by Steve | Jan 1, 1979 | Archive - 1979
Archive: What You Need to Know About the Appointment of Your Pastor
A church is not likely to rise above the effectiveness level of its minister. That’s why pastoral selection, continuation and/or replacement is a vitally important decision affecting every member and the future of your whole congregation.
What can you do, as a member of a United Methodist Church, when it comes time, for whatever reason, to change pastors? Is the appointment of your pastor solely the prerogative of your bishop? Do you have any say? Suppose your bishop sends an undesirable preacher. Or suppose he refuses to move a pastor whom you feel must be moved for the good of congregational life. Or, again, suppose you want to retain your pastor, but the bishop decides that a change is advisable. Is there anything you can do?
The Discipline, the “rule book” of our church, makes a number of statements setting forth policies governing these matters. To be an intelligent and effective United Methodist you need to understand what the Discipline says. Otherwise you will be ignorant concerning the rightful authority of the bishop, and rights of local churches in the pastoral appointment process.
Itinerancy, the assignment of pastors on an annual basis to churches, is as old as Methodism. Our present church constitution, adopted in 1968 when The Methodist Church and The Evangelical United Brethren Church joined to form The United Methodist Church, preserves and continues the authority of bishops to appoint ministers to their charges (churches) “after consultation with the district superintendents” (¶59, 1976 Discipline, pg. 37).
Fortunately, some safeguards are built into what could (and sometimes unfortunately does) become an autocratic system. Bishops are instructed to consider “the gifts and graces of pastors” as well as “the needs, characteristics, and opportunities of congregations” (¶527, pg. 228). However, bishops are to disregard “race, ethnic origin, sex, or color” in making appointments (¶527).
The Discipline lists criteria to be used “to achieve an effective match of charges and pastors” (¶530, pg. 229f.). Factors regarding congregations include size, financial condition, quality of lay leadership (¶530.1.a) and ministry and membership stability, etc. (¶530.1.c).
Of supreme importance is another criterion, “The convictional stance of the congregation: theology; prejudices, if any; spiritual life” (¶530.1.b). This provides significant leverage for the church that seeks an evangelical pastor. In spite of attempts by some to claim that “all our pastors are evangelical,” the truth is that prevailing United Methodist pluralism has created a spread of 180 degrees in pastors’ theology. Which means that ordained clergy sent to your church can be anything from evangelical to humanistic. If a church agrees to accept a pastor whose “convictional stance” is other than Biblical,[1] the church will surely flounder.
It is sometimes said that a congregation ought to accept a theologically unsound pastor in order to minister to that pastor. Of course, every congregation does minister to its pastor in many ways. Nevertheless, the true pastor is called by God first of all to be a shepherd to lead the people in God’s direction. Each pastor’s prime responsibility is the spiritual leadership and development of the congregation. These vital functions are not likely to be carried out successfully by a pastor who lacks deep and genuine love for Jesus Christ, and a mature sense of Biblical authority.
True, God has sometimes used a congregation to bring its pastor to conversion. But this represents a dramatic reversal of roles and should, therefore, be viewed as a miraculous exception. Jesus warned, “Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when he is fully taught will be like his teacher.” (Luke 6:39, 52, RSV)
The bishop has a nearly impossible job in making pastoral appointments. He is required to appoint every conference member in full connection, the able and the incompetent, the evangelicals and the liberals, the energetic and the lazy, the men and the women, and even the clergy couples. Furthermore, as the church becomes more pluralistic and the clergy more heterogenous, the more difficult it will be to make appointments. The number of “square pegs” and the number of “round holes” are increasing, but the bishop must somehow make the jobs and the ministers come out even at each annual conference.
Furthermore, there is great pressure on the bishop to move the pastor at an increase in salary (or at least the same salary). Thus in looking for a pastor for a specific church, the bishop will tend to consider only persons in a fairly narrow salary range. Salary is probably a major factor in determining appointments, and thus greatly complicates the matching of ideologically compatible congregations and pastors.
In the United Methodist system, some church gets the pastor who is a dud. The UM minister, unlike the Baptist, cannot be unemployed. We may come to that point some day soon, but are not there yet.
To assist in wise appointment-making, the Discipline provides for consultation between local church and annual conference. Th Discipline defines this process as “conferring with the parties affect ed by the process of appointment making [including congregation and parsonage families]. Consultation is not unilateral decision making or notification” (Italics added) (¶528).
Here is protection for the local church against overweening episcopal power. Let it be repeated for emphasis: “Consultation is not unilateral decision-making or notification.” Gone are the days, the Discipline guarantees us, when an autocratic bishop may make an appointment unilaterally, without heeding significant input from others who are involved.
How should this vitally important consultation take place? Paragraph 529.1 spells out the process. It gives the right to initiate it to the pastor, the Pastor-Parish Relations Committee, the district superintendent, and/or the bishop. “When a change is imminent, consultation shall take place (italics added) involving the pastor, district superintendent, and the Pastor-Parish Relations Committee, as well as the bishop” (¶529.2).
Note the Italics. They are very important. Appointments made without due regard for this provision are improper and may even be illegal. Congregations need to be aware of their rights in this matter. Because the spiritual welfare of the Body of Christ is at stake, churches have a serious obligation to insist on those rights—even to the point of taking appropriate legal action if a bishop should neglect to consult properly with the local church in advance of appointment (¶2520, pg. 565f.; 2542.1c, e, pg. 577).
