Why I Think the Methodist Church Has Gone Astray

[Butterfly99]

Really? I'm Methodist. I don't think we've gone astray. Why is it wrong to be loving to everybody, like Jesus?

 

[circuitrider]

Really? I'm Methodist. I don't think we've gone astray. Why is it wrong to be loving to everybody, like Jesus?

I'd like this twice if the software would let me. Agreed Butterfly99!

 

[Dave-W]

That kind of thing is maddening! It treats being a follower of Jesus like a form of divine fire insurance.

Yeah - and I have heard it preached just like that.

What is lost in that is the concept of DISCIPLESHIP. In Acts when Paul came across someone who were believers, Luke at times used the term "disciples." Perhaps saying you are a "disciple" (in the present tense) is more biblicaly accurate than saying you are "saved" (in the present tense.)"

The problem with that is it requires some study as to what that term meant to first century Jews; and that violates the sacred cow of sola scriptura. (is that from calvinism also?) The problem with leaving it up to the modern reader to define what that term means is that it can go all over the map. When our Risen Lord said "Go and make disciples of all nations..." (Matt 28) He knew EXACTLY what that process was and so did his audience. It had been a part of their culture for at least a century. To re-define it in modern terms (or ignore it altogether) IMO is at best irresponsible.

 

[circuitrider]

I see sola scriptura arising out of Calvin but also out of Luther's writings. In part I think it is an over reaction to the Roman Catholic Church's heavy reliance on tradition, particularly in Luther's time. So he wanted to refocus on scripture.

Unfortunately what happens is that there tends to be a pendulum swing from a perception traditional only (or mostly) to scripture only. Neither one of those is really Biblical.

What I see about the Anglican and Methodist traditions is that they often try to strike a via media. A middle way.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

I've read a bit of Luther's writings, mostly out of my own curiosity regarding the reformation; including his catechisms. To my eyes, Martin Luthers single greatest problem was the Pope. He was as Catholic as the next guy but the idea that the Pope had the authority to change church doctrine into something unbiblical (which he blamed as the reason the church instituted the concept of asking forgiveness of sin from a priest and, more egregiously, buying forgiveness of sin from Titulus, who coined the phrase "When the coin in the box rings, the soul from purgatory springs!") His emphasis is often called Sola Scriptura but from what I've read, including his own referencing of church tradition, reason, and his experiences as authoritative, I think I would classify him more as a "prima scriptura". Like Wesley, it's not only scripture we draw all of our understandings from; but nothing can contradict scripture and scripture always comes first. I'm far from an expert on Luther though; that's just how I've perceived him.

There seems to be an emphasis throughout Christianity to sort of flex our theological muscles and prove who loves the Bible more. But honestly, it's not about reading the Bible literally, it's about understanding the Bible fully. The Bible never has as much authority as it does when it's read through the lenses of Tradition, Reason and Experience. Knowing the cultural contexts, the language nuances, and asking the tough questions like "Who was this passage written for and in what ways does it apply to me today?"

The truth is ALL Christians do this. The same Christians who quote leviticus as clear evidence of God forbidding homosexuality don't seem to mind understanding that Leviticus dietary restrictions don't apply to us today (I recognize there is NT complication on the issue of SSM, for this context, I'm only speaking to those who quote from Leviticus); and the same Christians who quote 1 Timothy as clear evidence that women shouldn't preach ignore that in the very same breath (in the English translations there's not so much as a period between the commandment against women in leadership and the following!) Paul denounces rings and braided hair and a host of other culturally-contextual issues that don't apply today (because they don't have the same meaning today as those symbols did then).

 

[gtmyers]

Great points!

I just think the UMC is getting away from Wesley's teachings of Christian perfection and sanctification. The Methodist churches I've been to in New Jersey and Massachusetts rarely mention those ideas, if at all. I think they are important ideas, and I'll use them when I preach.

I visited a Wesleyan Church once and these topics you speak of were taught regulary from what I could tell.

