Archive: Why We Came Back to the UM Church

by Steve | Jul 2, 1982 | Archive - 1982

Archive: Why We Came Back to the UM Church

by Kenneth and Elizabeth Borcher Milan, West Milan, Dummer UM Churches, New Hampshire Conference, Milan, New Hampshire

We had had it. Several years of struggle and disappointment with the United Methodist Church had finally come to a head. Nearly every year since 1974, my wife, Liz, and I had prayed for guidance and contemplated leaving the UM Church. In January of 1979 we knew that the time had come to get off the seesaw of indecision and make the break we had long been threatening to do. We could no longer compromise our evangelical beliefs.

Our Bethlehem New Hampshire Church was becoming more and more immersed in the charismatic experience; even our Sunday morning worship service had departed from the traditional and was evolving into a pentecostal happening. Because of this, there was hurt and alienation taking place between traditionalists and charismatics. Fracture of some degree was beginning within the congregation even though there was unprecedented growth occurring in the church. This seemingly growing division, and our dissatisfaction with the UM Church as a denomination (on the national as well as the conference level), a long with a surging desire to be in a totally pentecostal-charismatic atmosphere, led us finally to make our break. I withdrew my full-conference membership and united with the ordained ministry of a pentecostal denomination.

We left our UM churches in March of 1979 and moved to Vermont to begin our new ministry. “There,” I said to Liz, “that takes care of that; no more liberalism. We’re done with Methodism; and now we will have complete freedom to worship the Lord the way we really want to!”

At the time of our leaving the UM Church, many people had lovingly tried to dissuade us. My parents were deeply concerned about our leaving, and for awhile it created a great rift between my father and me. Dad believed so strongly in renewal taking place within our UM structure, and that love was the most important tool of evangelism. However, I turned a deaf ear to those who pleaded with us not to go.

The grass looked so green beyond the UM Church. We thought everything would just fall into place. We poured ourselves into new ministry and found great enjoyment for a time in the pentecostal environment. But, to my great dismay, I found that every situation and denomination has its restrictions and controls, and that true freedom comes only in Jesus Christ, not through a particular set of circumstances.

We encountered restrictions and divisions of a different kind than in the UM Church. We saw jealousy, envy, lack of forgiveness, spiritual pride concerning spiritual gifts and the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and extreme legalism. We had thought that these things would not be so prevalent in a church where the majority were born-again Christians. We felt these problems as binding on the work of the Holy Spirit as the differences between traditionalists and charismatics in our former UM churches.

We were surprised to find that the grass is not necessarily greener over there. Every church and denomination has its own ways of binding the Spirit and grieving our Lord, including evangelical and pentecostal denominations whose sins may be less obvious than those of our mainline churches. Along with the more visible sins of “lustful pleasure, idolatry, spiritism (that is, encouraging the activity of demons) … murder, drunkenness, wild parties …” the Bible lists the sins of “hatred and fighting, jealousy and anger, constant effort to get the best for yourself, complaints and criticisms, the feeling that everyone else is wrong except those in your own little group …” (Galatians 5:19-21 L.B.). Sins are not identified as greater and lesser; each separates us from God, even from inheriting the Kingdom.

In the past we had always exhorted evangelical people who were involved in the church prayer group to stay within the UM Church, to continue their witness there. Now we were the ones in another denomination. We began to recall the faces of lay persons all over the conference whose lives had touched ours. We remembered our Good News article of 1976 encouraging United Methodists to “hang in there.” We had shared the same message on the PTL Club in November of 1977. Many United Methodists responded that in both cases our testimony had given them new hope and encouragement to remain and stand strong in their UM churches. We began to be homesick for the New Hampshire Conference, even though we did not fully understand our vacillating feelings after having cut the cord from Methodism.

At the same time the Holy Spirit began to convict me of other concerns. As I studied the Word of God, I saw time after time where God’s people had stood steadfast in very difficult situations and had maintained a powerful witness: Joseph in Egypt, Daniel in Babylon, Jesus, Peter, and Paul in the New Testament. I recalled the stoning of Stephen, and one thing became very obvious. These people of God had overwhelming love for others in the midst of circumstances. I could see the resentment, judgmentalism, and self-righteousness that had crept into my relationships to fellow UM pastors and laypersons. By the time we had left the UM Church, I, especially, was infected with some attitudes and feelings that in no way gave glory to the Lord.