Excessively arbitrary bishops have been known to consider “consultation” as, “I tell you whom I am sending to be your pastor.” Any church which acquiesces to that kind of injustice does the whole church a disservice.
Many UM congregations are unnecessarily passive participants in the appointment process. They simply accept whoever is sent—often without question, deliberation, or objection . But in the final analysis, considerable power does reside at the local level. As a voluntary organization in a day of declining authoritarianism, the entire church wounds itself when its leaders arbitrarily impose unilateral decisions upon the laity. Besides, if the laypeople leave, who then will pay the light bills, pastor’s salary, and the apportionments?
The current oversupply of clergy in many annual conferences is a factor which the laity needs to recognize. No longer are many conferences in a position to threaten a strong-minded church by warning that no pastor will be sent until the church behaves. Now the tables have turned! Now the local church is doing the conference a favor by providing a place for an appointment out of increasingly surplus pastoral labor force. In today’s overflowing clergy market, with church membership declining and many churches closing, conferences urgently need places to send and support ordained clergy. So it is a buyer’s market for the local church, in many annual conferences.
The oversupply of clergy presents the UM Church with some unique problems. An annual conference cannot have an oversupply of clergy because the number of ministers and the number of jobs must be in balance. We will shut off entrance to keep the balance. This is why the boards of ministry are so crucial at this point in time. The question is whether the conferences will retain the incompetent clergy and restrict admission when there are plenty of qualified applicants.
If the due process of consultation breaks down, does the local church have any recourse? What if a bishop should insist on appointing a pastor considered unacceptable by a local church?
After every other course has been tried to no avail, one drastic final resort remains: to inform the bishop that although he does have authority to send a pastor whom the church does not want, the church will not pay the salary of an unacceptable pastor—or will reduce the salary to the conference minimum. This is a radical stance to take! But occasionally a congregation may be driven to this point.
In one instance, a bishop insisted upon a certain appointment which the Pastor-Parish Relations Committee resisted repeatedly. Finally the committee chairman yielded, saying, “All right. Send the man. But, bishop, you will have to pay his salary.” Confronted by such conviction, the bishop did not persist.
Pastor-Parish Relations Committees need to be sure they know what they are about when negotiating with the conference concerning pastoral appointment. That is, the committee must be sure it has done its homework thoroughly … that it truly reflects the heartbeat of the church … that it knows what the Bible says pastors ought to do … that it has carefully and deliberately thought through the matter of what kind of pastor the church wants and needs … that its actions are bathed in prayer.
Why is all this necessary?
The blame has to rest, first with the local churches themselves, and then ultimately with the conference Boards of Ordained Ministry, For years, many churches have carelessly endorsed for the ministry any interested person, with little or no regard for faith, gifts, and graces. Then, conference boards have often compounded the first mistake by admitting to candidacy, finally ordaining and continuing in ordained status men and women deficient in faith, leadership, and/or pastoral abilities.
Of course, mistakes of judgment are only human. Further, some promising ministerial candidates get lazy, lose their faith and commitment to Christ, or otherwise fail to develop.
Thus an incredible range of diverse theological and personal competence is represented in our denomination’s ministry. From the annual conference grab bag, a bishop may pull out a unitarian, a liberal, an evangelical … a competent or incompetent … each bearing identical, valid credentials as a United Methodist minister in good standing.
Taken together, the disciplinary provisions give to the local church a good deal of “clout”—more than most churches realize they possess. However, this power must be exercised with discretion, under the wise supervision of the Holy Spirit. Otherwise the appointive process can easily degenerate into bareknuckle combat between the local church and the annual conference. When this happens, all parties suffer, and the Body of Christ is usually harmed. All concerned need to exercise both power and restraint in the Spirit of Jesus Christ.
It is usually unwise for a church to name names of acceptable or desired pastors to the bishop and superintendent. Requests should be made on the basis of principle rather than personality. That is, let the church make a reasonable case for the type of congregation it is, the types of needs it senses in itself, the type of pastor who could best help the church develop its ministry.
Recently a local church sought advice regarding a pastoral change because it feared getting a person whose chief qualification was that he fitted the right salary bracket. The church was urged to make its feelings known and to “beat on the bishop’s desk if necessary.” What happened? The church received the type of minister it wanted and needed. The committee chairman was astounded but pleased. “I didn’t think we could influence the appointment of our pastor,” be beamed, “but we did!”
The point to be remembered is that a congregation must know clearly what it wants and needs in a pastor. Then it must make the specifications known through its Pastor-Parish Relations Committee. Finally, the local church must persist without compromise on principles made clear in Scripture. This includes eventual submission to authority (Romans 13:1-7). Authorities, for their part, will be held accountable by God for their own decisions, which, if unwise, may result in permanent loss of unity, driving out faithful members, economic chaos, and setting an un-Christlike model.
Going for a personal visit with the superintendent and/or bishop often helps. In this regard, a word of caution: a congregation must speak only through its duly authorized representatives, the Pastor-Parish Relations Committee. This is not to muzzle the membership; it is a security measure protecting the church, the pastor, and the appointing authorities. Every church has its lunatic fringe, those perennial malcontents who act alone in contacting district superintendents and bishops with protests and demands that the pastor be moved. If a superintendent or bishop should be unwise enough to heed such “end runs” around the Pastor-Parish Relations Committee, they would undermine the integrity upon which their leadership depends. Should this happen, the local church ought to object strenuously.
This, of course, underscores the vital importance of having as Pastor-Parish Relations Committee members people who are mature Christians, dedicated to the advancement of God’s Kingdom and the welfare of Christ’s Church above all other considerations.