 

[gtmyers]

I've read a bit of Luther's writings, mostly out of my own curiosity regarding the reformation; including his catechisms. To my eyes, Martin Luthers single greatest problem was the Pope. He was as Catholic as the next guy but the idea that the Pope had the authority to change church doctrine into something unbiblical (which he blamed as the reason the church instituted the concept of asking forgiveness of sin from a priest and, more egregiously, buying forgiveness of sin from Titulus, who coined the phrase "When the coin in the box rings, the soul from purgatory springs!") His emphasis is often called Sola Scriptura but from what I've read, including his own referencing of church tradition, reason, and his experiences as authoritative, I think I would classify him more as a "prima scriptura". Like Wesley, it's not only scripture we draw all of our understandings from; but nothing can contradict scripture and scripture always comes first. I'm far from an expert on Luther though; that's just how I've perceived him.

There seems to be an emphasis throughout Christianity to sort of flex our theological muscles and prove who loves the Bible more. But honestly, it's not about reading the Bible literally, it's about understanding the Bible fully. The Bible never has as much authority as it does when it's read through the lenses of Tradition, Reason and Experience. Knowing the cultural contexts, the language nuances, and asking the tough questions like "Who was this passage written for and in what ways does it apply to me today?"

The truth is ALL Christians do this. The same Christians who quote leviticus as clear evidence of God forbidding homosexuality don't seem to mind understanding that Leviticus dietary restrictions don't apply to us today (I recognize there is NT complication on the issue of SSM, for this context, I'm only speaking to those who quote from Leviticus); and the same Christians who quote 1 Timothy as clear evidence that women shouldn't preach ignore that in the very same breath (in the English translations there's not so much as a period between the commandment against women in leadership and the following!) Paul denounces rings and braided hair and a host of other culturally-contextual issues that don't apply today (because they don't have the same meaning today as those symbols did then).

Very well put! I like your thinking.

 

[gtmyers]

You're making an assumption (albeit a common one) that to reject inerrant literalism is to reject all of the Bible. There are parts of the Bible which essentially are literal (The Ten Commandments aren't metaphors, and when Jesus commanded us to love God and love Neighbor he meant what he said), parts that are the direct word of God, Jesus, Prophets and others. Among that, there are parts that are poetry (Psalms, parts of Genesis, etc.), parts that are figurative (the Parables); and parts that even Jesus Himself said are man-made and not of God (some of the OT laws).



Paul, who wrote this, had been dead for decades when the New Testament came about. He was referring to Old Testament scripture; scripture which Jesus himself criticized (specifically, leviticus law) and even Paul struck down. Paul, who wrote this, himself, said not everyone was called to abide by certain Old Testament laws that reside in the very scripture he was uplifting. In fact, what you're posting; is probably the best example of why that phrase is being misinterpreted. Paul, who says all scripture is inspired by God, believed that Leviticus laws had run their course and weren't meant for all Christians to follow; and yet other commandments, certainly those from Christ, were. Paul is the one who set the stage for interpreting the Bible in new ways. In 2 Timothy, the Bible isn't "Talking about itself", Paul is talking about the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament). Paul was pretty arrogant, but I don't think even he ever thought that his writings would one day be considered "scripture" or on the same level as what HE is referring to scripture. 2 Timothy was merely a letter, a letter Christians have used for centuries to help understand the Church and understand God.

Christians who reject literalism still maintain the authority of the Bible; but we believe it should be read as it was written. Genesis 1 / Genesis 2 (Whichever creation story you think is the literal one. They are fundamentally different so you can't pick both. Most of my literalist friends use Genesis 1 but I know a few who use Genesis 2. I'm not sure how they reconcile literal interpretations of Genesis when they so significantly contradict, but I digress) are not viewed the same way as, say, the word of Jesus. Genesis 1/2 establish that God created the universe; not specifics on how it was done.

I believe Paul was telling the truth and I believe scripture is inspired by God. I just don't believe we're called to super-simplify it down to ultra-literalism (which doesn't work and is impossible), but instead, interpret and understand it through the lenses of the Holy Spirit, Experience, Reason and Tradition.

Literalism isn't real. What I mean is, nobody actually does it. They just THINK they do. We can uber-simplify Genesis but it's okay to understand that things like the Parables were metaphors for other things, and imagery? Well, is it literal, or not?