We saw that stepping from pluralism to strict doctrine does not necessarily bring greater ease in articulating the Gospel. We began classifying Christians within the Body of Christ: those who had the Holy Spirit and those who did not; those who spoke in tongues and those who did not. The Lord convicted us of our lack of love and began a painful process of spiritual surgery, totally without anesthesia.

I came close to leaving the ministry altogether at this time. I experienced a tremendous struggle as I realized what had happened to my Christian life. The Lord burst my pipe dreams of greatness one by one.

In looking back at the UM Church, we found that we missed the creeds and traditional hymns. Yes, we even missed the formal worship setting, the joy and balance in both formal and free forms of worship. We missed, too, the influence of traditionalists and non-charismatics who had kept us on our toes in articulating our evangelical stand and who reminded us of other dimensions of our Christian faith.

During this time of spiritual surgery we were lifted up in prayer and love by many people. God knew our need for support and love in the agony of realizing that we had to go back. He appointed my brother Ray, and his wife, Violet, of the Bethlehem UM Church to the special ministry of standing beside us, encouraging and loving us, both as we left the UM Church and as we returned, even though they were deeply hurt by our decision to leave.

In asking if we could return to the New Hampshire Conference we felt quite embarrassed and a little afraid of the reception and criticism we would receive. However, we knew that part of growing is a willingness to admit where you are, whatever the consequences. A warm and positive response from our district superintendent was followed by the possibility of a three-point charge being open in six weeks, the only appointment left in our conference.

Since I had withdrawn my conference membership (I had been ordained elder in 1974), I had to begin the long process of reentry. I met with the District Committee of the Board of Ordained Ministry and then weeks later with the Conference Board of the Ordained Ministry. The results of these meetings determined whether or not I would receive an appointment. We experienced overwhelming love and affirmation during the whole process from the bishop, superintendents, pastors, and lay people. Much reconciliation took place as I let go of my judgmentalism. The day after the meeting with the Conference Board of the Ordained Ministry, we moved to our new appointment to the Milan, West Milan, and Dummer UM Churches, in northern New Hampshire. I served as a local pastor until May of 1980 when my elder’s orders and full-conference membership were restored by unanimous vote of the New Hampshire Annual Conference.

For the first time in my ministry of 13 years I have found lasting joy and peace. I am content to minister in a rural setting to small churches. God is working in our three churches in ways we had never experienced, with significant growth taking place. Many people are turning to Jesus Christ, growing in His love, and bearing witness to the fruit and gifts of the Holy Spirit. We rejoice most in the holistic atmosphere under which charismatics, non-charismatic evangelicals, traditionalists, and those who feel called to a special ministry of social action have found harmony with a foundation on the Word of God. We keep the Sunday morning service more formal, while encouraging a vibrant and open Tuesday evening prayer and praise meeting—rather than forcing a particular style of worship in every area of church life. We are content to let the Holy Spirit work as He will. As I become involved in conference work once again I also find that the evangelical witness of several years is bearing fruit in many ways.

By returning to the UM Church we are not saying we agree with everything which is said and done by the general church and its boards and agencies. We believe that the Biblical foundations of the UM Church which were built by John Wesley and other early Methodists provide an important balance between the personal and social gospels which must be maintained today.

As we reflect on the events of leaving and returning to the UM Church, Liz and I affirm them as a time of great growth in our Christian walk. The surgery was painful, but necessary, and the Lord strengthened us in it.

In no way do we want to cast an ill light on Pentecostalism, for it has reminded the mainline denominations not to forget the very important work of the Holy Spirit. We do not deny that God may legitimately lead a person out of one denomination into another setting. But, how will the Holy Spirit work in the United Methodist Church unless there are vessels willing to sacrifice their own hearts’ desires and serve Him?

Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things (I Corinthians 13:4-7 R.S.V.).

Archive: Why I Left the UM Church

by Steve | Jul 1, 1982 | Archive - 1982

Archive: Why I Left the UM Church

by William David Epps, Minister of Outreach, First Assembly of God and Campus Minister, Mesa College, Grand Junction, Colorado

Without question my decision to leave the United Methodist ministry was the most important decision I have ever made in my professional career … and by far the most difficult. My early childhood memories include a Sunday school class at the little neighborhood Methodist church (not United back then) where a portly, white-haired lady would delight in telling various Bible stories to the enraptured children gathered around her feet.

