front end that I bear no standing entitling me to a role in the conversation. I am not the pastor of a large church, bursting at the seams, with the secret to church growth. I am not an academic with a degree and the support and respect of people with letters after their names. I am not a spiritual luminary, with powerful and public miraculous encounters with the Holy Spirit. I’m just a normal guy who grew up in the UMC, found it lacking, read the originating Methodist doctrine and history, and have loved the vision of Methodism ever since. I value learning, but I’m no academic. I value walking in the Spirit, but I’m no mystic or visionary. I started a podcast called PlainSpoken about a year ago, which covers topics related to Methodism. I have had conversations about the nature of authentic Methodism, not only with Rev. Matt Sichel, but also with thought leaders like Dr. David Watson, Rev. Angela Pleasants, Dr. Steve Blakemore, Rev. Rob Renfroe, Bishop Scott Jones, among a host of other faithful and intelligent Methodist thinkers and leaders across the world. It has been a real joy and pleasure.
Even so, my primary understanding of what Methodism was, and should be today, comes from reading John Wesley’s Sermons and Notes on the New Testament, the Articles of Religion, the General Rules of the United Societies, and a host of history books aimed at reconstructing what happened in that first century of Methodism. I am also informed by history written on the early church, primarily The Patient Ferment of the Early Church by Dr. Alan Krieder. These readings lead me to the fundamental conviction that nothing was wrong with the early church, and very little was wrong with early Methodism.Both are part of the same vision, which needs only to be faithfully reclaimed in order to bear the exact same fruit, provided the Holy Spirit will be pleased to bless such efforts.
It seems to me that the Chesterton quote is self-evidently true. We don’t need to invent anything new. We need only to put our hands back on the plow and refuse to look back again, having learned our lesson from the failures of elite takeover for the last century.
I should also acknowledge that Methodism is a construct. It isn’t something real, existing in Plato’s world of ideal forms, to which we might perfectly conform our worldly system perfectly. It is rather a family of practices and beliefs that coalesced together to work a great change in Great Britain and America. Some of these practices were almost certainly a product of their time and can be carefully left atrophied and unused in the historical record. Other aspects might better be accentuated, magnified, and given greater importance than was originally given. While we should not invert and disrespect the bulk of the original markers of Methodism as The United Methodist Church has, we can and should decide where proper emphasis should be. That is the task of any person carrying on a legacy. I think we can do this with more confidence than with the Christian faith more broadly.
The twelve markers I publish here are, to my mind, all vitally important in reclaiming our heritage in Christ. I believe they are the most important. They all co-relate to one another, moderate one another, and govern all other concerns that might arise. You’ll notice the absence of many doctrines that are dear to some contemporary Methodist thinkers. You’ll notice the presence of things that are countercultural or that perhaps you thought were rightly consigned to the dustbin of history. You can dismiss these as the bigotries of a hick in rural Oklahoma, which I am (a hick and a bible bigot). You can also thoughtfully engage me and help me and the broader public see where I’m wrong so that I might adjust course. I hope some who read this immediately see the wisdom of it and grow in excitement at potentially reclaiming some or all of it.
I should also acknowledge that, while John Wesley was indeed the largest figure in Methodism, at this point I do not believe that he alone should be the sole resource for determining what Methodism is. The Methodist Revival had other leaders. It also had a general population that likewise participated in the formation and maintaining of Methodist identity. Modern day Methodism should be defined, not just by the writings of John Wesley, but also by the normal practices and beliefs of early Methodists. We should make room for the host of beliefs that were to be found among various Methodist societies. We should also be intolerant of those practices and beliefs that Methodism roundly rebuked in their day.
A hard word
Many will instantly recoil from many of these: the explicit language around penal substitutionary atonement, around exclusivity, around damnation. These are things that many a ‘Methodist’ would like to leave in the past. Some in leadership today only nod at these doctrines, while using the softest language possible. I think it necessary to be so blunt because many are so dense or stubborn as to refuse to hear the vital necessity of these pieces. Let me say flatly: I do not think the blessings of Methodism will be available if we only focus on the positive, the attractive, the soft. We must absolutely reclaim the hard, the uncomfortable, the offensive if we are to effectively minister to this world. While some will work to detract from work like this by saying it is unnecessarily offensive or sadistic in some way, that is not my aim. Our aim should be to offend in just the right measure. I do not think Methodists have done a good job at this for a long time.
In fact, I’ll be a little more blunt: I would urge you to be wary of anyone who protests too hysterically to any of the things I offer here. As I will say in my explanation throughout, probably many times, I believe many will have a problem with my suggestions because either 1) they do not rightly fear the Lord, 2) they do not have a right relationship with scripture, and/or 3) they value themselves, their own feelings, and their culture more than their God. I’m not saying those are the only reasons one would disagree with my proposals, but I do think a great many who object will indeed be guilty of any of these. I don’t want to demonize these people, but I do want these people to be ignored. We need leaders who rightly fear and love God, who believe the scriptures are God’s word, and who put love of self and neighbor behind love of God.
Why care about this conversation?
The Methodist Revival was a sincere and potent effort at reclaiming the spirit, discipline, and power of the early church. The Lord blessed their work with every form of fruit. The poor, in bondage to rapacious powers in the Industrial Revolution, were freed from the shackles of depraved poverty. The ignorant were educated. The abused found havens. Orphans were adopted. Criminals were rehabilitated, prostitutes redeemed, unscrupulous businessmen convicted and repented. These things happened, not as occasional encouragements in a moribund institution, nor as occasional byproducts of massive church ministries. These things happened regularly in ordinary settings. So regularly that it made a sociological difference on a large scale, almost single-handedly getting Great Britain through the Industrial Revolution and powerfully informing the Christian character of a nation that was once one-third Methodist (the United States of America).
I want to again spread scriptural holiness across the land. I want to see the power of the Holy Spirit, not just in signs and wonders in the local church, but in a reformed society. I hate the decline, depravity, and decadence I see around me. Given the time I have, I would rather seek the order and peace God affords this side of heaven. Only a reformation, a renewal, a reclaiming can do that. I do not want a top-down Christian nation: I want a grassroots reclamation of Christian identity, such that the nation is again moved as a norm towards biblical holiness. If done right, given the global nature of the GMC, the implications of such work would be global in nature. When Christ returns, I want him to find a faithful remnant upholding the faith entrusted to the saints. Not a bunch of disparate and desperate people who settled for less than the full faith of Christ, which is where I think things currently stand.
I believe these things only come when we conform ourselves to the tapestry of beliefs and practices that informed early Methodism. As people consider this list, many will want to push back: These aren’t markers of Methodism! They are markers of a simply faithful Christianity! Well, I think the two are the same. I think authentic Methodism is, by nature, fundamentally just a reclaiming of authentic Christianity. I don’t imagine myself to be participating in sectarian division. I want to call the church back to the heart of a shared universal faith among all believers. That is what I understand John Wesley and the early people called Methodist to have been doing. That is what I believe we should be doing now.
What you can expect
Over the coming weeks, I will be publishing explainers on each of the twelve markers as I understand them, with references and citations so you see why each one matters, and how it co-relates to the others. I do not imagine that most people will readily adopt my understanding, nor that the GMC will instantly adopt this as some new sort of doctrinal standard. Rather, I understand myself only to be participating in the conversation, and perhaps doing my small part to nudge our cultural standards as a movement closer towards the vision of authentic Methodism. I pray you will give me a gracious reading and consider my words, as there is a possibility that I just might have something of worth to offer.
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.
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.