Methodism vs. John Wesley

[The Liturgist]

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

I suggest you do Ho Monogenes, or the Cherubic Hymn, or Phos Hilarion. Those would be easy and are usually a part of the liturgy, and when absent, they get replaced by something else entirely.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

I suggest you do Ho Monogenes, or the Cherubic Hymn, or Phos Hilarion. Those would be easy and are usually a part of the liturgy, and when absent, they get replaced by something else entirely.

Trying to keep things short and pronounceable! My Greek is passable, my Slavonic is not, and we're not going to say much about my Arabic. Plus our choir does the liturgy, and chanters cover everything else.

 

[The Liturgist]

Trying to keep things short and pronounceable! My Greek is passable, my Slavonic is not, and we're not going to say much about my Arabic. Plus our choir does the liturgy, and chanters cover everything else.

Well, Phos Hilarion if you do Vespers... If not, perhaps the Six Psalms from the start of Orthros if you do them? Or any invariable part of Orthros.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

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.

And in our area, EUB.

 

[The Liturgist]

And in our area, EUB.

There are still EUB churches which declined merger into the UMC in the US as well.

However, insofar as they tend to be aliturgical, based on the knowledge I have of them, I think the EUB might be less authentically Wesleyan than the Methodist Episcopal church was.

In fact, the Methodist Episcopal church did a beautiful job in the 20th century with its Books of Worship, in particular the 1964 edition, which aside from featuring a vast Euchologion with collects for more issues than I have seen in most other service books, also contained beautiful propers. Also, it had an excellent one year lectionary with a Psalm, OT lection, Epistle, and Gospel. And there is a strong Eucharistic aspect to the 1989 UMC Book of Worship.

So my problem is not so much with how Methodist liturgy developed; I really like several versions of the Book of Worship (although I do wish more of the Book of Common Prayer that Wesley loved so much was retained), but rather with the inconsistent use of it, and the lack of use of it in some parishes, as well as inconsistent adherence to Wesleyan theology. A number of Methodist elders in my experience do not preach sermons which are relevant to the scriptural lessons, which are sufficiently Trinitarian, or which stress entire sanctification, and I have yet to find a Methodist parish that promotes fasting on Wednesday and Friday and has services on both of those days. Indeed, the weekly Eucharist that Wesley promoted is ironically uncommon in the Methodist church.

 

[rockytopva]

I don't believe John Wesley willed the denomination and the UMC was the offspring of Asbury. Here in a letter to Francis Asbury he chastises Asbury for such activity....

LONDON
September 20, 1788


My Dear Brother:

There is, indeed, a wide difference between the relation wherein you stand to the Americans and the relation wherein I stand to all the Methodists. You are the elder brother of the American Methodists: I am under God the father of the whole family. Therefore I naturally care for you all in a manner no other persons can do. Therefore I in a measure provide for you all; for the supplies which Dr. Coke provides for you, he could not provide were it not for me, were it not that I not only permit him to collect but also support him in so doing.

But in one point, my dear brother, I am a little afraid both the Doctor and you differ from me. I study to be little: you study to be great. I creep; you strut along. I found a school: you a college! [Cokesbury College] nay, and call it after your own names! 0 beware, do not seek to be something! Let me be nothing, and "Christ be all in all!"

One instance of this, of your greatness, has given me great concern. How can you, how dare you suffer yourself to be called Bishop? I shudder, I start at the very thought! Men may call me a knave or a fool, a rascal, a scoundrel, and I am content; but they shall never by my consent call me Bishop! For my sake, for God's sake, for Christ's sake put a full end to this! Let the Presbyterians do what they please, but let the Methodists know their calling better.

Thus, my dear Franky, I have told you all that is in my heart. And let this, when I am no more seen, bear witness how sincerely I am Your affectionate friend and brother,

John Wesley

 

[The Liturgist]

I don't believe John Wesley willed the denomination and the UMC was the offspring of Asbury. Here in a letter to Francis Asbury he chastises Asbury for such activity....