My youth and teen years were full of hayrides, church softball teams, passing notes and giggling in church, often boring UMYF programs, and tremendously uplifting spiritual retreats in the area mountains. All these were years of satisfaction and contentment as I pondered just who God really was and the significance He had for me. The teen years ended in the madness and nightmare of the Vietnam era. The aloofness in which I had held God did not suffice for this young frightened Marine who was learning the ways of adulthood–how to slash with a bayonet, to destroy with an M-16, to learn the ways of death.

One lonely humid night, I turned to a passage in a tract given to me by a Navy chaplain and found the words of Isaiah 41:10. Earlier in the day, I had cried to God for some assurance of His presence, of His reality. Now the words leaped from the page, “Fear thou not, for I am with thee. Be not dismayed, for I am thy God. I will strengthen thee, yea, I will help thee, yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness.” There, away from home, with no church, no pew, no pulpit, no preacher, a young United Methodist became a Christian. My attitude was new, my heart light. Deep within me was the certain knowledge that I must share this Jesus, whom I now knew, with others who would listen.

Time passed and my service in the Marine Corps came to a long anticipated conclusion. University studies and work on my license to preach began. School years were hard but happy. I served in local churches working with children and young people. The day came when I was assigned to pastor a small rural church whose people were delightful. I endeavored to teach them what little I knew about the ways of God and, in turn, they responded in love and a great abundance of patience. They grew; I grew. Then I was transferred.

All went well outwardly for the next couple of years, but the more time passed, the more I read, the more I studied and learned, the more disturbed and unsettled I became. What was it that was beginning to create turmoil in my spirit? What was it that would eventually bring me to the determination that I must leave the United Methodist pulpit, the pulpit that I had dreamed of occupying for so many years?

— Perhaps it was when I realized that all church members aren’t Christians and don’t intend to be.

— Perhaps it was when I noticed that the amount of apportionments paid appeared to have a greater priority than the winning of new converts.

— Perhaps it was when I detected that pluralism meant that liberals advance and that evangelicals are often farmed out to charges where their influence would be minimal.

— Perhaps it was when I saw that ministers who come to ministers’ meetings wear masks concealing their real selves, that they segregate themselves according to the seminary attended or the types of churches pastored, that even ministers are not above petty gossip and undercutting other ministers who appear to have more success than themselves.

— Perhaps it was when I first heard that our UM Church, my church, was considering the ordination of homosexuals in vivid violation of God’s Word.

— Perhaps it was when I discovered that even a great many pastors did not believe in the fundamentals of Scriptural teachings.

— Perhaps it was when I read reports that my denomination seemed to be siding with Marxist-terrorists in Africa.

— Perhaps it was when I found that many ministers, including those of various minorities, seemed to be more interested in proclaiming their own particular rights than proclaiming the Good News of Jesus Christ.

Or perhaps much of the problem was local, rather than denominational, even in my own parish and family. Indeed, several incidents that occurred had a definite bearing on my decision to vacate the pulpit. Like the time I came home to find my wife in tears because a trusted church member with whom my wife had shared deep, confidential information had broken trust and informed others of the concerns my wife had revealed.

Then there was the time I had requested an increase in travel allotment, after gas prices had doubled, only to be told, “Preacher, you’re just going to have to learn to manage your checkbook better.” Or the time I had spent 72 hours at the hospital without sleep or food at the bedside of a critically injured child who was not expected to live only to return to my parish to learn that a trusted board member had been visiting members of the congregation and complaining that I, as pastor, “never visited” the sick and shut-ins. The child, by the way, lived and gave his heart to Christ in the hospital.

Or perhaps it was when I saw young Jesus people, new converts, and charismatics, who once were full of life and vigor lose their enthusiasm as church leaders discouraged their interaction in the services. Though a very hard thing for me to do, I assisted these new converts in finding fellowship elsewhere. Perhaps it was when I discovered that at that time, in my area, to support Good News, conservative seminaries, or the charismatic renewal was tantamount to cultism, in the views of many, both ministers and laity.

Perhaps it was having few or no close friends, no sense of intimacy. Or maybe it was none of these factors. In reality, perhaps the problems were within me: my inexperience, my frustrations, my lack of knowledge, my lack of understanding and patience. Or maybe it was a combination of all these factors.

