If John Wesley Came to General Conference – Part 1

by

GC Archive

A United Methodist Insight Exclusive

General Conference has begun. Reports and articles are pouring forth on the social media, blog spots, caucus group web pages and news sites as people share their hopes, fears, frustrations, hurt, anger, disappointments, dreams, proposals, arguments and ideas. Trying to make sense of this cacophony of voices seems impossible, but what is clear is that the tensions, the conflicts and the divisions have not abated; if anything they seem to be more intense. Solutions seem far away.

Delegates and observers, along with many of us watching from near and far, wonder about the future of the denomination. Is there a way forward? What will be the impact of decisions on churches and ministries? A recent Facebook post suggested that only John Wesley could solve the problems facing The United Methodist Church, and of course we Methodists love to quote or misquote Wesley to address our problems. While we cannot tell what Wesley would say if he turned up in Portland, I do think some things he wrote are relevant.

Stop!  Before you read any further, try a little exercise. Think for a moment. Which are the groups within the UMC that you feel are the most problematic? Which groups in your mind represent the wrong way forward? Whose ideas and actions do you find destructive and detrimental to the well being of the church and the future of its mission? Maybe you have more than one group in mind. That is fine.

Now we can do the Methodist thing and look for some help from Wesley. Not from his overused and often misused sermon “Catholic Spirit,” but from the less referred to but equally relevant “A Caution against Bigotry.” Wesley delves into the incident in Mark 9: 38-39 when John says to Jesus. “‘Teacher, we saw someone throwing demons out in your name, and we tried to stop him because he wasn’t following us.’ Jesus replied, ‘Don’t stop him’” (CEB). Wesley noted that prior to this encounter, Jesus had stated that when one received a child in his name one received him and the One who sent him. Wesley argued that in effect John was asking should we have received him and in doing so received you or should we have forbidden him?

What has all this to do with the 2016 General Conference? Wesley makes three points.

Wesley's first point is that “casting out demons” can be interpreted to mean being used by God to transform people lives so that when they respond to the gospel they are liberated them from sin and evil and filling them with the Spirit.

Wesley’s second point is what it means that a person does not “follow us” in his context:

  1. Someone who is not outwardly connected to us – probably meaning not a Wesleyan Methodist.
  2. Someone who is not part of our party – probably a person with different political views.
  3. Someone who has different religious opinions with regard to minor or major issues.
  4. Someone who has a different style of worship.
  5. A member “of a different Church … a Church as we account to be in many respects anti-scriptural and anti-Christian, a Church which we believe to be utterly false and erroneous in her doctrines, as well as very dangerously wrong in her practice; guilty of gross superstition as well as idolatry -- a Church that has added many articles to the faith which was once delivered to the saints; that has dropped one whole commandment of God, and made void several of the rest by her traditions; and that, pretending the highest veneration for, and strictest conformity to, the ancient Church, has nevertheless brought in numberless innovations, without any warrant either from antiquity or Scripture. Now, most certainly, ‘he followeth not us,’ who stands at so great a distance from us."  Wesley is here referring to Roman Catholics. He wrote a similar diatribe in his sermon “On the Death of George Whitefield” where he refers to Catholics as belonging “to that vile congregation,” holding  “detestable opinions” and joining in “senseless and superstitious, if not idolatrous, worship."  In another context he accused the Roman Catholic Church of violating the fundamental ethical virtues of justice, mercy and truth. I am not suggesting we agree with his deeply problematic assessment of Catholicism but rather that we should note the depth of his disagreement with Roman Catholicism as the background for interpreting what he says about bigotry.
  6. Someone who differs from us in affection – Wesley notes the religious differences are often accompanied by deep personal animosities and often people judge the work of their opponents to be merely human or even demonic

Wesley notes that his exegesis applies to his own context, and not to the original intent of the text. In keeping with Wesley’s spirit, think back to where we began with identifying groups in the UMC who  you hold to be problematic, destructive and detrimental – in the words of the text people who do not “follow us.” “Us” means the position you represent, the view you hold to embody authentic Methodism. The "other" includes people from different parties (church caucuses or secular political parties); people with different theological opinions – including major ones; people with different styles or worship, and people whose views and actions you find to be “anti-Christian” or “anti-scriptural” or even “detestable” or who pursue practices contrary to justice, mercy and truth. While these exact terms might not be used one will discover many similar sentiments expressed by people with opposing viewpoints in the UMC in the social media or the blogosphere. Personal animosities, attacks and denigration are often present particularly, but not only, in the social media.

Wesley’s third point is what it means not to stop them. Wesley relates this first to preaching and particularly the controversial issue of lay preachers. He argued that that not forbidding them refers not only to seeking actively to stop them, but also to indirectly doing this by despising their work, discouraging them, drawing them into arguments, speaking of them in an unkind or contemptuous manner, or representing them in a bad light or speaking evil of them or their work. Again one does not need to look far on the social media, the blogosphere or various websites to find contemporary examples.

Wesley concludes that if you fail on any of these points you are guilty of bigotry – that is “a too strong attachment to your own party, opinion, Church and religion." He argues that we are bigots if we rule exclude the possibility that God could use “Papists” (Roman Catholics), Arians and Socinians (those who denied the Trinity, the deity of Christ and the atonement). Then he takes it even further and says that if we saw “a Jew, a deist, or a Turk” (that is a Muslim) being used by God, we would be bigots if we forbad them in the full sense described above.

In a contemporary context we express this “too strong attachment” when we regularly judge the intentions and motivations of groups with which we agree in the best possible light and those with whom we disagree in the worst light. If you read the blogs, websites, tweets, Facebook posts, etc. of different caucus groups or individuals, the motives of the opposing group are questioned and denigrated while the motives of one’s own group are held to be honorable, seeking the good of the church, following Christ, listening to the voice of the Spirit, and concerned for God’s mission in the world. We see this in all the debates about procedures and rules where the proposals of people associated with groups one opposes are rejected as illegitimate attempts to gain political advantage. Those of one’s own group are designed to ensure the most authentic expression of the will of the Church. 

More fundamentally this “too strong attachment” is a form of pride which fails to acknowledge one’s own limitations, fallibility and proneness to error. While Wesley strongly argued for the positions he held, he also in numerous places acknowledged that mistakes, errors and limitations of knowledge were an integral aspect of human existence in a fallen world.

For all our knowledge today, we lack this wisdom to recognize where we are wrong. No matter how strongly we hold to a particular position or interpretation of the Bible, we could be wrong and our opponents could be right. It is thus imperative for our own spiritual well-being that we listen to them and are open to the possibility of changing our views.

While I have no idea what Wesley would say to General Conference if he came, I am convinced that far too much of what is happening in and around the 2016 session falls under Wesley’s category of bigotry. Bigotry opposes the catholic spirit and mutual love that Wesley expected of Methodists. For Wesley, bigotry is incompatible with Methodism and, more importantly, with authentic Christianity. I will pursue this point in a second blog post.

Dr. David N. Field is the Academic Coordinator of the Methodist e-Academy in Europe.