LONDON
September 20, 1788


My Dear Brother:

There is, indeed, a wide difference between the relation wherein you stand to the Americans and the relation wherein I stand to all the Methodists. You are the elder brother of the American Methodists: I am under God the father of the whole family. Therefore I naturally care for you all in a manner no other persons can do. Therefore I in a measure provide for you all; for the supplies which Dr. Coke provides for you, he could not provide were it not for me, were it not that I not only permit him to collect but also support him in so doing.

But in one point, my dear brother, I am a little afraid both the Doctor and you differ from me. I study to be little: you study to be great. I creep; you strut along. I found a school: you a college! [Cokesbury College] nay, and call it after your own names! 0 beware, do not seek to be something! Let me be nothing, and "Christ be all in all!"

One instance of this, of your greatness, has given me great concern. How can you, how dare you suffer yourself to be called Bishop? I shudder, I start at the very thought! Men may call me a knave or a fool, a rascal, a scoundrel, and I am content; but they shall never by my consent call me Bishop! For my sake, for God's sake, for Christ's sake put a full end to this! Let the Presbyterians do what they please, but let the Methodists know their calling better.

Thus, my dear Franky, I have told you all that is in my heart. And let this, when I am no more seen, bear witness how sincerely I am Your affectionate friend and brother,

John Wesley

John Wesley ordained Dr. Asbury as Superintendent, which is what Episkopos means; he clearly objects to the Americans Superintendents styling themselves as Bishops, but not the concept.

But, he was responsible for the American Methodist Episcopal Church - he ordained its first two Superintendents and provided them the Sunday Service Book in 1884.

This letter, written about a year before his death, does prove my point that the Methodist Episcopal Church was not living up to its expectations.

 

[bbbbbbb]

If you understand Methodism in its historical sense, then you cannot ignore George Whitefield. Methodism is really only peripherally focused on John Wesley, although the Wesleyans took over Methodism very early on.

 

[The Liturgist]

If you understand Methodism in its historical sense, then you cannot ignore George Whitefield. Methodism is really only peripherally focused on John Wesley, although the Wesleyans took over Methodism very early on.

Well, they did not take it over sufficiently in my opinion, because very little of John Wesley’s doctrine or liturgical practices are retained by the United Methodists, the British Methodists, or the Methodist churches that were merged into the United Church of Canada and the Uniting Church in Australia. Now, the Methodist Episcopal Church had beautiful liturgical books, as did the British, and the United Methodist Church still has beautiful service books; the 1989 Book of Worship, the Upper Room Prayer Book, and the service book of the UMC’s monastic Order of St. Luke are all exquisite. The problem is that relatively few Methodist parishes actually use them, or offer weekly Eucharists.

John Wesley wanted people to consume the Eucharist at least once a week, and at a minimum, also fast and attend prayer services (specifically the Great Litany) on Wednesday and Friday. I don’t know of a single Methodist church in the world that serves the Great Litany from the Book of Common Prayer, or the other prayer services (Mattins and Evensong) that Wesley included in his Sunday Service Book for the Methodists of North America, on Wednesday and Friday.

So one is more likely to find Wesleyan worship in a high church Anglican parish, where at least there is weekly communion, and that upsets me.

I am not interested in the doctrines of Whitefield or Lady Moody’s Connexion; their brand of Methodism was not doctrinally coherent - Whitefield was a brilliant preacher but by his own admission John Wesley was the more talented theologian.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Well, they did not take it over sufficiently in my opinion, because very little of John Wesley’s doctrine or liturgical practices are retained by the United Methodists, the British Methodists, or the Methodist churches that were merged into the United Church of Canada and the Uniting Church in Australia. Now, the Methodist Episcopal Church had beautiful liturgical books, as did the British, and the United Methodist Church still has beautiful service books; the 1989 Book of Worship, the Upper Room Prayer Book, and the service book of the UMC’s monastic Order of St. Luke are all exquisite. The problem is that relatively few Methodist parishes actually use them, or offer weekly Eucharists.

