Why Wesley?

[graceandpeace]

Hey y'all.

So, I consider myself Wesleyan & as I've repeated before I am seeking a UMC.

But lately, for reasons I am not entirely certain of, I have sensed myself being drawn to Eastern Orthodoxy or possibly another high church faith such as Anglican. Mainly the EO church has caught my interest -much of their theology is refreshing to me & I am longing for liturgy & tradition.

So, why Wesley? Why choose churches with Wesley ties or theology over an older tradition such as the EO church? What do you see the UMC (or Nazarene, etc) offering to you that is better or more correct?

Back to my UMC search, there are 2 churches I am interested in. I just hope they keep in touch with some tradition & don't turn into rock concerts. I have that fear, too - that I will find a church home that will then change too much to be "cool" or something. This doesn't seem to be an issue faced in older apostolic churches.

 

[BryanW92]

Why Wesley? Because, even though he was English and an Anglican, he created the distinctly American church and he did it by accident and against his wishes. Any kind of a divinely-inspired and glorious screw-up like that sounds like it should be my theology.

Why not High Church? For me, its the idolatry. They have statues and icons everywhere. They pray to saints. I want the simple frontier holiness of the Methodist Church. If I lived in the north, where the UMC is lot more High Church, I'd probably not be a Methodist, but I'd still be Wesleyan or Nazarene. I wish we were more laity-led with just a handful of circuit riders stopping by to serve communion to the congregations once a month.

 

[pilgrim42]

Hey y'all.

So, I consider myself Wesleyan & as I've repeated before I am seeking a UMC.

But lately, for reasons I am not entirely certain of, I have sensed myself being drawn to Eastern Orthodoxy or possibly another high church faith such as Anglican. Mainly the EO church has caught my interest -much of their theology is refreshing to me & I am longing for liturgy & tradition.

So, why Wesley? Why choose churches with Wesley ties or theology over an older tradition such as the EO church? What do you see the UMC (or Nazarene, etc) offering to you that is better or more correct?

Back to my UMC search, there are 2 churches I am interested in. I just hope they keep in touch with some tradition & don't turn into rock concerts. I have that fear, too - that I will find a church home that will then change too much to be "cool" or something. This doesn't seem to be an issue faced in older apostolic churches.

Why is it that you are so interested in liturgy and tradition. I suppose every denomination has some of that, but I would stay away from congregations that place a high emphasis on it. It is best to stick to what is practiced in the Bible. I think it is more important to sense the presence of God in a service. God dwells in the praise of His people. Praise isn't always very quiet. Liturgy is an emblem. What we need is to find the source of our faith. Being a Christian is about repenting of our sins, believing on the finished work of Christ on the cross, and then following Jesus in discipleship. Liturgy means very little if our hearts are not tuned into God. Seek a deeper relationship with God, not going through some religious exercises.

Ken

 

[GraceSeeker]

Well, I find that the liturgy of those "congregations that place a high emphasis on it" is often more Biblically rich, than those that don't. If it doesn't float your boat, that's fine. But I think it is rude to condemn something with as little understanding of it as I see evidence in the above post.

That liturgy has helped many a wayward soul find their way back to God specifically because it is so Biblically based. That's something we ought to be give praise for even if one personally chooses to attend a church with a different style of worship.

 

[circuitrider]

You would fine that John Wesley himself was quite liturgical. The liturgy he gave the original Methodist Episcopal Church was very similar to the Anglican Church of his faith.

I also prefer a more liturgical approach to worship particularly when it comes to the sacraments. That liturgy feeds my soul, it connects me to the early church, it reminds me of the power of God in our lives.

When I say with the whole church, as I will tomorrow, "Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again" with the people of God I feel the presence of the Holy Spirit in the church.

One of the problems with the approach "lets just practice what is in the Bible" is that the Bible does not go into any detail about how the Church worshipped. That comes in other ways through the traditions of the Church that was passed down through out history. It is yet another reason that tradition is one of the four parts of the Wesleyan quadrilateral.

I've only officially been a United Methodist for a few years but because of my commitment to good liturgy I've been a member of the United Methodist Order of Saint Luke for nearly twenty years.

 

[circuitrider]

To get back to the topic of "Why Wesley," I believe John Wesley provides a unique perspective on the power and importance of Grace to the believer. Yes Grace is found in all our churches but Wesley's understanding of grace is very powerful. For many of us who feel pulled to a lifelong journey growing in grace Wesley remains very compelling.

 

[GraceSeeker]

So, why Wesley? Why choose churches with Wesley ties or theology over an older tradition such as the EO church? What do you see the UMC (or Nazarene, etc) offering to you that is better or more correct?