Why did I not share my questions and confusions with others? Fear, I suppose. I had already learned through a series of broken confidences that it is not wise for a pastor to share too much of his personal life with his congregation. My district superintendent sensed something was wrong and attempted to bring my feelings out in the open, but I always knew that this man who was asking me to bare my soul was the same man who would chart my life with his influence in pastoral appointments. And, after all, would it really solve anything (at least that was my attitude). Other ministers? The two ministers I spoke with had similar feelings and confusions and one of those later vacated his own pulpit. (I didn’t confer with my liberal brethren.)

For weeks I prayed and wept and sought answers: “But Lord, this is the church of my childhood. I have worked, studied, and suffered to be able to stand in this pulpit!”

Ultimately, the decision was mine. In late January of 1977, on a dark and bitterly cold night, I picked up the telephone and dialed my district superintendent and resigned. After the deed was done, I hung up the telephone, put on my coat and walked the mile to my church. I wandered through the Sunday school rooms, shot basketball in the parking area, strolled through the old cemetery, and stood for a long time looking at the stars. Re-entering the building, I walked down the aisle, looking at each pew, remembering each one who would sit there come Sunday morning. I picked a few tunes on the piano and then stood behind the pulpit for the last time. Finally, in the darkened sanctuary, I fell at the altar and cried all night long.

Many would not understand and I’m not certain I fully understood either. Some ministers would see me as a traitor and some members would suspect that I had rebelled against God. But others would stand by, not really caring about the rightness or wrongness, but would concern themselves with my spiritual welfare and the welfare of my family.

As I reflect upon all this five years later, I truly believe that, for me, to have remained would have meant spiritual disaster. Others have fared quite well. I did—and do—believe that the UM Church, the church of my childhood, is in serious trouble. Many social, political, and Scriptural questions have yet to be resolved. Membership has been eroding at a dramatic rate. But there is hope. I see hope in the United Methodist grassroots evangelical groups, in the Good News influence, in the charismatic renewal. But most of all there is hope in the God who spoke to man, including the young Marine years earlier, and promised to strengthen, to uphold, and to never, never give up. In Him lies any and all hope we may have for the questions, for the confusion, and for the future of Methodism, of Man, and of the World.

Archive: Conversions Spell Real Growth

by Steve | May 12, 1982 | Archive - 1982

Archive: Conversions Spell Real Growth

North Georgia Conference gets back to the basics in evangelism.

by Gus Gustafson, Executive Director, Georgia Laity Board of Renewal

The evangelism thermometer in the North Georgia Conference of the United Methodist Church keeps going up and up.

An observation by a Dunwoody, Georgia, layman helps explain this upward trend. Speaking from a background of being a high official in one of the nation’s large chemical companies, corporate merry-go-round living in many parts of the U.S., and a life-long Methodist, he said: “I’m glad to see the United Methodist Church get back to basics.”

Quizzing him, I discovered that he was referring to an experience in his local church, the Kingswood UM Church. Then, this explanation:

“I had just about dropped out of the church until we moved here. My wife happened to get into the Ichthys Sunday School Class. She told me about the excitement of that group. I tried it out.

“There I heard talk about commitment to Jesus Christ. People were sharing what He does in their lives. Christ was held out as a resource for everyday living. That kind of experience put me back on the track; it made my faith come alive. That’s what I call ‘back-to-basics.’ ”

Encouraged by Bishop Joel D. McDavid, “back-to-basics” is catching on all across Georgia Methodism. Last fall he held seven evangelism rallies, four in North Georgia and three in South Georgia Conferences. In North Georgia, they were attended by 1,513 preachers and key lay people involved in evangelism. These North Georgia rallies are being followed up by District Evangelism Seminars for preachers.

Dr. Hoyt Purcell, evangelism staff member on the Conference Council of Ministries, reports that seminars already have been held in six districts. Two more are on the calendar and four yet to be scheduled this year. Presently he is working on church growth with 15 different congregations ranging from small rural to large metro.

The results of evangelism efforts in North Georgia are impressive. Over the last three years of record, 1978-1980, there are net gains in every category of church growth. Transfers to and from other UM churches showed a net gain of 4,062; to and from other denominations a new gain of 4,947; and an important 2,697 net gain of confessions of faith (historically, conversions) after subtracting charge conference removals. After deducting loss by deaths, it all adds up to a total net gain of 1,766 members in 1980 and 3,745 for the three years.