You and I agree so much. If those who hold literalism really did so then I suppose they would pluck out their eyes. As Paul said if your eye causes you to sin then pluck it out. Since we all sin and the sin of lust for a man is common than those who really think they hold to a literal intrepretation should pluck out their eyes but they do not do so.

 

[gtmyers]

Yep. Young Earth Creationism says one of the two creation stories (usually Genesis 1) is literal and happened exactly as it says. But what about the other one? It just doesn't work.

KJV-onlyism is only more bizarre because it's an English translation with poorer scholarship than what we have today. Rejecting english translations and maintaining greek/hebrew-onlyism I still wouldn't agree with (because I think the Bible should be accessible) but I'd find it defensible. KJV-onlyism is simply completely arbitrary based on the theology of "It's always been that way". And, ironically, it's held by churches who would vehemently oppose much of the theologies, then and now, of the church that commissioned it.

I was once Southern Baptist and while most SBC churches do not hold to KJV onlyism some do. Most independent fundamental baptists do hold fast to this. So much so that some of them think you are not a christian if you don't believe as they do. I visited one of these independent churches and its so very extreme. The shouting is unlike anything I'd ever seen before in church. So little love is there they are so extreme. The sunday school class was not a discussion nor a lecture but full fledge preaching. I mean shouting and spitting type of preaching. And this was in SS class so I never went back.

I too am a recovering conservative/fundamentalist. After the SBC I joined a ARP or Associate Reformed Presbyterian. They are very conservative perhaps more so than the PCA.
I am not as reformed as I once thought, and I now think differently on how the scripture should be read. Yes it is inspired but it also can't all be taken literally. Also reason should be used.

 

[circuitrider]

The premise of this thread is that Methodism is off the path because it doesn't emphasize sanctification as much as Wesley did. I'm not sure that is true.

What I've noticed is that Wesley was such a broad writer and wrote for so many years that it is easy to pick and choose what Wesley you read. It appears to me that denominations that put a lot of emphasis conversion and certain forms of sanctification are reading more or the early Wesley while United Methodists lean more on his later writings.

Also, United Methodists don't follow Wesley blindly. He could not possibly have foreseen what the future would hold or what Methodists would need to do down the road to share the gospel. So while we emphasize Wesley a great deal, our understandings of scripture, tradition, reason and experience have to take us beyond Wesley.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Yep. Wesley is a church father, not God, not an author of scripture, and not anything other than someone who held very dear his faith in God, and expressed an ancient faith in words and ways that make sense today. He's the epitome, in his time, of "progressive revelation"; which is the idea that even though our faith is ancient, we learn more about it as time goes on, as the spirit leads us.

 

[actionsub]

Yes, one of the side effects of a certain way of reading Calvinism is that it can lead to the idea that you get saved on a certain date and then after that you don't have to do anything with your faith afterwards. The assumption is that you are spiritually complete on the day of your first profession of faith.

That's always what confused me about some readings of "divine sanctification"; it can sound like "yup I've arrived, I am unable to sin".

 

[RomansFiveEight]

That's always what confused me about some readings of "divine sanctification"; it can sound like "yup I've arrived, I am unable to sin".

It's an ideology that requires not thinking too hard. It's simplistic, easy, and not really Biblically valid. It ignores hundreds of passages about salvation, sanctification, and the like. The Bible contains no such passage to suggest a singular prayer or conversion event (even if there are singular moments where Christ professes someone as 'saved'), and tremendous amounts of scripture about the need for a Christ-like life. "Faith, not works" is often cited; but what, then, is a special prayer if not a 'work'? Actually, the concept of faith as a journey is the purest example of "Faith, not works"; because it's growing in faith and growing closer to God; instead of relying on a single moment, a single "work", to save us.

It's interesting that although Biblical evidence is stacked heavily against conversion-moment theology; it's most commonly professed by those who profess a literal and inerrant interpretation and claim that to be a high view of scripture. In my opinion; the reason the two are interlinked has very little to do with scripture and a lot more to do with the fact that each provide a simplistic, easy, don't-have-to-think-about-it form of Christianity. But, that's not what Christianity is supposed to be.