Better? More correct? I do prefer Wesleyan theology over Reformed theology, but I'm hesitant to try to present it as superior and Calvinism as inferior. (Though of course it is. )

As for Orthodox theology, one of the problems for me with both it and Catholicism is the idea that one who is not a part of that faith is some how in a lesser relationship with God because of not being a member of that faith. Augustine and others talked a good talk about in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity. But in my experience Wesley and Methodists do a better job of walking the walk. We will let anyone who identifies himself as belonging to Christ receive from Christ's table. The Orthodox Church considers that we are not sufficiently a part of them to receive the eucharist with them.

And while I place a high value on God being the primary actor in baptism. I am NOT a sacramentalist, believing that the act of performing a baptism actually initiates salvation. Again, I believe God is the initiator of salvation and he does so through the reality of prevenient grace, which is in place long before baptism.

Of course, there are a lot of things that I also appreciate with regard to Orthodox theology. I like their view of "original sin" in that humanity bears the consequences (i.e. the scars) of the first sin but not that it still shares in the guilt of Adam and Eve.


But let me give a reason why I am PRO Wesleyan theology.
I believe the concept of sanctification is one of the greatest aids to helping us actually live the Christian life. We don't sit back and say that it is faith alone, and since I have faith it doesn't matter what I do. We also don't see salvation as the result of human works. Sanctification is something that God does in us, just as much as justification is. But though God does the work, we still have the freedom (that Calvinists do not) to respond and cooperate with what the Spirit of God is doing in us. We are not saved because of some sacrament, but because of the Spirit's presence active and working in our lives. And if you've been a Christian very long at all, our lives ought to begin to give evidence of that work.

I'm also a Methodist, a United Methodist in particular, because we are a global church. Other than the Roman Catholic Church there are actually few others that can say this to the extent that we United Methodists can. Oh, the Baptists might have congregations scattered across the globe, but there is no system connecting them. Methodists have such a system. Plus, we are a missional movement. That connection we have is NOT intended to be used simply to sustain a bureaucracy (though I admit that sometimes that is what it has done), but to enable us to win a world for Christ by combining our strengths together so that the product is greater than the sum of the constituent parts.

And while we United Methodists are NOT SOLA scriptura, coming closer in my opinion to a PRIMA scriptura position, I find this appropriate. For we do find that tradition, reason, and experience also have a role for us in understanding our faith and applying it to the various situations one faces in life. It is not the Bible alone. But neither do we elevate tradition or any of these other factors to be on par with scripture. It isn't just that we are taking a happy medium course, but that we realize there is value in many things with regard to building the faith, but that first among those is scripture. Others may practice this. Methodists are the only group that I know of which actually articulates this in such a nuanced way.

 

[circuitrider]

Greta points Graceseeker!

 

[Maid Marie]

That liturgy has helped many a wayward soul find their way back to God specifically because it is so Biblically based. That's something we ought to be give praise for even if one personally chooses to attend a church with a different style of worship.

And that's why I love my new "sacramental" Nazarene church- very biblically rich.

 

[Maid Marie]

Better? More correct? I do prefer Wesleyan theology over Reformed theology, but I'm hesitant to try to present it as superior and Calvinism as inferior. (Though of course it is. )

As for Orthodox theology, one of the problems for me with both it and Catholicism is the idea that one who is not a part of that faith is some how in a lesser relationship with God because of not being a member of that faith. Augustine and others talked a good talk about in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity. But in my experience Wesley and Methodists do a better job of walking the walk. We will let anyone who identifies himself as belonging to Christ receive from Christ's table. The Orthodox Church considers that we are not sufficiently a part of them to receive the eucharist with them.

And while I place a high value on God being the primary actor in baptism. I am NOT a sacramentalist, believing that the act of performing a baptism actually initiates salvation. Again, I believe God is the initiator of salvation and he does so through the reality of prevenient grace, which is in place long before baptism.

Of course, there are a lot of things that I also appreciate with regard to Orthodox theology. I like their view of "original sin" in that humanity bears the consequences (i.e. the scars) of the first sin but not that it still shares in the guilt of Adam and Eve.


But let me give a reason why I am PRO Wesleyan theology.
I believe the concept of sanctification is one of the greatest aids to helping us actually live the Christian life. We don't sit back and say that it is faith alone, and since I have faith it doesn't matter what I do. We also don't see salvation as the result of human works. Sanctification is something that God does in us, just as much as justification is. But though God does the work, we still have the freedom (that Calvinists do not) to respond and cooperate with what the Spirit of God is doing in us. We are not saved because of some sacrament, but because of the Spirit's presence active and working in our lives. And if you've been a Christian very long at all, our lives ought to begin to give evidence of that work.

I'm also a Methodist, a United Methodist in particular, because we are a global church. Other than the Roman Catholic Church there are actually few others that can say this to the extent that we United Methodists can. Oh, the Baptists might have congregations scattered across the globe, but there is no system connecting them. Methodists have such a system. Plus, we are a missional movement. That connection we have is NOT intended to be used simply to sustain a bureaucracy (though I admit that sometimes that is what it has done), but to enable us to win a world for Christ by combining our strengths together so that the produce is greater than the sum of the constituent parts.

