Methodism vs. John Wesley

[The Liturgist]

As many here are aware, I am as frustrated by most Methodist parishes as I am by my own former employer. There is so much spiritual potential in the teachings of John Wesley, which I feel is being squandered.

I believe John Wesley recognized the spiritual health of the Orthodox system, which is why he sought to implement it. His first contact with Eastern Christianity was with the Moravians, who, although very heavily westernized to the point most people would not recognize them as Eastern, were founded by St. Jan Hus and St. Jerome of Prague to restore those things they lost when the Czech homeland was forcibly converted to Roman Catholicism - a liturgy they could understand (Church Slavonic, while not vernacular, functioned as a pan-Slavic lingua franca, and still does, to some extent, whereas Latin was alien to them), communion in both kinds (the laity partaking of the Chalice) and other things which were denied them. And later, Wesley implemented fasting on Wednesday and Friday, a Patristic tradition which the Orthodox alone had maintained, and he also wanted Methodists in North America to attend at least the Office of the Litany (from his recension of the Book of Common Prayer) on those days. And he taught Theosis, calling it Entire Sanctification, which is probably the best and least confusing translation of the term anyone has thought of. And he refused to deny that he was ordained a priest by an Orthodox bishop visiting London (if he had admitted it, he would have been executed under the intolerant English religious laws of the 18th century).

Unfortunately, the Methodist Episcopal Church wound up retaining only his brother’s hymns, a nominal appreciation of Wesley, a small portion of his teachings, and the practice of Circuit Preachers and Connexional governance, otherwise becoming a low church, non-Arminian jurisdiction that happens to have an episcopal polity. The most important parts of Wesleyan Methodism, the praxis, including the use of the Book of Common Prayer or a slight variant on it, augmented but not replaced by extemporaneous prayers, and the fasts on Wednesdays and Fridays, and Wesley’s desire that Methodists worship on those days, at a minimum saying the Litany, and also the abandonment of the rest of the Divine Office he carefully copied from the Book of Common Prayer into his Sunday Service Book, never happened.

The merger with much of the Evangelical United Brethren did not change much except the name.

Canada used to be a bastion of Methodism, with Toronto nicknamed Methodist Rome, but now its gone, swallowed up into the UCC (not my UCC but the Canadian one; I think it stands for the United Church of Canada, and its Australian counterpart is the Uniting Church in Australia, but sometimes I get them mixed up). I find this even more depressing.

And, in Britain, I see no justification for the British Methodist Church to ever have existed, since John Wesley was a faithful Anglican, although it looks to me like some of Wesley’s ideas that have been forgotten in North America are taught there, but the unpleasant aspect of that church is that it is ultra-liberal.

There may be some hope, however. I like the Order of St. Luke, which is a monastic religious order that has formed within Methodism. I hope it does not get stuck on one side of the fence when the absurd and patently unfair schism occurs.

 

[BobRyan]

I like this focus on John Wesley --

John Wesley - Wikipedia

"In contrast to Whitefield's Calvinism, Wesley embraced Arminian doctrines. Moving across Great Britain and Ireland, he helped form and organise small Christian groups that developed intensive and personal accountability, discipleship, and religious instruction. He appointed itinerant, unordained evangelists – both women and men – to care for these groups of people. Under Wesley's direction, Methodists became leaders in many social issues of the day, including the abolition of slavery and prison reform."


"Although he was not a systematic theologian, Wesley argued for the notion of Christian perfection and against Calvinism—and, in particular, against its doctrine of predestination. His evangelicalism, firmly grounded in sacramental theology, maintained that means of grace sometimes had a role in sanctification of the believer; however, he taught that it was by faith a believer was transformed into the likeness of Christ. He held that, in this life, Christians could achieve a state where the love of God "reigned supreme in their hearts", giving them not only outward but inward holiness. Wesley's teachings, collectively known as Wesleyan theology, continue to inform the doctrine of Methodist churches."