This important committee has a number of significant responsibilities in its role as liaison between pastor and congregation. These are described in the ·Discipline, paragraph 260.2 and elsewhere. But pertinent to the appointment of pastors is paragraph 260.2.d.7, pg. 148. When it becomes “evident that the best interests of the charge and minister(s) will be served by a change of minister(s),” it becomes the responsibility of this committee to “cooperate with the minister(s), the district superintendent, and the bishop in securing clergy leadership. Its relationship to the district superintendent and the bishop shall be advisory only.”
The last statement should not discourage a committee from exercising its full responsibilities, rights, privileges, and powers as outlined above. Happily, conference officials usually desire to cooperate with congregations in providing the quality of pastoral leadership that will truly serve the best interests of all. To accomplish this requires that all concerned participate in a careful, responsible manner to make the consultative process work. Much prayer, by everyone, is needed if the final results are to please God.
When the bishop, “basing his judgment on the information and advice derived from consultation, makes the appointment,” (¶529.5), the parties involved “shall be” notified “before a public announcement is made” (¶529.6). Thus the congregation, as well as the pastor, is to be accorded what may be called generous consideration, given the nature of the episcopal system and the itinerancy, under which all clergy “in full connection” are subject to annual appointment by the bishop-and under which every church is guaranteed a qualified pastor.
We welcome comments on this article, and especially encourage Good News readers to furnish helpful examples of how the appointment process has functioned in your experience. – The Editors.
[1] Since many claim their “convictional stance” is “Biblical,” it should be explained that by this term we mean (1) regarding the Bible as prime authority for faith and life; (2) the main business of the church is winning the lost to saving faith; and (3) facilitating growth toward Christian maturity, viewed as the perfect pattern of Jesus Christ.
by Steve | May 11, 1978 | Archive - 1978
Remember Aldersgate
by Charles Ludwig (1918-2002)
May/June 1978
Good News
Having been raised in Epworth, and having preached in the parish church many times for his father, John Wesley was quite certain Romley, the young curate, would be delighted to have him either preach or read the prayers.
John Romley, however, thought otherwise.
Although disappointed not to have the opportunity to stand once again in his father’s pulpit, John Wesley returned for the after-service. Since it was rumored that their former curate and admired missionary to Georgia was going to speak, the building was crowded.
Romley, however, had determined to have nothing to do with John Wesley; and so he preached himself. His subject was “Quench not the Spirit.” Speaking in a dynamic way, he assured his listeners that too much enthusiasm had a tendency to quench the Spirit.
After the benediction, Wesley’s friend, John Taylor, positioned himself in the churchyard and told the people that Wesley would preach that evening at six o’clock. In his Journal, John Wesley remembered the occasion: “Accordingly at six I came, and found such a congregation as I believe Epworth never saw before. I stood near the east end of the church, upon my father’s tombstone, and cried, ‘The kingdom of heaven is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.’”
As the overwhelmed congregation listened to the gowned preacher standing on the flat, table-tomb of his father, they knew something wonderful had happened to him. His voice had a new ring; his manner was more convincing than it had been; and it even seemed that he was enveloped by some invisible authority.
Deeply stirred, the people insisted that he remain with them for a time. Wesley responded by preaching in nearby villages to large clusters eager to hear him. His final service was at Epworth on Sunday, June 13, 1742. Again at six p.m. he mounted his father’s tomb and “continued with them for nearly three hours.”
Documenting the occasion, Wesley wrote: “I am well assured that I did far more good by preaching three days on my father’s tomb, than I did preaching three years in his pulpit.”
What made the difference? His heart-warming experience at Aldersgate!
Unfortunately, John Wesley’s experience at Aldersgate is frequently played down – especially in our generation. There are even biographies of Wesley in which Aldersgate is barely mentioned. This is a tragic mistake, for eventually that experience changed the lives of millions. In addition, it probably saved England from the revolution that was soon to bloody the streets of France.
To understand Aldersgate, we must realize that John Wesley left Georgia a discouraged man. Much of this discouragement centered around his rather innocent courtship of Sophy Hopkey. Sophy was somewhat fickle; and thus, although John had considered proposing to her, she married William Williamson before he got around to it!
Thoroughly shaken, Wesley refused to serve Sophy Communion. (He felt justified in this because her marriage banns [public announcement of a forthcoming marriage] had not been read before the wedding as required by law.) Williamson retaliated by suing him for “one thousand pounds sterling.” In despair, Wesley reread the Book of Job – and made out his will!
Soon he was indicted on several counts. The indictments were unbelievably trivial. The most serious were that he had “forced” conversation on Sophy; and that he had barred her from the Lord’s Supper. After appearing in court six or seven times without a verdict, Wesley decided to return to England.
In his Journal he wrote: “… the tide then serving, I shook the dust off my feet and left Georgia, after having preached the gospel there (with much weakness and indeed many infirmities) not as I ought, but as I was able, one year and nine months.”
His ministry in Georgia, however, was not the complete failure he assumed. While there, he published America’s first hymnal and established what has been credited as “America’s first Sunday school.” Nevertheless, he was so disheartened he considered it a complete fiasco. Indeed, he felt so spiritually low he recorded his innermost thoughts in a secret code of his own invention. This code was not broken until 1909!
