Intro to Wesleyan Theology: Doctrine, Discipline, and Decline

Intro

Good morning,

Up to this point we have covered John Wesley, Wesleyan Theology, and the General rules.

1. I made the case that Wesley has a few important dates that might frame some of the early convictions of the early Methodists

2. Wesleyan theology, we talked about him being a practical theologian, a conjunctive theologian, often casting him in the middle of dissenters on either side.

3. General Rules: Brief introduction to some of the discipline through which Methodists were to live by. One of the biggest pieces of discipline that I have not broached is the focus of my dissertation on Class Meetings and Band groups....but you will have plenty of time with me.

I thought for our time together today we could go on a journey through the history of Methodist Theology, or really a case study that might consider how we got to where we are today.

If I were to ask you, Wally Shook is not allowed to answer, what is it that Methodist believe? What is the doctrinal confession that we make? What makes us unique? How would you answer?

And further, how did we get to the point of a denominational schism?

(I confess to you, my own bias here at the beginning. I am willing to lay that on the table as we begin…in an hour it is not possible to present an exhaustive conversation on the matter)

United Methodist Church

I will spare you the long historical drama of determining and identifying the doctrines of the UMC. As a matter of fact, much of the heartache of early UMC debate about what they believed as a church stems from the fact that very little thought was given to this idea in the 160 years between its inception as a movement and then the joining of the Evangelical United Brethren (EUB) and the Methodist Church.

I have shared with you the Articles of Religion and the Confession of Faith… too long to cover, but adopted as authoritative. I will share a couple of interest:

Christian perfection from the Confession of Faith:

Article XI - Sanctification and Christian Perfection

We believe sanctification is the work of God's grace through the Word and the Spirit, by which those who have been born again are cleansed from sin in their thoughts, words and acts, and are enabled to live in accordance with God's will, and to strive for holiness without which no one will see the Lord.

Entire sanctification is a state of perfect love, righteousness and true holiness which every regenerate believer may obtain by being delivered from the power of sin, by loving God with all the heart, soul, mind and strength, and by loving one's neighbor as one's self. Through faith in Jesus Christ this gracious gift may be received in this life both gradually and instantaneously, and should be sought earnestly by every child of God.

We believe this experience does not deliver us from the infirmities, ignorance, and mistakes common to man, nor from the possibilities of further sin. The Christian must continue on guard against spiritual pride and seek to gain victory over every temptation to sin. He must respond wholly to the will of God so that sin will lose its power over him; and the world, the flesh, and the devil are put under his feet. Thus he rules over these enemies with watchfulness through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Article XVIII — Of the Lord's Supper

The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death; insomuch that, to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ; and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine in the Supper of our Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshiped.

Restrictive Rules

¶ 17. Article I.—The General Conference shall not revoke, alter, or change our Articles of Religion or establish any new standards or rules of doctrine contrary to our present existing and established standards of doctrine.40

¶ 18. Article II.—The General Conference shall not revoke, alter, or change our Confession of Faith.

Wesleyan Quadrilateral, General Conference 1972

Because of the restrictive rules, there is no way to alter or change this doctrinal stance. It is protected. To change these confessions of faith would be to leave the church body.

However, because of some influences at work very quickly in this new denomination. Influences that we will talk about briefly if we have time. In 1972, there is a monumental addition to the discipline that in many historians believe, put us in a difficult place. The addition of the Quadrilateral was born to help navigate differences in theology, interpretation, doctrinal differences. The Quadrilateral itself was a noble move from one of the greatest Methodist leaders in our modern time, Albert Outler:

Show Picture

Scripture, Tradition, Reason, experience

But here is the kicker:

Since “our present existing and established standards of doctrine” cited in the first two Restrictive Rules of the Constitution of The United Methodist Church are not to be construed literally and juridically, then by what methods can our doctrinal reflection and construction be most fruitful and fulfilling? The answer comes in terms of our free inquiry within the boundaries defined by four main sources and guidelines for Christian theology: Scripture, tradition, experience, reason. These four are interdependent; none can be defined unambiguously. They allow for, indeed they positively encourage, variety in United Methodist theologizing. Jointly, they have provided a broad and stable context for reflection and formulation. Interpreted with appropriate flexibility and self-discipline, they may instruct us as we carry forward our never-ending tasks of theologizing in The United Methodist Church (¶ 70, p. 75).

Problems with this: (ask the question)

Abraham, Waking from Doctrinal Amnesia (1995): We make more of a method to determine what we believe than the actual content of our belief.

It gives room for too much subjective interpretation.

We cannot alleviate conflict

It is unworkable

Protestant (Theological) Liberalism

Really this has an influence on all mainline protestant expressions, especially in the West.