What’s back of this steady surge of evangelistic effort in North Georgia? Answers to the question vary. One of the first offered is the succession of evangelism-minded bishops, first Bishop William R. Cannon and now Bishop McDavid.

Looking at North Georgia Conference records, it becomes clear that generally a church with a number of confessions of faith is a growing church. By and large, the growing church will show a 25 to 50 percent growth, resulting in confessions of faith. Across the conference, growing churches outstrip the losers 320 to 210, with 80 showing no gain or loss.

Another answer, which may surprise some, is excited lay people. This encouraging answer means that more and more preachers are inspired by what they see Christ doing in their own lives and in the lives of people around them. This enthusiasm spreads from the pastor and catches on. One person summed it all up by saying, “The Holy Spirit is moving.”

Gary Fuller, teacher of the 100-member Ichthys class of Kingswood UM Church, illustrates: “I feel the Lord has called me to serve Him through the United Methodist Church. He uses me to teach. He blesses my effort in helping strengthen His Body, the Church.”

One minister gives this encouraging answer:

“Our lay people spread the Good News to others out in the community, bringing unchurched people into the fellowship of our church.” Those words describing the aroused spirit of large numbers of North Georgia laity come from Grafton Pressley, pastor of the Norcross First UM Church. In 1980 they led the conference with 80 people added on confession of faith, a big 44 percent of their net growth of 180 in 1980. Confessions of faith are one of the big sources of Norcross’ four-year record of growth from 922 in 1978 to 1600 by the end of January 1982!

“Only 15 out of our 80 came from our church school. We need to increase this number, but the rest are unchurched youth and mostly adults of various ages coming from the ‘highways and byways’ of life,” explains Pressley.

“Unless we bring into our fellowship people who were uncommitted to Jesus Christ,” Pressley continues, “we are pretty much playing a church game of musical chairs where people simply change seats from one church to another. This is not expanding the Body of Christ. The bottom line of our ministry is real growth.

“And, that’s why I’m so strong on the small caring groups we have in our church. Meeting in the homes throughout the community and in the church, they are the power cells for bringing in the unchurched and assimilating them into our fellowship.”

Then comes his exclamation point: “We have a well-organized visitation program—and it’s important—but that’s not the source of the bulk of our growth. It comes from those joyful, small-group people telling their friends at work, in the neighborhood, at the party, or in the marketplace about their discovery of a life-support system; yes, even life-lifting. That’s how the unchurched find their way into our Body and to the altar.”

“We support our out-in-the-world missioners with warm and available worship services and Sunday school classes. We now have three Sunday morning services and two church school sessions, with 15 adult classes. This gives us a current average of 800 total for the three celebrations and 600 in Sunday school, all steadily moving upward. Then, too, we have a Sunday evening gathering with attendance of 150-200. At every service, the entire congregation warmly shares in a close-knit family-of-God feeling. All this is reflected in our budget. For 1982 we budgeted $357,000; pledges totaled $390,000. In January ’82 we received $10,000 over our budgetary requirements.”

Norcross First Church started their plans for accelerating small group ministries early in 1979. Spearheading their program, they put on a Discipleship Celebration weekend, a program offered by the UM Board of Discipleship. At the close of the weekend 53 adults and 19 youth made commitments to Christ and a program of discipleship. Their “power cells” came alive. Within two weeks after the celebration, nine caring groups were begun.

Sardis UM Church in the Gainesville district, and numerous other churches that could be spotlighted, attest that the sweeping spirit of evangelism is not limited to urban churches. So-called smaller churches, including country churches, are barely touched.

Dennis Duncan, chairman of the Administrative Board of Sardis UM Church, a country church between Buford and Gainesville, reports, “For as long as I can remember, we were a church on a two-point circuit. Our membership hung around 85. Back in 1978, encouraged by Wallace Wheeles, our pastor at that time, we held a Lay Witness weekend. That got us started, and new people came. Reconciliation within the church took place. Relationships were healed. People were born again. Many renewed their commitments to Christ. Out of it, our membership and church attendance grew. Our faith was recharged and we got busy for the Lord.”

Then he sums up the good news: ‘Today our membership is 130 and 65 percent of our members attend regularly. We now have our own pastor and have built a new parsonage. We’re a joyful church, praising the Lord for the way He’s using us in building His Church.”