"Wesley felt that the church failed to call sinners to repentance, that many of the clergy were corrupt, and that people were perishing in their sins. He believed he was commissioned by God to bring about revival in the church, and no opposition, persecution, or obstacles could prevail against the divine urgency and authority of this commission. The prejudices of his High-church training, his strict notions of the methods and proprieties of public worship, his views of the apostolic succession and the prerogatives of the priest, even his most cherished convictions, were not allowed to stand in the way.[53]

"Seeing that he and the few clergy co-operating with him could not do the work that needed to be done, Wesley was led, as early as 1739, to approve local preachers. He evaluated and approved men who were not ordained by the Anglican Church to preach and do pastoral work. This expansion of lay preachers was one of the keys of the growth of Methodism.[54]

===================

Of course that was not "well received" by the establishment...

"Clergy attacked them (Methodists) in sermons and in print, and at times mobs attacked them. Wesley and his followers continued to work among the neglected and needy. They were denounced as promulgators of strange doctrines, fomenters of religious disturbances; as blind fanatics, leading people astray, claiming miraculous gifts, attacking the clergy of the Church of England,"

================= next

"The 20th-century Wesleyan scholar Albert Outler argued in his introduction to the 1964 collection John Wesley that Wesley developed his theology by using a method that Outler termed the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.[80] In this method, Wesley believed that the living core of Christianity was contained in Scripture (the Bible), and that it was the sole foundational source of theological development. The centrality of Scripture was so important for Wesley that he called himself "a man of one book,"[81] although he was well-read for his day. However, he believed that doctrine had to be in keeping with Christian orthodox tradition. So, tradition was considered the second aspect of the Quadrilateral.[80] Wesley contended that a part of the theological method would involve experiential faith. In other words, truth would be vivified in personal experience of Christians (overall, not individually), if it were really truth. And every doctrine must be able to be defended rationally. He did not divorce faith from reason. Tradition, experience and reason, however, were subject always to Scripture, Wesley argued, because only there is the Word of God revealed "so far as it is necessary for our salvation."[82]"

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Yeah the United Church of Canada was a union of churches that were methodist, congregationalist (?) and presbyterian churches.

There are still presbyterian churches in Canada, but no methodist churches.

In the 1980s they started allowing homosexual pastors which resulted in a lot of division.

I've also heard some people associating pentecostal teachings with Wesley's teachings in the past. However, since I haven't had the chance to see a methodist church in Canada, no way to be certain.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

The one good thing I heard about Wesley's teachings was the apparent transparency in fellowship, this kind of transparency is popping up in some places in the Emergent church movement where "being genuine" is a thing.

 

[The Liturgist]

This article on Wesley’s Patristic interests corresponds well with my views on Methodism (again, compare the Methodism he describes with Methodism as it exists now): John Wesley's Selection of Church Fathers and the Identity of Methodism - Juicy Ecumenism

 

[Gregory Thompson]

This article on Wesley’s Patristic interests corresponds well with my views on Methodism (again, compare the Methodism he describes with Methodism as it exists now): John Wesley's Selection of Church Fathers and the Identity of Methodism - Juicy Ecumenism

Hmm, that might be why his teachings don't fit into post-colonial traditions since they're married to the state. His suppositions are probably reserved for the movement in every generation that is seeking to change everything back to the original state of Christianity, (the name varies) that eventually or inevitably takes on a more traditional form.

I would say that Wesley's ideas might only fit in a group with no where to rest their heads. However, inevitably humans seek acceptance of mankind as a whole, and what we see, is the result.

 

[ChetSinger]

As many here are aware, I am as frustrated by most Methodist parishes as I am by my own former employer. There is so much spiritual potential in the teachings of John Wesley, which I feel is being squandered.