Upon landing in England on February 1, 1738, he hoped his troubles were over. Instead, he was confronted with a new line of disappointments. The first disappointment was that his old friend, George Whitefield, had sailed for Georgia only the day before. After that, a series of doors were slammed in his face. These are recorded in his Journal. They are to be found among those recorded in May:
Sun. 7 – I preached at St. Lawrence’s in the morning, and afterwards at St. Katherine Cree’s church. I was enabled to speak strong words at both, and was therefore the less surprised at being informed I was not to preach any more in either of these churches.
Sun. 14 – I preached in the morning at St. Ann’s, Aldersgate, and in the afternoon at Savoy chapel. … I was quickly apprised that at St. Ann’s likewise I am to preach no more.
Fri. 19 – I preached at St. John’s, Wapping, at three, and at St. Benet’s, Paul’s Warf, in the evening. At these churches likewise I am to preach no more.
At this point we must remember that Wesley had been deeply impressed with a band of Moravians on his way to Georgia. During a terrible storm when it seemed the ship would sink, these earnest German Christians remained perfectly calm. Indeed, they sang during the whole ordeal. When the storm subsided, he approached one of them. “Were you not afraid?” he asked.
“Thank God, no,” returned the Moravian.
“But were not your women and children afraid?”
Again the answer was, “No.”
Several months later, while working in Georgia, Wesley sought advice from Pastor Spangenberg of the Moravians. With utter frankness, Spangenberg said, “My brother, have you the witness within yourself? Does the Spirit of God bear witness with your spirit that you are a child of God?”
Wesley hesitated. He had no answer.
“Do you know Jesus Christ?” persisted the German.
“I know He is the Savior of the world.”
“True, but do you know He has saved you?”
“I hope He has died to save me.”
“Do you know yourself?” pressed Spangenberg.
“I do,” replied Wesley. But as he later recorded the conversation in his Journal, he added, “But I fear they were vain words.”
Following this conversation, Wesley pondered over what had been said. Like a thorn, the questions worked deeper and deeper into his heart. He could not get rid of them; and while on the way back to England he kept wondering if he was really saved. Then a week after his landing in England he met Peter Bohler – another Moravian!
John and Peter became warm friends. Being scholars, they solved their language barrier by conversing in Latin. When John learned that Peter and his Moravian companions had no place to stay, he secured lodging for them near John Hutton’s place where he himself was staying. This meant the two of them had long discussions about Christianity.
One of the things that disturbed Wesley was that he felt he lacked sufficient faith. Indeed, he was so concerned about this subject he asked Bohler if he should not quit preaching. To this he replied, “By no means.”
“But what can I preach?” asked Wesley.
“Preach faith until you have it,” replied Bohler; “and then because you have it, you will preach faith.”
It sounded simple. But would it work? For a long time he had been convinced that salvation is gained by receiving communion and by doing good works. This being so, he did not believe in deathbed conversions, for how could a person do good works on his deathbed? Bohler having urged him to call on a condemned criminal named Clifford, Wesley decided to experiment. Entering the doomed man’s cell, he boldly preached salvation with a clear emphasis on faith.
About three weeks later, Wesley went with a friend to visit a condemned man in the Castle prison. (His identity is unknown.) After praying with him, “he rose up and eagerly said, ‘I am ready to die. I know Olrist has taken away my sins. …’”
Wesley was both pleased and startled by this response. This is because he was concerned whether or not instant conversion was really possible. Such an idea seemed to him to be most revolutionary.
Convinced by the authority of the Word, he made a study of the problem: “I searched the Scriptures again touching this very thing, particularly the Acts of the Apostles: but to my utter astonishment, found scarce any instances there of other than instantaneous conversions; scarce any so slow of that of St. Paul, who was three days in the pangs of the new birth. I had but one retreat left; namely, ‘Thus, I grant, God wrought in the first ages of Christianity; but the times are changed.’”
The conversion of this convict seemed certain, even though it was instantaneous. Nevertheless, Wesley’s extremely logical brain wanted to be absolutely convinced that a person could be converted within a moment of time. With this thought possessing him, he continued to research his life.
Wesley’s days snail-paced along as he considered his past, sought truth, and considered his seemingly doubtful future. On Wednesday, May 24, he awakened at 5 a.m. and reached for his Greek New Testament. Somehow his eyes were drawn to 2 Peter 1:4, “There are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises, even that ye should be partakers of the divine nature.” Later, as he prepared to leave, he again felt impressed to open his New Testament. This time, he read, “Thou art not far from the kingdom of God” (Mark 12:34).
That afternoon he was invited by a friend to attend a service in nearby St. Paul’s Cathedral. Curiously, the anthem was Psalm 130. Backgrounded by the music of Henry Purcell, former organist at Westminster Abbey, the words were: “Out of the deep have I called unto Thee, O Lord: Lord, hear my voice. O let Thine ears consider well the voice of my complaint. If Thou, Lord, wilt be extreme to mark what is done amiss, O Lord, who may abide it? For there is mercy with Thee; therefore shalt thou be feared. O Israel, trust in the Lord: for with the Lord there is mercy, and with Him is plenteous redemption. And He shall redeem Israel from all his sins.”
Wesley listened in amazement, for that anthem fitted his need as closely as a glove fits a hand. Was God speaking to him? To Wesley it immediately became apparent that God was seeking to fill a need in his life.
Later that same day, Wesley was invited to a “society in Aldersgate Street.” Since he was staying with the John Huttons, the meeting was not far away. Still, he was reluctant to go. Perhaps he was tired from the long service at St. Paul’s. But one way or another, he was persuaded to go.