It was my privilege to coordinate the Sardis ’78 Lay Witness Mission. Out of it comes this vibrant experience: Friday night of the mission, Mrs. Veda Buffington and her two children attended. They were unchurched, in fact, rather anti-church. Out of curiosity, they came after hearing something unusual was going on at Sardis. On Saturday night Veda brought her husband, Bob. Sunday the family was at the altar responding to the call, “I will give as much of myself as I can to as much of God as I understand.”

Two years later I received a phone call: ‘This is Bob Buffington. Remember me? I’m now Chairman of our Council of Ministries. Our church would like to have a Venture in Discipleship weekend. [Another program offered by UM Board of Discipleship.] Could you come back and coordinate it?”

Sardis, pulsating with new life, will soon go the next mile in their renewal and discipleship experience.

Norcross and Sardis are only two of scores of churches using Lay Witness programs to launch spiritual growth. In 1977, the UM Board of Discipleship (BOD) scheduled only four lay missions in Georgia. The number has steadily increased to 40 in 1981! Vance Archer of BOD reports that over 60 Georgia churches recently requested information on lay renewal programs. Winds of renewal are blowing in North Georgia.

Bishop McDavid, a booster for Lay Witness weekends, as well as all forms of lay involvement for church outreach, says, “Lay renewal is at a high level all across Georgia. It does much to power the evangelistic thrust.”

This is especially true among men in the North Georgia Conference. Ken Weatherford, National President of the United Methodist Men comments, “North Georgia United Methodist Men are on the move, evangelistically. They witness in their homes, work, church, and mission/work teams. The number of first-time commitments to Jesus Christ among North Georgia UMM grows year after year.”

North Georgia United Methodist Men’s annual retreat attracted 1,700 in 1981. Moved by great evangelistic preaching, from the Bishop, Charles Allen, Cornelius Henderson, Mark Rutland, and other inspired leaders, more than 300 men made first-time commitments to Jesus Christ.

The North Georgia UM Men adopted a budget of over $95,000 to support their work. This includes 15 or more planned mission/witness work teams going to Mexico, Guyana, Haiti, Antigua, and possibly British Honduras. Also, they are sending and supporting a full-time missionary couple to Mexico. From this retreat experience the renewed men fan out across North Georgia, infectiously spreading the enthusiasm of their faith throughout the conference. “The sharp increase in the number of people received on confession of faith (after deducting removals)—going from 512 in 1978 to 1,311 in 1980—is the most exciting thing on the evangelism front in North Georgia,” says Bishop McDavid. “Camp meetings, Lay Witness weekends, revivals, the Men’s Retreat, and more and more local church ministers are reporting new and renewed commitments to Jesus Christ. In my book, that’s the church’s first priority. It’s evangelism!

“We have a long way to go,” the Bishop cautions, “but we’re off to a good start. We believe that’s ‘back-to-basics,’ as described by the Kingswood layman. That’s what we’re trying to do.”

Editor’s Note: Hearing about the evangelistic happenings in the North Georgia Conference, we asked Gus Gustafson, author of forthcoming book, I Was Called … To Be A Layman, being published by Abingdon, to give us a report. Gus is a North Georgia layman, delegate to the 1980 General Conference, Executive Director of Georgia laity Board of Renewal, Lay Witness coordinator, District Lay Leader, and Chairman of Evangelism in his local church. Rejoice with us about this good news on evangelism in North Georgia.

Archive: Wesley and Evangelism

by Steve | May 1, 1982 | Archive - 1982

Condensed from the 1981 Convo Address in Grove City, Pennsylvania

Archive: Wesley and Evangelism

by Robert E. Coleman, Professor of Evangelism Asbury Theological Seminary

Had you been in London on a September Sunday afternoon in 1739, and sought to find the place of greatest excitement, you might have gone to Moorfields and joined the throng milling about on Kinngington Common. Most of the people, by their poor dress and crude manners, would be recognized as of the common sort. Not a few of them would appear disinterested, even riotous, on the fringe of the crowd. But as you slowly worked your way through the uncultured multitude, into the inner circle, you would notice the attention of onlookers change. Idle chatter gradually gave way to respectful silence. Tears could be seen coursing down the grimy faces of stalwart men and resolute women, while they listened intently to an unstrained voice coming from the center of the gathering.