I believe John Wesley recognized the spiritual health of the Orthodox system, which is why he sought to implement it. His first contact with Eastern Christianity was with the Moravians, who, although very heavily westernized to the point most people would not recognize them as Eastern, were founded by St. Jan Hus and St. Jerome of Prague to restore those things they lost when the Czech homeland was forcibly converted to Roman Catholicism - a liturgy they could understand (Church Slavonic, while not vernacular, functioned as a pan-Slavic lingua franca, and still does, to some extent, whereas Latin was alien to them), communion in both kinds (the laity partaking of the Chalice) and other things which were denied them. And later, Wesley implemented fasting on Wednesday and Friday, a Patristic tradition which the Orthodox alone had maintained, and he also wanted Methodists in North America to attend at least the Office of the Litany (from his recension of the Book of Common Prayer) on those days. And he taught Theosis, calling it Entire Sanctification, which is probably the best and least confusing translation of the term anyone has thought of. And he refused to deny that he was ordained a priest by an Orthodox bishop visiting London (if he had admitted it, he would have been executed under the intolerant English religious laws of the 18th century).

Unfortunately, the Methodist Episcopal Church wound up retaining only his brother’s hymns, a nominal appreciation of Wesley, a small portion of his teachings, and the practice of Circuit Preachers and Connexional governance, otherwise becoming a low church, non-Arminian jurisdiction that happens to have an episcopal polity. The most important parts of Wesleyan Methodism, the praxis, including the use of the Book of Common Prayer or a slight variant on it, augmented but not replaced by extemporaneous prayers, and the fasts on Wednesdays and Fridays, and Wesley’s desire that Methodists worship on those days, at a minimum saying the Litany, and also the abandonment of the rest of the Divine Office he carefully copied from the Book of Common Prayer into his Sunday Service Book, never happened.

The merger with much of the Evangelical United Brethren did not change much except the name.

Canada used to be a bastion of Methodism, with Toronto nicknamed Methodist Rome, but now its gone, swallowed up into the UCC (not my UCC but the Canadian one; I think it stands for the United Church of Canada, and its Australian counterpart is the Uniting Church in Australia, but sometimes I get them mixed up). I find this even more depressing.

And, in Britain, I see no justification for the British Methodist Church to ever have existed, since John Wesley was a faithful Anglican, although it looks to me like some of Wesley’s ideas that have been forgotten in North America are taught there, but the unpleasant aspect of that church is that it is ultra-liberal.

There may be some hope, however. I like the Order of St. Luke, which is a monastic religious order that has formed within Methodism. I hope it does not get stuck on one side of the fence when the absurd and patently unfair schism occurs.

Thanks for this. The more I'm reading about John Wesley the more I like him.

 

[The Liturgist]

Hmm, that might be why his teachings don't fit into post-colonial traditions since they're married to the state.

Umm what? How do you figure that? Wesley was supportive of the US after independence and set up the Methodist Episcopal Church after the Church of England refused to have anything to do with the colonies. (i find myself wondering if he was even aware of the parallel efforts by the Anglicans in the US to set up what became the Protestant Episcopal Church; I can’t imagine he would have been opposed to cooperation with them, although he was secretly a Greek Orthodox bishop in his own right and did not need to make recourse to the Non-Juring Scottish Episcopalians, which would probably have been illegal for him).

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Umm what? How do you figure that? Wesley was supportive of the US after independence and set up the Methodist Episcopal Church after the Church of England refused to have anything to do with the colonies. (i find myself wondering if he was even aware of the parallel efforts by the Anglicans in the US to set up what became the Protestant Episcopal Church; I can’t imagine he would have been opposed to cooperation with them, although he was secretly a Greek Orthodox bishop in his own right and did not need to make recourse to the Non-Juring Scottish Episcopalians, which would probably have been illegal for him).

Was referring to this part of the article you posted.

 

[Tolworth John]

Britain, I see no justification for the British Methodist Church to ever have existed, since John Wesley was a faithful Anglican,

As bobryan has said it was not Wesley's idea or intention to form a separate church. He was forced to do so by the refusal of the established middle class church to form an organisation that would look after the largely working class converts to Christianity.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

I can’t imagine he would have been opposed to cooperation with them, although he was secretly a Greek Orthodox bishop in his own right and did not need to make recourse to the Non-Juring Scottish Episcopalians, which would probably have been illegal for him).

Wut???