Aldersgate is one of London’s older streets. It was named after a gate in the northern wall. No one is certain of the precise address where this meeting was held, but a heavily-researched guess is that it was really at Nettleton Court which was “a narrow byway opening from the east side of Aldersgate.”
It is quite probable that Wesley was invited to the meeting by James Hutton, son of John Hutton. While at this meeting someone – perhaps William Holland – began to read from the preface to Luther’s Commentary on The Epistle to the Romans. John Wesley listened with great concern, for Luther’s words began to bring some puzzling aspects of the Word into focus.
This preface is thought to have been translated by W. W. (William Wilkinson?) and first published in 1594. Here are some passages from that translation which probably seized Wesley’s attention:
- But true faith is the work of God whereby we are regenerate and born anew by his Spirit. …
- Faith therefore is a constant truth and a sure confidence of the mercy of God toward us which is lively, and worketh mightily in our hearts ….
- Neither doth he that hath this faith care greatly whether good works be commanded or not. For though there were no law at all, yet by this lively impulsation working in his heart, he is of his own accord forced and carried to work true and Godly Christian works.
Deeply moved, Wesley noted in his Journal: “About a quarter before nine, while he was describing the change which God works in the heart through faith in Christ, I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone for salvation; and an assurance was given me that He had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death.”
How did Wesley respond to this experience? He wrote: “I began to pray with all my might for those who had … despitefully used me and persecuted me. I then testified openly to all there what I now first felt in my heart.”
Yes, John Wesley, graduate of Oxford, Fellow of Lincoln College, missionary to Georgia, distinguished writer, and winner of souls, had been converted! Moreover, he himself frequently testified to that fact in very definite terms.
Charles Ludwig (1918-2002) was the author of more than 50 books, including Francis Asbury: God’s Circuit Rider (1984).
by Steve | May 2, 1978 | Archive - 1978
Archive: “Comfort ye, comfort ye my people”
A meditation on Isaiah 40:1
by Rev. Dr. John Oswalt
Associate Professor of Biblical Languages and Literature
Asbury Theological Seminary
Good News Contributing Editor
The “good news bad news” jokes are now fast disappearing, having become a cliche overnight like all popular things in our instant communication society. But there is one which is relevant to this ancient but ever-fresh message of Isaiah. A little boy came home from Sunday school and his daddy, who had been receiving his religious instruction from the Sunday paper, asked him what he had learned. The little boy reported that he had learned some good news and some bad news.
Daddy asked, “Oh yeh? What’s the good news?”
“Jesus is coming back soon.”
“Well, that’s nice. Now what’s the bad news?”
“He’s mad!”
But that is exactly what Isaiah is not saying! God is coming to a captive people to heal and bless and deliver. In the words of the Psalmist “His anger is but for a moment, his favor is for a lifetime. Weeping may tarry for the night, but joy comes in in the morning.” (Psalm 30:5-6)
But what does Isaiah mean here to “comfort”? That meaning is spelled out by the phrase in the second part of the verse. The KJV has the familiar rendering “Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem.” The NIV, following RSV, had “Speak tenderly.” But the I iteral translation of the Hebrew is “Speak to the heart of Jerusalem.”
Ah, there it is! God would comfort us by speaking to our hearts.
Luke 21:26 quotes Jesus as He speaks of the last days, “Men’s hearts will fail them for fear and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth.” Some have suggested this is being literally fulfilled in our time with the great rise of heart attacks. I do not believe this is the primary reference. Rather, Jesus is speaking about the paralysis which results from a failure of nerve, of will, of hope.
This was the danger to the Judeans in 550 B.C., when all their arrogant self-confidence was broken on the rack of the Babylonian captivity. And unless I am mistaken, this is a danger in America today. Our hearts are failing us. There is a mood of pessimism, of hopelessness, of retrenchment. But God would speak to our hearts.
What would He say?
When we examine the use of that phrase, “to speak to the heart,” in the Bible, an exciting range of meanings opens up.
To speak to the heart is to speak as a lover when he whispers in the ear of his beloved. So it is also said of God as He draws Israel, His betrothed, away from her false lovers and into His bosom (Hosea 2:14). There are the words of admonition for the hesitant, such as King Hezekiah spoke to the hearts of the Levites and had them reinstitute the neglected temple services (II Chronicles 30:22). There are words of encouragement to the downtrodden such as those of Boaz, the great lord of the manor, when he spoke to the heart of Ruth, the little foreign girl who crept into the corners of his field to gather the grain left standing there (Ruth 2:13). There are words of reconciliation to the alienated, as those which the Levite spoke to his estranged concubines (Judges 19:3), or those of Joseph to his frightened brothers (Genesis 50:19-22).
This is what God’s “comfort” means. It is to hear Him whisper, “I love you,” when we feel particularly unlovely. It is to feel that “go ahead” nudge when we wonder if we dare to attempt something bold for Him. It is to have the Lord of the Manor take our hand and say, “You’re somebody!” It is to see the face of the One we have sold into captivity shining with a smile of tenderness and compassion for us. To know the comfort of God is to hear Him say, “I’m on your side, let’s go!”
Does this mean we may not yet, as a nation or a church, experience judgment for our sins? By no means. If we, like Judah, persist in flying in His face there may be days ahead the depths of whose darkness no human eye can plumb. But, even if (God forbid) those days should come, we may know this does not express God’s final attitude or ultimate purpose for us. Instead, He longs to comfort us with Himself. And if we will but let Him, no mountain of circumstance is too high nor valley of helplessness too deep to prevent Him from coming to us.