John Wesley wanted people to consume the Eucharist at least once a week, and at a minimum, also fast and attend prayer services (specifically the Great Litany) on Wednesday and Friday. I don’t know of a single Methodist church in the world that serves the Great Litany from the Book of Common Prayer, or the other prayer services (Mattins and Evensong) that Wesley included in his Sunday Service Book for the Methodists of North America, on Wednesday and Friday.

So one is more likely to find Wesleyan worship in a high church Anglican parish, where at least there is weekly communion, and that upsets me.

I am not interested in the doctrines of Whitefield or Lady Moody’s Connexion; their brand of Methodism was not doctrinally coherent - Whitefield was a brilliant preacher but by his own admission John Wesley was the more talented theologian.

I think it is a correct observation that if the founders of various religions could see the current state of their followers they would be completely appalled.

 

[bmjackson]

I'm very grateful to have found this thread, which will hopefully answer my questions regarding the link between Wesley and EO. Now to read it!

 

[bmjackson]

I do have many questions about John Wesley whose doctrine l know well, since l began studying EO church history but the first one would be, why was he content to add the filioque to the Nicene creed?

 

[bbbbbbb]

I do have many questions about John Wesley whose doctrine l know well, since l began studying EO church history but the first one would be, why was he content to add the filioque to the Nicene creed?

I am quite uncertain that he did any such thing. The filioque had been added long before he was born. I rather suspect that he was either unaware of the issue or, at best, unconcerned because there were much more significant issues in his understanding.

 

[The Liturgist]

I do have many questions about John Wesley whose doctrine l know well, since l began studying EO church history but the first one would be, why was he content to add the filioque to the Nicene creed?

So in his recension of the Book of Common Prayer John Wesley sidestepped that issue by including only the Appstles Creed.

 

[bmjackson]

So in his recension of the Book of Common Prayer John Wesley sidestepped that issue by including only the Appstles Creed.

Randy L Maddox says "Although he never discussed the filioque, he clearly ascribed to it, retaining the relevant Anglican article (number four) in the Methodist Article of Faith." John Wesley and Eastern Orthodoxy: Influences, Convergences and Differences - CORE Reader

I fail to understand Wesley's stance here. Great man though he was, and there is no denying that, he failed to understand how the filioque clause changed the understanding of the Trinity, and that going against the Nicene council by adding it (not him of course but the Franks) amounted to heresy by sidestepping its authority.. It shows his huge misunderstanding of the Orthodox mind set.

Another issue I have is, that his Ordo Salutis consisted of two states: the justified believer who has not yet come to experience entire sanctification, and the second is the one who has entered into that state. EO say there are three: purgation illumination and divination though there are Pentecostals who say three. They do not incorporate union though. Theirs is all about power.


The ancient teaching of the Via Triplex which is what gave Orthodoxy it's strength and made it the target of the enemy so often has been put aside as so much knowledge we had in the past.

The teaching is that Theosis is the result of baptism, meaning the baptism of the Spirit which should occur when water baptism takes place. Fr Peter Heers says that this is when we receive Christ, and He cannot be made into pieces - we do not receive some of Him but all of Him.

It is when the power of God is infused into the man to enable the transformation to take place, that takes the man out of the worldly realm and the claims that Satan has over all of those who have fallen in the pattern of Adam and have given him rights to their souls, something that occurs in all men. Man is delivered from this right, and the exorcism ritual that takes place is that link to past teaching.

To continue to be in bondage to sin, which is the cause of mans woes, shows that the water baptism was missing the spiritual part and the teaching today in Orthodoxy, contrary to the past, is that man will reach the spiritual part by partaking in communion, and zealousness. He will slowly be transformed which is called gradual sanctification in Protestantism.