Pushing forward a bit more, and standing on tiptoe to get a better view, you would have seen a man wearing the clerical garb of an Anglican priest. It might have taken you a moment to determine that this was the speaker, for he stood scarcely five feet four inches tall. Long dark silken hair fell upon his shoulders. His eyes flashed with conviction as he lifted his arm, and in clear, resonate tones, repeated: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved!”[1]

Whether you knew it or not, you would have been in the presence of John Wesley, the most influential leader of spiritual awakening of the eighteenth century. Forces for re-renewal set in motion through his life and work still reverberate around the world.

From whatever vantage point his ministry may be viewed, at its center- giving direction and urgency to the whole-was evangelism, the good news of Jesus Christ bursting from a heart of love. Though the dimensions are many and varied, I would like to highlight seven characteristics of Wesley’s evangelistic passion, then make some application of the principles to our situation toda

I. To Wesley, evangelism issued spontaneously out of a personal knowledge of salvation. This may be seen in his own search for personal faith, which after a long and sometimes agonizing quest, climaxed at the Aldersgate meeting on May 24, 1738. A layman was in charge, and for the lesson that evening, he read from Luther’s preface to the Book of Romans. As the young clergyman listened, about a quarter before nine, something happened. It was explained this way:

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.[2]

Note what instinctively followed. Wesley said: “I began to pray with all my might for those who had in a more special manner despitefully used me and persecuted me.”[3] What began as an experience of salvation now found immediate expression in a constraint to pray for others, an impulse which erupted in personal witness.

Having testified to those present, John Wesley, with some friends, went to tell the good news to his brother Charles, who lay sick in a house nearby. Rushing into his room, John exclaimed: “I believe!” Then, typifying their unbounded joy, they joined in singing a hymn which Charles had composed following his own conversion the day before:

“Where shall my wondering soul begin?
How shall I all to heaven aspire?
A slave redeemed from death and sin,
A brand plucked from eternal fire.
How shall I equal triumphs raise
Or sing my great redeemer’s praise?”[4]

Wesley’s faith was lifted out of the realm of theory and established in personal reality.

From such heartfelt assurances of salvation, Methodism was born. Whatever the promise of redeeming grace, it could be realized by faith, and that without delay.

So must evangelism. be sustained today. The first requirement of real evangelism is an authentic, up-to-date, Spirit-endued experience with the crucified and risen Christ. Then the Gospel must become in us like a living spring of water if it is to flow forth to thirsty souls.

II. Wesley’s message always moved within the context of Biblical truth. The Scriptures had become central in Wesley’s thinking even before his conversion. In fact, they were instrumental in bringing him to know salvation. While at Oxford, with others in the Holy Club, he had resolved to take the Bible as “their whole and sole rule,” it being “their one desire and design to be downright Bible-Christians.”[5] Thereafter, this determination permeated his whole ministry, as is evident from the constant appeal to Scripture in his writing and preaching. “Yea, I am a Bible bigot,” he asserted. “I follow it in all things, both great and small.”[6]

His practice was the reflection of a conviction that the Bible was fully inspired by God. The Bible for him was “infallibly true.”[7] “If there be one falsehood in that book,” he wrote, “it did not come from the God of truth.”[8] He gave no credence to men who stood in judgment upon the oracles of God.

Out of this confidence came his commitment to the doctrines of historic evangelical Christianity. Though he did not draw up a lengthy creedal statement, like the more traditional churches, he did take from his Anglican heritage a simple confession of faith in his Articles of Religion. These, with Wesley’s 44 Standard Sermons, and Explanatory Notes on the New Testament, constituted the Methodist “standards” of doctrine.

To contend, as does the new doctrinal statement of the United Methodist Church, that Methodism has no “confessional principle” is a distortion of history.[9] It is an attempt to justify a prevailing liberal theological climate in the church by imposing upon Wesley a concept of “pluralism,” citing as support his oft-quoted dictum: “As to all opinions which do not strike at the root of Christianity, we think and let think.”[10]

What is ignored is that Wesley’s conciliatory principle applied only to peripheral matters—like modes of baptism or ecclesiastical forms of government—and was never intended to excuse deviation from basic Biblical revelation. This deposit of non-negotiable truth included such foundational doctrines as the virgin birth of Christ; His vicarious blood atonement; the bodily resurrection; His ascension, reign, and triumphant return; original sin; heaven and hell.