And while we United Methodists are NOT SOLA scriptura, coming closer in my opinion to a PRIMA scriptura position, I find this appropriate. For we do find that tradition, reason, and experience also have a role for us in understanding our faith and applying it to the various situations one faces in life. It is not the Bible alone. But neither do we elevate tradition or any of these other factors to be on par with scripture. It isn't just that we are taking a happy medium course, but that we realize there is value in many things with regard to building the faith, but that first among those is scripture. Others may practice this. Methodists are the only group that I know of which actually articulates this in such a nuanced way.

What GS said, but change UM to CotN .

We are a global church as well. If my memory is correct, we are in over 200 countries.

 

[pilgrim42]

Well, I find that the liturgy of those "congregations that place a high emphasis on it" is often more Biblically rich, than those that don't. If it doesn't float your boat, that's fine. But I think it is rude to condemn something with as little understanding of it as I see evidence in the above post.

That liturgy has helped many a wayward soul find their way back to God specifically because it is so Biblically based. That's something we ought to be give praise for even if one personally chooses to attend a church with a different style of worship.

I do apologize if you feel that my comment was rude. It wasn't meant to come across that way. I don't want to condemn anything that is helping people worship the Lord.

My concern is with churches that rely more on the liturgy than they do seeking the presence of God. Many liturgical churches are involving themselves in things that have just become routine. Sometimes the preaching is weak and un-biblical. Sometimes it is a book report on something the pastor read during the last week. Formalism can kill the soul. Lifeless externalism can be a drag on our spiritual life.

The church needs to be about the business of praising God, preaching Biblical messages, and urging the congregation to make a personal decision to surrender their hearts and lives to Jesus. There needs to be preaching against sin and all forms of wickedness. John Wesley liked some liturgy in his worship, but he tried to preach souls out of Hell.

Having said all that, I want to acknowledge that there may be churches that use a lot of liturgy and they are doing all the right things. If this is church that you are referring to, then I would encourage you to attend. No denomination has a corner on the Kingdom of Heaven. Just find a place where your soul is being fed and where they are trying to pluck souls out of the fires of Hell.

Ken

 

[graceandpeace]

Why Wesley? Because, even though he was English and an Anglican, he created the distinctly American church and he did it by accident and against his wishes. Any kind of a divinely-inspired and glorious screw-up like that sounds like it should be my theology.

Why not High Church? For me, its the idolatry. They have statues and icons everywhere. They pray to saints. I want the simple frontier holiness of the Methodist Church. If I lived in the north, where the UMC is lot more High Church, I'd probably not be a Methodist, but I'd still be Wesleyan or Nazarene. I wish we were more laity-led with just a handful of circuit riders stopping by to serve communion to the congregations once a month.

Interesting.

Why do you think the statues, etc amounts to idolatry?

Coming from a Nazarene church that was congregational & such, & past experience in contemporary churches, I find the liturgy & high church to be a refreshing change.

 

[graceandpeace]

Better? More correct? I do prefer Wesleyan theology over Reformed theology, but I'm hesitant to try to present it as superior and Calvinism as inferior. (Though of course it is. )

As for Orthodox theology, one of the problems for me with both it and Catholicism is the idea that one who is not a part of that faith is some how in a lesser relationship with God because of not being a member of that faith. Augustine and others talked a good talk about in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity. But in my experience Wesley and Methodists do a better job of walking the walk. We will let anyone who identifies himself as belonging to Christ receive from Christ's table. The Orthodox Church considers that we are not sufficiently a part of them to receive the eucharist with them.

And while I place a high value on God being the primary actor in baptism. I am NOT a sacramentalist, believing that the act of performing a baptism actually initiates salvation. Again, I believe God is the initiator of salvation and he does so through the reality of prevenient grace, which is in place long before baptism.

Of course, there are a lot of things that I also appreciate with regard to Orthodox theology. I like their view of "original sin" in that humanity bears the consequences (i.e. the scars) of the first sin but not that it still shares in the guilt of Adam and Eve.


But let me give a reason why I am PRO Wesleyan theology.
I believe the concept of sanctification is one of the greatest aids to helping us actually live the Christian life. We don't sit back and say that it is faith alone, and since I have faith it doesn't matter what I do. We also don't see salvation as the result of human works. Sanctification is something that God does in us, just as much as justification is. But though God does the work, we still have the freedom (that Calvinists do not) to respond and cooperate with what the Spirit of God is doing in us. We are not saved because of some sacrament, but because of the Spirit's presence active and working in our lives. And if you've been a Christian very long at all, our lives ought to begin to give evidence of that work.