 

[newhopeinHim]

It all goes against what Gods word says and means. Religion at its finest. Man mad rules... I wonder what Jesus thinks of all this. He walked ONE way and presented Himself ONE way in the word of God. That's the TRUE way. How can man twist things up so badly?

 

[circuitrider]

It all goes against what Gods word says and means. Religion at its finest. Man mad rules... I wonder what Jesus thinks of all this. He walked ONE way and presented Himself ONE way in the word of God. That's the TRUE way. How can man twist things up so badly?

newhopeinHim,

I have no idea what you are referring to. One of the reasons I am a Methodist is that I believe Methodist theology is the most Biblical view of theology I've found. I didn't grow up in the UMC, I chose in large part because of its theology.

So maybe you'd like to elaborate about what in Methodism "God against God's word?" You might also want to define God's word as in the Bible God's word is Jesus. If you mean the Bible you might want to say so. As an apparent self-appointed expert, what is that "one way?" And why is it all men's fault? Or do women never have bad theology?

I'll wait with patience for something constructive instead of just the above insulting post.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Circuitwriter beat me to it; but I'd like to add one thing.

"Man made rules" has become a buzzword for a disdain for "religion" or organized church. As a criticism it usually means "anyone whose religion is more organized than mine". Meaning the "spiritually, not religious" non-church goer against the church goer, the congregationalist churchgoer against the connectional churchgoer, etc.

There's some validity there. Even Jesus recognized that painful, hyper-literal and graceless application of God's law wasn't the way we were supposed to live. For example, God's law prohibited working on the sabbath; clearly, an ancient form of labor laws. To prevent greedy employers from extracting an unfair workload out of it's workers, God's law saw that every worker, regardless of status, got a time to rest and to reflect on their faith. Yet Jesus saw fit to grab some figs and feed himself and the disciples. "Work" by the hyper-rigid standards of the sanhedrin; but not a violation of the initial intent of the law. (Jesus wasn't driving his underpaid workers to exhaustion, he was getting lunch!)

But sometimes, it's just an excuse to live faith as one sees fit and ignore the church. Suddenly, we become the 'experts of the law' and claim all churches as somehow inherently bad. But it was Jesus Christ who established the church, and who established a system by which the Apostles would carry on the 'yoke' of Christ. The Church indeed exists for Christ. The sacraments, the laity, the clergy, it all comes together to build each other up ("as iron sharpens iron"), and to connect with God. The Church exists for a reason, faith is not supposed to be an individual affair.

And yes, there are rules. Clearly, the poster believes God has expectations. It's a very valid criticism that the church can be a little too 'caught up' in rules and forgetting the intent entirely. Especially in extra-biblical traditions (I don't like it when people say certain things are 'not biblical', because they don't actually contradict scripture, but I like 'extra-biblical' because they are traditions borne outside of scripture, usually created to point us to scripture; things like the liturgical calendar, holy days, etc.) We can become so hard-and-fast and locked onto those forgetting a person can be faithful even if they don't observe them in the same way. However, theology still matters; God still has expectations and figuring out what those are is a part of our faith journey.

 

[circuitrider]

RomansFiveEight her post is full of buzz words. "Goes against the word of God" = "Goes against my interpretation of what the Bible says." "Religion at its finest" = "equating "religion" with something that is not faith. Fundamentalists use this kind of terminology all the time. As in "I don't believe in religion, I believe in Jesus." The use of the word "man" rather than humanity, mankind or people also is another common usage by fundamentalist Christians who are either tied up in KJV language and terminology or live in a sexist faith system where man or men are the real people and women are discounted.

Finally the equating with her views with the ONE way and the TRUE way is the usual fundamentalist clap-trap that they some how have a hotline to God and have discerned the truth while all of the rest of Christianity that views things differently are awful sinners.

Add to that that seldom anyone but a fundamentalist would jump into a faith forum for some other Christian denomination than they are a member of and directly attack there faith and its clear what kind of faith tradition "NewHope" comes from. (By the way, kind of an ironic name for someone who is peddling sectarianism, fundamentalism and not much hope at all.)