Long before R. G. LeTourneau had his dreams of great machines which could gnaw through mountains and fill up valleys, the prophet Isaiah had a vision of a highway: the highway of God’s holy love, straight as an arrow, through mountains and across valleys. And on that highway he saw One coming with pierced hands and riven side. And as He came the prophet heard Him cry, “Comfort my people, speak to their hearts.” So Jesus speaks yet today.
by Steve | May 1, 1978 | Archive - 1978
Archive: Let’s Remember Aldersgate
by Charles Ludwig
Having been raised in Epworth, and having preached in the parish church many times for his father, John Wesley was quite certain Romley, the young curate, would be delighted to have him either preach or read the prayers.
John Romley, however, thought otherwise.
Although disappointed not to have the opportunity to stand once again in his father’s pulpit, John Wesley returned for the after- service. Since it was rumored that their former curate and admired missionary to Georgia was going to speak, the building was crowded.
Romley, however, had determined to have nothing to do with John Wesley; and so he preached himself. His subject was “Quench not the Spirit.” Speaking in a dynamic way, he assured his listeners that too much enthusiasm had a tendency to quench the Spirit. After the benediction, Wesley’s friend, John Taylor, positioned himself in the churchyard and told the people that Wesley would preach that evening at six o’clock. In his Journal, John Wesley remembered the occasion:
Accordingly at six I came, and found such a congregation as I believe Epworth never saw before. I stood near the east end of the church, upon my father’s tombstone, and cried, “The kingdom of heaven is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
As the overwhelmed congregation listened to the gowned preacher standing on the flat, table-tomb of his father, they knew something wonderful had happened to him. His voice had a new ring; his manner was more convincing than it had been; and it even seemed that he was enveloped by some invisible authority.
Deeply stirred, the people insisted that he remain with them for a time. Wesley responded by preaching in nearby villages to large clusters eager to hear him. His final service was at Epworth on Sunday, June 13, 1742. Again at six p.m. he mounted his father’s tomb and “continued with them for nearly three hours.” Documenting the occasion, Wesley wrote:
I am well assured that I did far more good by preaching three days on my father’s tomb, than I did preaching three years in his pulpit.
What made the difference? His heart-warming experience at Aldersgate!
Unfortunately, John Wesley’s experience at Aldersgate is frequently played down-especially in our generation. There are even biographies of Wesley in which Aldersgate is barely mentioned. This is a tragic mistake, for eventually that experience changed the lives of millions. In addition, it probably saved England from the revolution that was soon to bloody the streets of France.
To understand Aldersgate, we must realize that John Wesley left Georgia a discouraged man. Much of this discouragement centered around his rather innocent courtship of Sophy Hop key. Sophy was somewhat fickle; and thus, although John had considered proposing to her, she married William Williamson before he got around to it!
Thoroughly shaken, Wesley refused to serve Sophy Communion. (He felt justified in this because her marriage banns[1] had not been read before the wedding as required by law.) Williamson retaliated by suing him for “one thousand pounds sterling.” In despair, Wesley reread the Book of Job-and made out his will!
Soon he was indicted on several counts.
The indictments were unbelievably trivial. The most serious were that he had “forced” conversation on Sophy; and that he had barred her from the Lord’s Supper. After appearing in court six or seven times without a verdict, Wesley decided to return to England. In his Journal he wrote:
… the tide then serving, I shook the dust off my feet and left Georgia, after having preached the gospel there (with much weakness and indeed many infirmities) not as I ought, but as I was able, one year and nine months.
His ministry in Georgia, however, was not the complete failure he assumed. While there, he published America’s first hymnal and established what has been credited as “America’s first Sunday school.” Nevertheless, he was so disheartened he considered it a complete fiasco. Indeed, he felt so spiritually low he recorded his innermost thoughts in a secret code of his own invention. This code was not broken until 1909!
Upon landing in England on February 1, 1738, he hoped his troubles were over. Instead, he was confronted with a new line of disappointments. The first disappointment was that his old friend, George Whitefield, had sailed for Georgia only the day before. After that, a series of doors were slammed in his face. These are recorded in his Journal. They are to be found among those recorded in May:
Sun. 7 – I preached at St. Lawrence’s in the morning, and afterwards at St. Katherine Cree’s church. I was enabled to speak strong words at both, and was therefore the less surprised at being informed I was not to preach any more in either of these churches.
Sun. 14 – I preached in the morning at St. Ann’s, Aldersgate, and in the afternoon at Savoy chapel. … I was quickly apprised that at St. Ann’s likewise I am to preach no more.
Fri. 19 – I preached at St. John’s, Wapping, at three, and at St. Benet’s, Paul’s Warf, in the evening. At these churches likewise I am to preach no more.
At this point we must remember that Wesley had been deeply impressed with a band of Moravians on his way to Georgia. During a terrible storm when it seemed the ship would sink, these earnest German Christians remained perfectly calm. Indeed, they sang during the whole ordeal. When the storm subsided, he approached one of them. “Were you not afraid?” he asked.
“Thank God, no,” returned the Moravian.
“But were not your women and children afraid?”
Again the answer was, “No.”
Several months later, while working in Georgia, Wesley sought advice from Pastor Spangenberg of the Moravians. With utter frankness, Spangenberg said, “My brother, have you the witness within yourself? Does the Spirit of God bear witness with your spirit that you are a child of God?”
Wesley hesitated. He had no answer.
