Where United Methodists have it right!

[circuitrider]

Since there has been a long thread about what is supposed to be wrong with the UMC I want to share what I think it right with our denomination and why someone like me who didn't grow up in the UMC is now a United Methodist pastor.

1. Grace, Grace God's Grace - I believe that Wesleyan theology is right on target with its understanding of grace and the way grace is described as prevenient, justifying and sanctifying.

2. The Wesleyan Quadrilateral - United Methodism teaches not "sola scriptura" but "prima scriptura." That is the scripture is our primary source and our doctrine comes to us through the interplay of scripture, tradition, reason and experience.

Folks who claim "sola scriptura" still use tradition, reason an experience but just usually won't admit it.

3. The Sacraments and the the means of grace - I believe Methodist sacramental theology, with its roots in Anglican theology, is right on target and holds the powerful middle way of "real presence" of Christ in the eucharist and baptism as a powerful means of grace.

4. Episcopal Polity - Methodist have as good an argument as anyone the original polity of the Bible was episcopal and not congregational. The episcopal system allows us to elect Bishops who can be both administrative and spiritual guides for the task.

5. The itineracy - Really clergy are all itinerant in most denominations and move from church to church. But the Methodist system recognizes the value of an organized, committed itineracy and appointment system that matches graces and gifts of clergy to the needs of congregations.

6. The Book of Discipline - Yes! I'm defending the purpose of having the Discipline. While UMCers argue over, change modify and constantly seek to perfect the Discipline, it is largely better to have one general set of rules for everyone than the chaos of congregationalism.

OK, those are my top six. What else would you add?

 

[Dave-W]

Since I come to this forum more from the Nazarene side of it (and the fact my dad was ordained in the Wesleyan Methodist denom) I will not add to your list. It is a good one to be sure.

But I would (with your indulgence) like to comment on a couple of your points.

2. The Wesleyan Quadrilateral - United Methodism teaches not "sola scriptura" but "prima scriptura." That is the scripture is our primary source and our doctrine comes to us through the interplay of scripture, tradition, reason and experience.

IMO this is a VERY good approach. I would add "context" to the list - and not JUST the context of the surrounding verses, chapter, book, etc. I would also include the context of the original audience and the author including the cultural norms and understanding, and traditional Judaism in the Yeshiva system includes the context of discussion. That would probably come under your point of "reason;" but removing it from exclusively PERSONAL reason.

4. Episcopal Polity - Methodist have as good an argument as anyone the original polity of the Bible was episcopal and not congregational. The episcopal system allows us to elect Bishops who can be both administrative and spiritual guides for the task.

IN my last congregation in Michigan (late 80s - mid 90s) I taught the new believers class and based it around Hebrews 6.1-3. The pastor wanted me to also include a chapter in that class on church government. So I did. My dad was an avowed congregationalist. One of his close friends was a Free Methodist pastor and they jokingly argued back and forth on congregationalism vs episcopal type of government. So I was already somewhat familiar with the 2 sides.

My pastor gave me a book outlining the various types of government which sent me on my own study of the subject. While the book he gave me highlighted the "independent" style, I could not teach that as biblical. IN fact ALL of the various styles in that book (and a couple of more I added in) had at least SOME scriptural support EXCEPT congregational and independent. (the main difference between the 2 is that in congregational, everyone votes the leader(s) in or out and that is missing in independent; each congregation becomes its own personality cult around the senior pastor) IMO either episcopal or its variant neo-apostolic are the most scriptural.

 

[circuitrider]

My pastor gave me a book outlining the various types of government which sent me on my own study of the subject. While the book he gave me highlighted the "independent" style, I could not teach that as biblical. IN fact ALL of the various styles in that book (and a couple of more I added in) had at least SOME scriptural support EXCEPT congregational and independent. (the main difference between the 2 is that in congregational, everyone votes the leader(s) in or out and that is missing in independent; each congregation becomes its own personality cult around the senior pastor) IMO either episcopal or its variant neo-apostolic are the most scriptural.

I would tend to argue that either an episcopal or a presbyterian system are the two systems that seem to have the most Biblical connections. Either decisions by a leader like Paul whom you could see as a supervisor/bishop over churches he helped start. Or you can look at the council of Jerusalem as a presbyterial model, that is a group of Elders making decisions for the church.

I think congregationalism is a western creation that you really can't find much support for in the Bible.

 

[Dave-W]

Yes - presbyterian was my 3rd most biblical. (or 2nd if you combine episcopal and neo-apostolic)

I think congregationalism is a western creation that you really can't find much support for in the Bible.

I completely agree.

 

[JCFantasy23]

I love your list and agree with it fully, especially #1, #2, and #3. They were big draws for me. I also was drawn to the open communion while holding reverence with it.

 

[circuitrider]

I love your list and agree with it fully, especially #1, #2, and #3. They were big draws for me. I also was drawn to the open communion while holding reverence with it.

Open communion is big for me too. I also agree with the UMC's continued pursuit to create full communion agreements with other Churches. We have such an agreement with the ELCA, with other Methodist bodies, and are working on such an agreement with the Episcopal Church which I hope will be finalized in the not too distant future.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Your list sounds similar to my list of why I came to the UMC. And yes, the work towards being ecumenical, the willingness to wrestle with tough issues instead of simply dismissing them, the emphasis on social justice. There's a lot of reasons to be happy to be a Methodist.