Whereas a single Bishop suffices for the Ordination of a Deacon or Priest, the Holy Canons require that at least three Bishops participate in the elevation of a Priest to the Episcopacy.

 

[The Liturgist]

Wut???

Whereas a single Bishop suffices for the Ordination of a Deacon or Priest, the Holy Canons require that at least three Bishops participate in the elevation of a Priest to the Episcopacy.

Except in emergencies - there are precedents for bishops acting solus when consecrating other bishops, even in the Eastern Orthodox Church. And in the Syriac Orthodox Church, Jacob of Edessa ordained so many bishops on his own to compensate for the bloodbath Justinian inflicted on them that the church came to be known as Jacobite (and even styles itself as such in India).

This is worth mentioning in the context of Eastern Orthodoxy, because as you may or may not know, in the Middle East, not including the autonomous diocese of North America under Metropolitan Tikhon, the Antiochian Orthodox Church and the Syriac Orthodox Church are as closely related as any Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches ever have been. Members of the one can receive communion at the other, and it is forbidden for members of one church to be received by the other, and there are protocols for marriages between Antiochian and Syriac Orthodox. Similar relations exist between the Coptic Orthodox Church and the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria. The relevant fact of the Syriac-Antiochian connection, however, is that no other Eastern Orthodox church severed communion with Antioch over that issue; the current schism of Antioch vs. Jerusalem and Constantinople is due to a dispute over the latter two churches violating what Antioch regards as its canonical territory (correctly, I think).

Now, the actions of Erasmus of Arcadia, who consecrated Wesley a bishop, were obviously contrary to Eastern Orthodox norms, although the non-legalistic nature of Orthodoxy compared to Roman Catholicism, I cannot in good conscience consider the ordination invalid, although it was done in secret.

Now, when ordaining Thomas Coke and Francis Asbury as bishops, Wesley made a common Protestant claim that the offices of presbyter and bishop are equivalent, but his actions and the subsequent polity of the Methodist Episcopal Church suggest otherwise.

Also, it is worth noting that the hierarchy of the Protestant Episcopal Church was initially ordained by Bishop Seabury, acting solus, who himself had been ordained by the non-Juring Scottish Episcopalians.

 

[The Liturgist]

As bobryan has said it was not Wesley's idea or intention to form a separate church. He was forced to do so by the refusal of the established middle class church to form an organisation that would look after the largely working class converts to Christianity.

John Wesley died before the schism of the British Methodists from the Church of England; he left no instructions commanding such a schism, and I do not believe he would have supported it. Methodism in Great Britain during Wesley’s career was a para-church organization that existed inside the Church of England, like the Anglo Catholic Bishops today who refuse to ordain women in their dioceses, or the various religious orders.

Now, Wesley was forced to organize the Methodist Church in North
America, which became the Methodist Episcopal church because the Church of England refused to ordain clergy for the United States. The Anglicans faced the same problem, however, compared to the smooth process by which the Methodist Episcopal Church was organized, the formation of the Protestant Episcopal Church was much more complicated than just Bishop Seabury being ordained by the Scottish Non Jurors; when he returned to the United States, organizing the Anglican churches into the Episcopal Church took years; he was consecrated a bishop in the mid 1780s, and it took until 1792 for the new church to be sufficiently stable to issue a badly needed Book of Common Prayer, which had been required by the Scots (they demanded as a condition for ordaining Seabury that the Protestant Episcopal Church use the Scottish Episcopalian version of the Eucharistic liturgy, which featured an anaphora taken from the Divine Liturgy of St. James). Even more pressing was the need to remove or replace the prayers for the Sovereign and modify the Litany, so as to commemorate the lawful government of the United States.

I believe Wesley would have worked with the Protestant Episcopalians if possible, but he was either unaware of their efforts, unsure of their intentions, legally restricted by his priesthood in the Church of England, or he was aware of the pure chaos that existed during the first few years as the Episcopal Church organized itself.

if Wesley were with us today, I think he would endorse one of the Continuing Anglican churches as being closer to his model than the United Methodist Church or the Church of England.