But we have been given the power in Spirit baptism and what is required is to believe this and 'reckon' on it to be true (Romans 6) meaning to break with the former ways and step into it as the Israelites had to do when they entered the promised land. It is all there in the OT for our example.

Of course the spiritual disciples are useful but they should not take the place of this faith that it was on the cross, that this mystery took place for us.

It is not happening despite all of the excellent teachings we hear because they are not getting a the root of the problem - lack of faith in what already has been achieved for us just waiting to be re-enacted in us in the resurrection of Christ within us. The physical to become spiritual. This is where Adam failed.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Randy L Maddox says "Although he never discussed the filioque, he clearly ascribed to it, retaining the relevant Anglican article (number four) in the Methodist Article of Faith." John Wesley and Eastern Orthodoxy: Influences, Convergences and Differences - CORE Reader

I fail to understand Wesley's stance here. Great man though he was, and there is no denying that, he failed to understand how the filioque clause changed the understanding of the Trinity, and that going against the Nicene council by adding it (not him of course but the Franks) amounted to heresy by sidestepping its authority.. It shows his huge misunderstanding of the Orthodox mind set.

Another issue I have is, that his Ordo Salutis consisted of two states: the justified believer who has not yet come to experience entire sanctification, and the second is the one who has entered into that state. EO say there are three: purgation illumination and divination though there are Pentecostals who say three. They do not incorporate union though. Theirs is all about power.


The ancient teaching of the Via Triplex which is what gave Orthodoxy it's strength and made it the target of the enemy so often has been put aside as so much knowledge we had in the past.

The teaching is that Theosis is the result of baptism, meaning the baptism of the Spirit which should occur when water baptism takes place. Fr Peter Heers says that this is when we receive Christ, and He cannot be made into pieces - we do not receive some of Him but all of Him.

It is when the power of God is infused into the man to enable the transformation to take place, that takes the man out of the worldly realm and the claims that Satan has over all of those who have fallen in the pattern of Adam and have given him rights to their souls, something that occurs in all men. Man is delivered from this right, and the exorcism ritual that takes place is that link to past teaching.

To continue to be in bondage to sin, which is the cause of mans woes, shows that the water baptism was missing the spiritual part and the teaching today in Orthodoxy, contrary to the past, is that man will reach the spiritual part by partaking in communion, and zealousness. He will slowly be transformed which is called gradual sanctification in Protestantism.

But we have been given the power in Spirit baptism and what is required is to believe this and 'reckon' on it to be true (Romans 6) meaning to break with the former ways and step into it as the Israelites had to do when they entered the promised land. It is all there in the OT for our example.

Of course the spiritual disciples are useful but they should not take the place of this faith that it was on the cross, that this mystery took place for us.

It is not happening despite all of the excellent teachings we hear because they are not getting a the root of the problem - lack of faith in what already has been achieved for us just waiting to be re-enacted in us in the resurrection of Christ within us. The physical to become spiritual. This is where Adam failed.

Do you believe that Spirit baptism occurs concurrently with water baptism?

 

[bmjackson]

Do you believe that Spirit baptism occurs concurrently with water baptism?

It can do, but in the main I would say no. And not for infants. The EOC does not teach that infants become united with Christ at water baptism.

 

[bbbbbbb]

It can do, but in the main I would say no. And not for infants. The EOC does not teach that infants become united with Christ at water baptism.

What is, then, the function of baptism for an infant in the EOC?

 

[bmjackson]

What is, then, the function of baptism for an infant in the EOC?

I think that an Orthodox believer would best answer that one. For myself, I understand it is the start of the process towards Theosis where the child is welcomed into the community of the church.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I think that an Orthodox believer would best answer that one. For myself, I understand it is the start of the process towards Theosis where the child is welcomed into the community of the church.

If so, that is not much different than many Reformed denominations.