I'm also a Methodist, a United Methodist in particular, because we are a global church. Other than the Roman Catholic Church there are actually few others that can say this to the extent that we United Methodists can. Oh, the Baptists might have congregations scattered across the globe, but there is no system connecting them. Methodists have such a system. Plus, we are a missional movement. That connection we have is NOT intended to be used simply to sustain a bureaucracy (though I admit that sometimes that is what it has done), but to enable us to win a world for Christ by combining our strengths together so that the produce is greater than the sum of the constituent parts.

And while we United Methodists are NOT SOLA scriptura, coming closer in my opinion to a PRIMA scriptura position, I find this appropriate. For we do find that tradition, reason, and experience also have a role for us in understanding our faith and applying it to the various situations one faces in life. It is not the Bible alone. But neither do we elevate tradition or any of these other factors to be on par with scripture. It isn't just that we are taking a happy medium course, but that we realize there is value in many things with regard to building the faith, but that first among those is scripture. Others may practice this. Methodists are the only group that I know of which actually articulates this in such a nuanced way.

Really good points, thanks!

 

[BryanW92]

Interesting.

Why do you think the statues, etc amounts to idolatry?

Coming from a Nazarene church that was congregational & such, & past experience in contemporary churches, I find the liturgy & high church to be a refreshing change.

I didn't explain that well. The OP was about the High Church of the RCC and Eastern Orthodox types. I was talking about them when I spoke of idolatry. Then, I changed gears in mid-paragraph and was talking about High Church in the UMC. That was just bad writing on my part.

In the UMC case, I just don't like High Church Methodism. It sends mixed messages when the pastor is talking about social justice and missions from the pulpit of an ornate cathedral to wealth.

 

[circuitrider]

In the UMC case, I just don't like High Church Methodism. It sends mixed messages when the pastor is talking about social justice and missions from the pulpit of an ornate cathedral to wealth.

Not trying to be disagreeable here but being liturgical has nothing to do with cathedrals and fancy buildings. It is about the liturgy used in the church. You can conduct liturgical worship in a barn as far as that goes.

 

[BryanW92]

Not trying to be disagreeable here but being liturgical has nothing to do with cathedrals and fancy buildings. It is about the liturgy used in the church. You can conduct liturgical worship in a barn as far as that goes.

Then, what is "liturgical"? I always assumed that you could do it in a barn too, and my "low church" is very liturgical, but I've been told by pastors who favor "High Church" that since we don't have all the trappings of robes and censers and such, that we are not High Church. I was under the impression that High Church is not the same as Liturgical.

 

[circuitrider]

Then, what is "liturgical"? I always assumed that you could do it in a barn too, and my "low church" is very liturgical, but I've been told by pastors who favor "High Church" that since we don't have all the trappings of robes and censers and such, that we are not High Church. I was under the impression that High Church is not the same as Liturgical.

Well an alb will run you less by far then the usual business suit that many pastors wear and most pastors own their own.

You can burn incense in a ceramic cup. Though I can't remember the last time I saw incense at a UM church. What else do you need to be High Church?

High Church isn't about the trappings, it is about the liturgy used and how it is used. Liturgical and High Church are usually synonymous words anywhere I've heard them used.

IMHO if someone said you couldn't be "high church" because you didn't have fancy vestments then they were mistaken.

 

[BryanW92]

Well an alb will run you less by far then the usual business suit that many pastors wear and most pastors own their own.

You can burn incense in a ceramic cup. Though I can't remember the last time I saw incense at a UM church. What else do you need to be High Church?

High Church isn't about the trappings, it is about the liturgy used and how it is used. Liturgical and High Church are usually synonymous words anywhere I've heard them used.

IMHO if someone said you couldn't be "high church" because you didn't have fancy vestments then they were mistaken.

I was misinformed then. He really hated our church. We were too southern, too conservative, and too "Baptist". Not at all like the other churches he had served and wanted to serve. LOL.

 

[Maid Marie]

Interesting.

Why do you think the statues, etc amounts to idolatry?

Coming from a Nazarene church that was congregational & such, & past experience in contemporary churches, I find the liturgy & high church to be a refreshing change.

It is a VERY refreshing change. I love the greater emphasis place on the reading of scripture as a part of worship in my liturgical Nazarene church. We are small [church plant] right now thus we don't have a fancy church [we rent] but God's presence is with us - and much more so IMHO than the contemporary Naz church that I just left in which people relied more on the band and rock music to bring people in than prayer [we steadily lost members because of that].

 

[circuitrider]

I was misinformed then. He really hated our church. We were too southern, too conservative, and too "Baptist". Not at all like the other churches he had served and wanted to serve. LOL.

It is a shame that he was appointed to your church then. It doesn't sound like he was a good match.

Just out of curiosity, what was "Baptist" about your church?