“Do you know Jesus Christ?” persisted the German.
“I know He is the Saviour of the world.”
“True, but do you know He has saved you?”
“I hope He has died to save me.”
“Do you know yourself?” pressed Spangenberg.
“I do,” replied Wesley. But as he later recorded the conversation in his Journal, he added,” But I fear they were vain words.”
Following this conversation, Wesley pondered over what had been said. Like a thorn, the questions worked deeper and deeper into his heart. He could not get rid of them; and while on the way back to England he kept wondering if he was really saved. Then a week after his landing in England he met Peter Bohler—another Moravian!
John and Peter became warm friends. Being scholars, they solved their language barrier by conversing in Latin. When John learned that Peter and his Moravian companions had no place to stay, he secured lodging for them near John Hutton’s place where he himself was staying. This meant the two of them had long discussions about Christianity.
One of the things that disturbed Wesley was that he felt he lacked sufficient faith. Indeed, he was so concerned about this subject he asked Bohler if he should not quit preaching. To this he replied, “By no means.”
“But what can I preach?” asked Wesley.
“Preach faith until you have it,” replied Bohler; “and then because you have it, you will preach faith.”
It sounded simple. But would it work? For a long time he had been convinced that salvation is gained by receiving communion and by doing good works. This being so, he did not believe in deathbed conversions, for how could a person do good works on his deathbed? Bohler having urged him to call on a condemned criminal named Clifford, Wesley decided to experiment. Entering the doomed man’s cell, he boldly preached salvation with a clear emphasis on faith.
About three weeks later, Wesley went with a friend to visit a condemned man in the Castle prison. (His identity is unknown.) After praying with him, “he rose up and eagerly said, ‘I am ready to die. I know Christ has taken away my sins. ….’ ”
Wesley was both pleased and startled by this response. This is because he was concerned whether or not instant conversion was really possible. Such an idea seemed to him to be most revolutionary. Convinced by the authority of the Word, he made a study of the problem:
I searched the Scriptures again touching this very thing, particularly the Acts of the Apostles: but to my utter astonishment, found scarce any instances there of other than instantaneous conversions; scarce any so slow of that of St. Paul, who was three days in the pangs of the new birth. I had but one retreat left; namely, “Thus, I grant, God wrought in the first ages of Christianity; but the times are changed.”
The conversion of this convict seemed certain, even though it was instantaneous. Nevertheless, Wesley’s extremely logical brain wanted to be absolutely convinced that a person could be converted within a moment of time. With this thought possessing him, he continued to research his life.
Wesley’s days snail-paced along as he considered his past, sought truth, and considered his seemingly doubtful future. On Wednesday, May 24, he awakened at 5 a.m. and reached for his Greek New Testament. Somehow his eyes were drawn to 2 Peter 1:4, “There are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises, even that ye should be partakers of the divine nature.” Later, as he prepared to leave, he again felt impressed to open his New Testament. This time, he read, “Thou art not far from the kingdom of God.” (Mark 12:34)
That afternoon he was invited by a friend to attend a service in nearby St. Paul’s Cathedral. Curiously, the anthem was Psalm 130. Backgrounded by the music of Henry Purcell, former organist at Westminster Abbey, the words were:
Out of the deep have I called unto Thee, O Lord: Lord, hear my voice. O let Thine ears consider well the voice of my complaint. If Thou, Lord, wilt be extreme to mark what is done amiss, O Lord, who may abide it? For there is mercy with Thee; therefore shalt thou be feared. 0 Israel, trust in the Lord: for with the Lord there is mercy, and with Him is plenteous redemption. And He shall redeem Israel from all his sins.
Wesley listened in amazement, for that anthem fitted his need as closely as a glove fits a hand. Was God speaking to him? To Wesley it immediately became apparent that God was seeking to fill a need in his life.
Later that same day, Wesley was invited to a “society in Aldersgate Street. ” Since he was staying with the John Huttons, the meeting was not far away. Still, he was reluctant to go. Perhaps he was tired from the long service at St. Paul’s. But one way or another, he was persuaded to go.
Aldersgate is one of London’s older streets. It was named after a gate in the northern wall. No one is certain of the precise address where this meeting was held, but a heavily-researched guess is that it was really at Nettleton Court which was “a narrow byway opening from the east side of Aldersgate.”[2]
It is quite probable that Wesley was invited to the meeting by James Hutton, son of John Hutton. While at this meeting someone—perhaps William Holland—began to read from the preface to Luther’s Commentary on The Epistle to the Romans. John Wesley listened with great concern, for Luther’s words began to bring some puzzling aspects of the Word into focus.
This preface is thought to have been translated by W. W. (William Wilkinson?) and first published in 1594. Here are some passages from that translation which probably seized Wesley’s attention:
But true faith is the work of God whereby we are regenerate and born anew by his Spirit.
… Faith therefore is a constant truth and a sure confidence of the mercy of God toward us which is lively, and worketh mightily in our hearts. …
Neither doth he that hath this faith care greatly whether good works be commanded or not. For though there were no law at all, yet by this lively impulsation working in his heart, he is of his own accord forced and carried to work true and Godly Christian works.
Deeply moved, Wesley noted in his Journal:
About a quarter before nine, while he was describing the change which God works in the heart through faith in Christ, I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone for salvation; and an assurance was given me that He had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death.
How did Wesley respond to this experience? He wrote:
I began to pray with all my might for those who had … despitefully used me and persecuted me. I then testified openly to all there what I now first felt in my heart.