 

[The Liturgist]

View attachment 304748
Was referring to this part of the article you posted.

Ah, I see what you meant. I apologize, the syntax of your reply confused me.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Ah, I see what you meant. I apologize, the syntax of your reply confused me.

O Heavenly Father, kindly unconfuse my speech, in Jesus name Amen.

 

[Tolworth John]

Methodism in Great Britain during Wesley’s career was a para-church organization that existed inside the Church of England

Yes, except the CoE did not want or support what the working class converts were doing. That they split four years after Wesley's death is an indication that they were not welcome in the C of E.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Except in emergencies - there are precedents for bishops acting solus when consecrating other bishops, even in the Eastern Orthodox Church. And in the Syriac Orthodox Church, Jacob of Edessa ordained so many bishops on his own to compensate for the bloodbath Justinian inflicted on them that the church came to be known as Jacobite (and even styles itself as such in India).

This is worth mentioning in the context of Eastern Orthodoxy, because as you may or may not know, in the Middle East, not including the autonomous diocese of North America under Metropolitan Tikhon, the Antiochian Orthodox Church and the Syriac Orthodox Church are as closely related as any Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches ever have been. ....

I'm somewhat familiar with the Middle Eastern situation. Even here in the US, there is a certain recognition. The Greek church in Cincinnati has a Eritrean contingent and Coptic seminarians attend one of the EO seminaries for their M.Div. My class at Holy Cross of 22 had 4 Coptic students. We don't have inter-communion but there is a lot of general recognition that we're close on a lot of things.

Now, the actions of Erasmus of Arcadia, who consecrated Wesley a bishop, were obviously contrary to Eastern Orthodox norms, although the non-legalistic nature of Orthodoxy compared to Roman Catholicism, I cannot in good conscience consider the ordination invalid, although it was done in secret.

Erasmus could have ordained Wesley a priest but since the Apostolic Canons date back to the 4th century, IMHO would consider it an invalid ordination to the episcopate. I'm pretty curious about it though.

PS I've been trying to learn some liturgical phrases, such as Lord have mercy and the Trisagion in Arabic.

 

[The Liturgist]

Yes, except the CoE did not want or support what the working class converts were doing. That they split four years after Wesley's death is an indication that they were not welcome in the C of E.

That’s not true; the schism was initiated by the British Methodists. They were not proscribed or subjected to any new impositions after John Wesley’s death, and Wesley, at the time of his death, was beloved by people of all social classes throughout Great Britain and Ireland.

Now, did the C of E do a really good job catering to the working class? Yes, as a result of the Methodists, but after they broke away, it was not until the Anglo Catholics, who agreed with Wesley on most points of doctrine, became active. Actually, Anglo Catholics I reckon did more good for the poor in London than the Salvation Army and the British Methodists combined, while enduring severe persecution - as recently as the 1890s they were being imprisoned for daring to wear a chasuble, even though a just and literal interpretation of the Ornaments Rubric made chasubles clearly legal.

 

[The Liturgist]

I'm somewhat familiar with the Middle Eastern situation. Even here in the US, there is a certain recognition. The Greek church in Cincinnati has a Eritrean contingent and Coptic seminarians attend one of the EO seminaries for their M.Div. My class at Holy Cross of 22 had 4 Coptic students. We don't have inter-communion but there is a lot of general recognition that we're close on a lot of things.



Erasmus could have ordained Wesley a priest but since the Apostolic Canons date back to the 4th century, IMHO would consider it an invalid ordination to the episcopate. I'm pretty curious about it though.

PS I've been trying to learn some liturgical phrases, such as Lord have mercy and the Trisagion in Arabic.

The Trisagion is done in Greek in the Coptic Orthodox Church, and in both the Syriac Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox churches Lord Have Mercy is also chanted in Greek. Indeed, Stomen kalos immediately precedes kyrie eleison at some points in the Syriac liturgy.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Our parish has a handful of Syrians and Lebanese so we chanters are trying to do some pieces in Arabic.