 

[newhopeinHim]

Sometimes we refuse to see the truth about who Jesus really was. I have heard of Christian in the word of God, but I'm sorry I never heard the word Methodist in there. I just don't understand all these religions when there is supposed to be Only One. Your religion says its wrong to dance before God when the bible clearly says otherwise. That's all I meant.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Sometimes we refuse to see the truth about who Jesus really was. I have heard of Christian in the word of God, but I'm sorry I never heard the word Methodist in there. I just don't understand all these religions when there is supposed to be Only One. Your religion says its wrong to dance before God when the bible clearly says otherwise. That's all I meant.

United Methodists have no such prohibition against dancing. Some Baptist circles do, but that's a fading 'social law'. The UMC prohibits members from doing very little; though we do have social principles and social resolutions; suggesting things such as refraining from excessive drinking, avoiding gambling (primarily due to the predatory nature of many gambling institutions and their willingness to profit from addicts, it's more of a 'don't support the industry' issue, not an issue of gambling being some irreconcilable sin. John Wesley similarly demanded Methodists not visit pawn shops, because pawnbrokers at the time were quite predatory, like today's predatory lenders at payday loan places. If John Wesley were alive today, I believe title loan, payday loan, check advance, lease-to-own furniture, etc. type hyper-high interest predatory lending practices would draw his ire). What's important about these issues is that they are not something we believe is some Biblically founded sin. However, we do believe the Church can speak out against issues of social injustice, and we do. And we ask; though come short of demanding, that our members do what's right in these cases.

Other faith traditions exist because we're all trying to seek God. However, we ARE a part of one faith, the Holy catholic church. (Small "C", not big "C", meaning universal).

Holy = Set Apart for God
catholic = Universal

Even though we're different, we are the same. What makes us unique isn't our doctrine or our practice but our faith in Christ Jesus. Like CW said, you may have been misled by fundamentalist rhetoric that suggests that anyone who doesn't believe in one precise way is a part of some sort of evil religion; and not a real "Christian".

The Bible isn't simple, and it was never meant to be read literally or inerrantly. It was written in (part) dead languages, hundreds, sometimes thousands of years ago. It's complex. No human being on earth, not one, can lay claim to having the whole understanding of God. We're all on a journey of trying to find truth. It's those who claim to have 'arrived' to the truth that are perhaps the farthest from it.

And like CW said; "Word of God" is a term found in John 1 and elsewhere, and it refers to Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ, not the Bible, is the Word of God. The Bible doesn't refer to itself. When it says "scripture", it's referencing the Old Testament (It's either IN the Old Testament, or in the NT written in letters and epistles that weren't yet a part of the Bible when they were written, and wouldn't be for decades or even centuries), and when it says "The Word of God", it's referencing Jesus. Those are important distinctions to understand.

CircuitWriter; tell us how you really feel But yes, I get that rhetoric out here all the time. They understand God's will, and if I don't do things the way they do, then I don't

 

[circuitrider]

CircuitWriter; tell us how you really feel But yes, I get that rhetoric out here all the time. They understand God's will, and if I don't do things the way they do, then I don't

Well RomansFiveEight, I'm tired of dancing around (Yes I'm fine with dancing in general) fundamentalism and fundamentalists who appear out of no where to tell us we aren't right with God or that they know God better than we do. I've being dealing with that balogna since before you were born. ;-) My patience with it is gotten pretty close to zero.

NewHope,

Baptist, Methodist, Prebyterian etc. aren't "religions." Christianity, Islam, Judaism are religions. Methodism, Baptists, etc. are "denominations" within Christianity. Yes we have one faith, one hope and one baptism. There is just one Jesus and one Christian faith but it contains within it a lot of different Churches with different viewpoints about things in the Bible.

I'm not sure which church you are a part of but my assumption would be that you think yours is the correct one?

I also wonder if you are aware that you have either stumbled or jumped into a forum for Methodists, Nazarenes and related denominations. If you don't agree with us or like us I'd hope you'd take your criticisms elsewhere because the forum rules actually require that only people who are part of one of those denominations can teach their beliefs here.

Others can converse and ask questions. But not jump in here and make accusations.