I also think our connectional polity is excellent. In some connectional systems, a lectionary or equivalent is mandatory. Much of how the congregations works and worships is specifically prescribed. While we have guidelines, including a lectionary and a framework in the "Book of Worship", Churches and Pastors still have quite a bit of freedom, and both the Laity and the Clergy are trained through denominational programs to use the most out of that freedom.

While certain things, like a specific component of the communion liturgy, ARE fixed; for the most part, Churches are free (and encouraged) to fit their context.

Yet, Pastors are trained, vetted, and appointed; giving churches better qualified Pastors and absolving them from the arduous and difficult task of finding a Pastor. Literally the church on either side of mine, First Baptist and the UCC, spent more than 3 years to hire the Pastor they currently have; spending 3 years without a Pastor. FBC was the 'worst off' going without a Pastor, at all, for much of that time. Occasionally getting retired Pastors and lay speakers (not trained lay speakers; just volunteers) to preach here and there. The UCC church got trained Pastors to serve in temporary roles from the denomination, but still had to select and hire their own Pastor. I've also seen churches radically transformed by a Pastor; or Pastors radically transformed by a church, that neither would've felt compatible at first. Because our episcopal leadership identified some way in which that was missionaly the best. Our appointments are based, then, not on whose sermons we like the best but on mission; and who is best to lead the church.

Through apportionments (A dirty word to some but something I think is 'right' with United Methodism) small churches like mine can be a part of a global ministry. When you give to a United Methodist Church that pays it's apportionments you're paying for schools and universities, seminaries and continuing education programs that train Clergy and Laity alike, you're paying for administration that helps churches (any Pastor can tell you how helpful their District and Conference administrative folks have been at least a time or two. I can't imagine being a congregationalist and having to pay big bucks to talk to tax attorneys and CPA's to get answers to questions about organizing additional ministries, dealing with new employees and contractors, etc., rather than the conference having one on staff!). And in addition, you're also paying for ministries all around the world that provide essential healthcare, education, clothing, housing. We do some pretty cool stuff with apportionments.

I just can't imagine being anywhere else. One thing that frustrates me when someone says that someone should leave a denomination because of ONE issue, is that they ignore all of the reasons that someone is there.

 

[Tigger45]

Would you mind explaining #3. "Middle way"? Thx

Since there has been a long thread about what is supposed to be wrong with the UMC I want to share what I think it right with our denomination and why someone like me who didn't grow up in the UMC is now a United Methodist pastor.

1. Grace, Grace God's Grace - I believe that Wesleyan theology is right on target with its understanding of grace and the way grace is described as prevenient, justifying and sanctifying.

2. The Wesleyan Quadrilateral - United Methodism teaches not "sola scriptura" but "prima scriptura." That is the scripture is our primary source and our doctrine comes to us through the interplay of scripture, tradition, reason and experience.

Folks who claim "sola scriptura" still use tradition, reason an experience but just usually won't admit it.

3. The Sacraments and the the means of grace - I believe Methodist sacramental theology, with its roots in Anglican theology, is right on target and holds the powerful middle way of "real presence" of Christ in the eucharist and baptism as a powerful means of grace.

4. Episcopal Polity - Methodist have as good an argument as anyone the original polity of the Bible was episcopal and not congregational. The episcopal system allows us to elect Bishops who can be both administrative and spiritual guides for the task.

5. The itineracy - Really clergy are all itinerant in most denominations and move from church to church. But the Methodist system recognizes the value of an organized, committed itineracy and appointment system that matches graces and gifts of clergy to the needs of congregations.

6. The Book of Discipline - Yes! I'm defending the purpose of having the Discipline. While UMCers argue over, change modify and constantly seek to perfect the Discipline, it is largely better to have one general set of rules for everyone than the chaos of congregationalism.

OK, those are my top six. What else would you add?

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Would you mind explaining #3. "Middle way"? Thx

I'm sure CircuitWriter will respond, but what I believe he's talking about is a "middle way" between Transubstantiation, which states that the elements (bread and wine, most commonly) are transformed in a physical and literal sense into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Or perhaps even Consubstantiation which seeks to explain the former by stating that the Body and Blood exist alongside the Bread and Wine; which is common in Lutheran circles. It has it's roots, in part, in the difficulty of explaining how God literally transforms bread and wine into the Body and the Blood and yet they feel, smell, and taste like Bread and Wine. (Challenges of those who struggle with it include; if God through the priest transforms these elements; why isn't it a 'complete' transformation that is visible to us?). Consubstantiation 'solves' this dilemma by asserting that while they are transformed, the Body and Blood are co-present with the Bread and Wine.

On the other end, you have the idea of "Ordinances", essentially that the Bread and Wine are merely symbols of something that once happened (the Last Supper); that their significance is only as a 'reminder'.

For United Methodists; we have retained our Anglican heritage in our understanding of Real Presence, which states that while the bread and wine remain merely bread and wine, the presence of Christ Jesus is in these elements and they are indeed consecrated when the presider (typically the Pastor of a congregation) and a gathered body come together for communion. So while not literally transformed, like Transubstantiation states, it's also not merely a symbol or "ordinance".

I'm sure CW will add more. But hopefully that points you in the right direction of what Methodists and Anglicans, and some others, mean when they talk about "Real Presence", especially in the context of a "middle way".

 

[JCFantasy23]

I just can't imagine being anywhere else. One thing that frustrates me when someone says that someone should leave a denomination because of ONE issue, is that they ignore all of the reasons that someone is there.

Agreed, it's a shame. As people we tend to concentrate on the negative more than the positive. I try to fight this myself. The bad outweighs the good and then it's all we can see, focus on, and it ruins the whole positive experience eventually.