First, a definition:

Theological Liberalism was the movement that accommodated the Christian faith to the new, anti-supernatural axioms that had quickly become widely accepted in American intellectual circles. While denying tenets basic to historic Christianity, those embracing theological liberalism believed they were helping preserve traditional Christianity so that it could survive in the modern world. -James V. Heidinger II

Allow for one story....

in July 1944, James G. Gilkey was invited to be the main speaker at the Texas Pastors’ School at Southern Methodist University. He was a graduate of Harvard and Union Theological Seminary and was a popular pastor of a Congregational Church in Springfield, Massachusetts. Well-known Methodist pastor Robert P. Shuler, an evangelical, protested the Gilkey invitation. He charged that Methodism was bringing into Methodist pastors’ schools men who were experts at denying the basic doctrines of classic Christianity.

Shuler called attention to controversial theological claims in Gilkey’s book, A Faith to Affirm. Gilkey was quite candid. He wrote, “We liberals believe five things about Jesus. He was a human being, like all the rest of us in quality. Second, He was born in the normal way, the eldest child of Joseph and Mary. Third, the miracles attributed to him are in reality legends which sprang up during and after his life. His most important act was not to die on the cross, but to live and teach our race its most significant set of religious and ethical beliefs.” He also denied the bodily resurrection.

He wrote, “We cannot think that by dying Jesus purchased for human beings the forgiveness of sin; to us Jesus’ death is tragedy, nothing more.” And again, “We liberals regard them (teachings of Jesus) as the most precious elements in Christianity; and we propose to take them, combine them with new truths and insights gained since Jesus’ time, and then offer this combination of teachings to the modern world as a new form of the Christian faith” (emphases mine). Little wonder Shuler protested Gilkey’s speaking at a Methodist pastors’ school. Note also that the ethical teachings of Jesus were all that basically remained as the substance of liberalism’s message.

A Shift in Liberal Protestantism

From David Watson:

Nevertheless today I see far less of the kind of revisionism Walker describes. The “anti-supernatural” crowd with which he identified one part of this schism is quietly fading from the scene. Its remaining proponents tend to be older, seminary-educated clergy. This perspective simply has not been able to reproduce itself, and for good reason. Who needs a powerless god who is more of an idea than a Savior, more of a construct than a loving and just Father?

He argues that the shift is now to a justice central gospel.

Again from Watson:

The decline of demythologized Christianity, however, does not mean that progressive Christianity has reached its denouement. Rather, it has changed forms. Taking its cues from theologians like Albrecht Ritschl, Walter Rauschenbusch, and Gustavo Gutiérrez, progressive Christianity tends to front ethics—normally framed as “justice”—as the central concern of the church. If we understand orthodoxy as “right belief” or “right praise,” progressive Christianity clearly has an orthodoxy, though a different one than Christians have traditionally confessed. It brackets doctrinal orthodoxy—the set of metaphysical claims expressed in the historic creedal tradition—in favor of an emphasis upon the church’s social witness. In fact, insistence upon a doctrinal orthodoxy can be seen as intolerant, unloving, and demeaning of people of other faith traditions. What matters is that one adopts the right set of ethical and political positions.

Complicating matters is the fact that in many cases today we find admixtures of theological perspectives. Many mainline clergy, for example, assert that they are “fully orthodox,” but “open and affirming” and desirous of a “big tent” denomination that welcomes a wide variety of theological positions. “Fully orthodox” means they can say the Apostles’ Creed and mean it—no finger-crossing required—and even see it as central to the Christian life. They affirm the church’s authority with regard to her historic doctrinal teaching. Yet they are less convinced of her authority regarding ethical teaching. In essence, the claim here is that historic Christianity can teach us about matters related to the doctrine of God and Christology, but its teachings on sex, marriage, gender, and abortion are at best negotiable, at worst incompatible with the heart of the gospel. Or, put differently, the church has been unsuccessful in extrapolating its ethical positions from its doctrines until quite recently.

Orthodox Christians and Progressive Christians are operating from 2 different starting points of Epistemology.

The former believes in divine revelation in Scripture, a special revelation that the church throughout history as worked to understand the movement of the Spirit to determine the outworkings of this divine revelation upon our ethics

And the latter, progressive Christianity:

Progressives, by contrast, tend to see revelation as ongoing. God is continually doing a “new thing,” they often say. Revelation commonly takes place through individual experience, and such experience is as authoritative as any revelation that has taken place in the past.

Where do we go from here?

Doctrinal confession that has teeth. Means something.

Alignment to the creedal church

Catechism about what we believe

Discipline around those beliefs

Bravery and conviction (Methodists in the 18th century and angry mobs)

peculiarity