Yes, John Wesley, graduate of Oxford, Fellow of Lincoln College, missionary to Georgia, distinguished writer, and winner of souls, had been converted! Moreover, he himself frequently testified to that fact in very definite terms.
[1] Public announcement of a forthcoming marriage.
[2] Today, a tablet commemorates this event. It is on Barclay’s Bank and is marked No. 28.
by Steve | Mar 3, 1978 | Archive - 1978
Archive: John Wesley and Christian Lifestyle
by Barbara Jackson
Lifestyles are much in our conversations today, often as a response to world shortages of energy and food. But lifestyle has always been an issue of importance to religious communities. During this Lenten Season, as we meditate on our response to Jesus’ sacrifice and His call to “follow me,” United Methodists may find it helpful to understand how John Wesley related lifestyle to faith.
To Wesley, the Christian lifestyle was naturally a simple lifestyle, in which a Christian was concerned with the most careful use of worldly resources. A Christian would use only the clothing, food, and housing necessary to a healthy and dignified life, using the remainder for the benefit of others.
Such plain living fulfills several purposes for us today, as it did for our 18th century brethren:
- It directs our attention to God and away from the distractions of the world.
- It helps us to avoid the sins of self-indulgence and pride.
- It gives us the surplus necessary to be able to serve others in need.
- It prevents our wasting resources needed by others.
- It protects us from the feeling of anomie of modern man, by giving purpose to the smallest details of daily life.
- It helps us to re-examine the value of life itself—and to rejoice in life, rather than in the material things that are coincidental rather than essential.
John Wesley speaks from a joyful, affirmative view of life, even though he calls us to a strict analysis of motives and needs. In a “Plain Account of Genuine Christianity,” Wesley tells us that Christian love soars above scanty bonds, to love every soul God has made. Such love, he says, produces all right actions: the earnest and steady discharge of social offices, the prevention of the hurting or grieving of any person, the uniform practice of justice and mercy, the doing of all possible good to all men.
In Wesley’s thought the love of God leads directly to the love of one’s neighbor. Such love empowers one to accept as neighbor the person across the ocean and the person across town but in another social station, as well as the person next door. This love requires that we care for and share with these neighbors as God cares for and shares with us. Certainly it follows that the generations to come are also our loving concern. We cannot knowingly plunder the planet without a care for their sustenance.
The inward change of heart vital to Wesleyan piety results in a life of moral purity and of social concern. It is a special Wesleyan characteristic that this concern for others is not to be left to the emotions of a moment, but is to be planned for carefully. One is to work steadily, save regularly, and give both regularly and generously. In Wesley’s sermon on the use of money, he says:
Money is an excellent gift of God, answering the noblest ends. In the hands of His children, it is food for the hungry, drink for the thirsty, raiment for the naked. It gives to the traveler and the stranger where to lay his head. By it we may supply the place of a husband to the widow and a father to the fatherless. We may be a defense to the oppressed, a means of health to the sick, of ease to them that be in pain. It may be as eyes to the blind, as feet to the lame; yea, a lifter up from the gates of death.
It is, therefore, of the highest concern that all who fear God know how to employ this valuable talent. … Gain all you can. But this, it is certain, we ought not to do: we ought not to gain money at the expense of life nor at the expense of health … to gain money we must not lose our souls. … We are to gain all we can … without hurting our neighbor. We cannot, if we love every one as ourselves, hurt any one in his substance … neither may we gain by hurting our neighbor in his body. Therefore we may not sell anything which tends to impair health.
God has placed you here not as a proprietor but as a steward. As such He entrusted you for a season with goods of various kinds, but the sole property of these still rests in Him, nor can it ever be alienated from Him … and He has told you in the most clear and express terms, how you are to employ it for Him in such manner that it may be a holy sacrifice.[1]
Having worked to earn all he could, the Methodist was told to save all he could, and to give all he could. This was not meant to encourage investment or hoarding for oneself. It meant “simplicity of living, wasting nothing, spending nothing on cheap or degrading pastimes. ‘Give all you can’ meant the sacrificial mutual sharing among the poor, not handouts from the rich from their superfluity. Wesley’s message was addressed to manual workers and the disinherited, who had a hard time scraping up the one-penny dues used by the Methodist societies for their charity work.”[2]
In contrast, we American United Methodists are rich! However, it may be harder for us to respond to Wesley’s challenge than it was for our ancestors, for we have come to accept extravagance as a way of life.
Oklahoma college students have been analyzing garbage over several years, and their catalogues of what we throw away are startling.
Wesley himself set an example of plain living and of service, along with proclaiming Christ as Savior. He visited prisons. He set up a simple loan society. He established a free medical dispensary, a home for widows, and a school for poor children. He joined with a few valiant Quakers in the unfashionable opposition to slavery. In order to follow his example, we must also express our witness in our homes, our vocations, our schools, and in every level of government.
During this quadrennium we will be working together as the whole United Methodist Church to collect the funds needed to support the work of relieving hunger. Many of us will respond to special Lenten appeals. Let us, however, go beyond a six-week or four-year fund appeal. Let us use this opportunity to study and to pray together in order to reassess our personal and our corporate lifestyles.
Are we witnessing to the love of God by living the Christian lifestyle described by John Wesley? Is it possible for us to begin a life-long effort to achieve a Christian lifestyle?
[1] John Wesley, Albert C. Outler, ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1964.
[2] Christian Ethics, Waldo Beach and H. Richard Niebuhr. New York: Ronald Press, 1955.
