Methodist
- Thread starter Livindesert
- Start date
Secundulus
Well-Known Member
Real Methodism, as taught by John Wesley, has not been done for over 150 years. It was hard and nearly monastic in its application.No problem
So let's talk about METHODISM
Upvote
0
Actually I agree, I posted this on the Wesley board, I truely feel the closest you could find on how John Wesly worshipped would be in an Anglo Catholic Church.
His views were very liturgical, very sacremental I think you find bits and pieces in the UMC, The Nazeren's but the Anglo Catholic or even a very High Anglican service would be closer to John Wesley.
Upvote
0
Secundulus
Well-Known Member
His method mainly focused on holding people accountable for their sins in small group meetings. He expected his people to act righteously.
Those who could not live up to his method, or who failed to attend his meetings, were excluded. He did a lot for the poor and neglected in the cities of England.
All Churches could learn a lot from him today.
John Wesley was hardcore.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Albion
Facilitator
He was high church, I am high church too
Guys, I normally agree with both of you, but I REALLY don't think it's accurate to picture John Wesley as "High Church" and DEFINETLY not as an "Anglo-Catholic!" The Church of his day knew nothing of Anglo-Catholicism and was famously non-ceremonial.
But as always, if there is specific information you or anyone else has that will show me I'm wrong, please bring it on.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I think the closest to resemble him in the way he worshipped as compared to the church's today, ie UMC, CotNazerne etc. I do think it's the HIgh Anglicans. He was very liturgical, his views on the Eucharist, the type of prayers etc. One of the reason I also think the Anglo Catholic is not only his liturgical side but his opposition to the Calvinist Reformation that was taking place and his theology on Free Grace which is found more in the Anglo as compared to Low Chruch Anglican.
I don't think today's UMC resemble's the style in how he worshiped. I think they held on to his Free Will, some of the Liturgy, the Hymns, but that is really it as far as it goes. Can you imagine what he must be thinking of the once of month of the Eucharist? In seperate little communion cups? He must be spinning in his grave.
Now what he did outside of the Church, yes, was not considered "High" etc. He brought the word out into the streets of the people who needed to hear the word and for that he was unorthodox in his style of the time in England.
but in the church with the Hymns, his strong interest in theosis, his view on the Eucharist, his position on Apostolic Succesion ( though I know he had to change his tune on that in order for the church to continue in the America.
I do think he was Anglican thru and thru.
I don't think today's UMC resemble's the style in how he worshiped. I think they held on to his Free Will, some of the Liturgy, the Hymns, but that is really it as far as it goes. Can you imagine what he must be thinking of the once of month of the Eucharist? In seperate little communion cups? He must be spinning in his grave.
Now what he did outside of the Church, yes, was not considered "High" etc. He brought the word out into the streets of the people who needed to hear the word and for that he was unorthodox in his style of the time in England.
but in the church with the Hymns, his strong interest in theosis, his view on the Eucharist, his position on Apostolic Succesion ( though I know he had to change his tune on that in order for the church to continue in the America.
I do think he was Anglican thru and thru.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
J
JacksLadder
Guest
See I am not too interested in high liturgy. I find people can become too focused on being more ceremonial than the "unspiritual" Low churchers....I am more interested in what he did on the streets and his theological positions. I heard he was also one of the first to say people needed a personal relationship with Christ and be spiritually born again even said person was baptised already.
Upvote
0
J
JacksLadder
Guest
Also why did he start a different church in America while he was Anglican in England?
Upvote
0
He really didn't want to, he was all about Evangelism, his style just grew into a movement and also when you are separeted by an ocean gradually you become your own church.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
HmmmMmmm yeah kind of sort of you are right. But not in the sense in what we think of "Born Again Christians" today.
He was about always seeking out to be with Christ and to live our lives in Christ, that included meditative prayer's, The Eucharist, as well as living a "Christian" life.
He held a strong interest n the Movarians and that "warm" feeling every Christian should strive for and Eastern Orthodox and Catholics practice of Theosis.
Upvote
0
Albion
Facilitator
I'm asking what evidence there is of that. BTW, quite a lot looks "High Church" when compared to today's Methodist services which we all know are barely liturgical at all and certainly not very ceremonial--which is what "High Church" means.
Can you say more? EVERY Anglican, high or low, used the same prayers and prayerbooks until very recently and of course celebrates the Eucharist. I'm not saying that you don't have something to tell me, but I need you to be more specific, please.
That's not a matter of "High Church" versus "Low Church," however. Those terms refer to the kind of ceremony employed, not to theological differences. The original Anglo-Catholics, for example, were Low Churchmen.
I think I'm seeing your point. He was a lot more ceremonial than today's Methodists, you are saying, but not when compared to Anglicans. ALL Anglicans are "more" High Church than Methodists, we could say.
Well, his view on Apostolic Succession was the opposite of what Anglo-Catholics (or Catholics of any variety) hold to. What was his view of the Eucharist? Transubstantation? Consubstantiation? I've never read anything that would suggest this. So again, if you have other information I'd be interested.
Upvote
0
I'm asking what evidence there is of that. BTW, quite a lot looks "High Church" when compared to today's Methodist services which we all know are barely liturgical at all and certainly not very ceremonial--which is what "High Church" means.
Can you say more? EVERY Anglican, high or low, used the same prayers and prayerbooks until very recently and of course celebrates the Eucharist. I'm not saying that you don't have something to tell me, but I need you to be more specific, please.
That's not a matter of "High Church" versus "Low Church," however. Those terms refer to the kind of ceremony employed, not to theological differences. The original Anglo-Catholics, for example, were Low Churchmen.
I think I'm seeing your point. He was a lot more ceremonial than today's Methodists, you are saying, but not when compared to Anglicans. ALL Anglicans are "more" High Church than Methodists, we could say.
Well, his view on Apostolic Succession was the opposite of what Anglo-Catholics (or Catholics of any variety) hold to. What was his view of the Eucharist? Transubstantation? Consubstantiation? I've never read anything that would suggest this. So again, if you have other information I'd be interested.
His view of the Eucharist I would say resembles more of E. orthodox and most Anglican's of the Presence of Christ's body and blood but rejected the term Transubstantiation.
This is a good read This Holy Mystery
Also he and his brother Charles wrote a ton of Hymns on the Lord'sSuper and they put their beliefs into the hymns and it's clear of his view of Christ's presence of Body and Blood.
As to your other points , yeah that's what I'm saying too many Methodist Church's nowaday's are getting more and more laxed if you will. My wife thinks they are very formal, but again she's a Pentacostal so anythng looks formal to her. Also I think you'd be surprised that there are High Methodist Church's out there and aren't that too far off from a typical Anglican service, basically it's almost the same minus the opening procession and the kneelers.
The one I grew up in was a high church, if you will. Very liturgical, very formal.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Secundulus
Well-Known Member
I think that trying to categorize John Wesley as high or Low Church is in error.
His method was really neither and both. His was not an approach to liturgy but rather an approach to changing the lives of Christians.
His actual Method could be applied to what we call high Church and Low Church equally. It was to hold individuals accountable in their lives as they followed Christ.
Unfortunately, his method became just another denomination soon after he died.
For a very good summary of what he actually taught see: Amazon.com: A Model for Making Disciples: John Wesley's Class Meeting (9781928915706): D. Michael Henderson: Books .
Upvote
0
Similar threads