To be sure, the catholic spirit of Wesley cut across all sectarianism and bigotry. But there could be no toleration of heresy.

From this kind of theological stamina flowed Methodist evangelism. It is sheer folly to imagine that the Church today can produce the fruits of the Gospel without similar doctrinal integrity. There can be no genuine witness, nor growth in spiritual experience, if we do not believe the Biblical message.

III. Wesley‘s evangelism brings into focus the limitless scope of the Gospel invitation, with the consequential mandate to tell the story to every human being. When it was said that the Son of man came into the world to save sinners, Wesley understood this to mean that in Christ’s redemptive mission there were no exceptions.

God loved the world, and to that end, finally Jesus died on Calvary. The work was complete. Nothing more needed to be done to provide salvation from all sin for all men.

Here he differed from those of the reformed tradition, who, in effect, limited the scope of redemption only to the elect. Wesley did not question the absolute sovereignty of God, nor the inability of people to save themselves; but he believed that by God’s prevenient grace, every person could heed the Gospel call. This was a birthright of the human race. Thus he sang:

“O that the world might taste and see
The riches of His grace!
The arms of love that compass me
Would all mankind embrace.”

Driven by this desire, Wesley could not ignore the multitudes yet in darkness. He was especially mindful of those others passed by—the poor, the sick, the illiterate, the outcasts of society—those downtrodden, lonely hearts who felt unwanted and unloved by most churchmen of his day.

When the Bishop of Bristol told Wesley that he had no business in his parish, and ordered him to go hence, the young evangelist refused. For as he explained:

A dispensation of the gospel is committed to me, and woe is me if I preach not the Gospel wherever I am in the habitable world. Your lordship knows, being ordained a priest, by the commission I then received, I am a priest of the church universal.[11]

The admonition of Wesley was considered so important that it was printed in the early Disciplines of the Church, with the following comment:

Observe; It is not your business to preach so many times, and to take care of this or that society; but to save as many souls as you can; to bring as many sinners as you possibly can to repentance, and with all your power to build them up in that holiness without which they cannot see the Lord.[12]

This is the spirit which still must constrain evangelism. Our commission is to go to all mankind, lost and the least—to go to the ends of the earth, crossing every artificial barrier, and “make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19).

IV. Wesley found practical ways to reach the lost. His vision for the masses of humanity\was implemented in a relevant methodology. To use the contemporary jargon, his methods were contextualized, that is, adapted to the particular culture and needs of the time.

Take Wesley’s manner of field preaching, as an example. Certainly if he had chosen his own taste in methods, he would never have become an open-air evangelist. Yet he entered upon this new approach because it was seen to be effective in bringing the Gospel to the unchurched multitudes. Later, he reflected:

What marvel the devil does not love field preaching! Neither do I; I love a commodious room, a soft cushion, a handsome pulpit. But where is my zeal, if I do not trample all these underfoot in order to save one more soul.[13]

So following the example of Mr. Whitfield, on April 1, 1739, he laid aside his temperamental reservations and obeyed the controlling mandate to reach the lost. He wrote in his Journal:

At four in the afternoon, I submitted to be more vile, and proclaimed in the highways the glad tidings of salvation, speaking from a little eminence in a ground adjoining to the city, to about 3000 people.[14]

In the next 50 years evangelism was to be his occupation, and field preaching his preeminent style. In the out-of-doors in open fields, on street corners, at factory gates—Wesley met the people in congregations larger than church buildings could contain. His biographer, L. Tyerman, has computed that of the approximately 500 sermons preached during a nine-month period in 1739, only eight were delivered in churches.[15]

Though often ridiculed and maligned because of his preaching policy, Wesley never quit.[16] What difference did it make that the sophisticated clergymen of his day scorned him? God was using his methods to awaken lost souls to their privileges of grace, and that was all that mattered.

Because this approach worked, Wesley developed the itinerant system of moving preachers from place to place. It seemed at the time, considering resources available, the most expeditious system of ministering to the whole population. By this constraint also, he started preaching at 5 o’clock in the morning, because he found that it was the best time to catch workers before they went into the mines or factories. The use of lay preachers was justified in the same way, as was the publishing and distribution of tracts.

The organizational structures of class meetings, local societies, and annual conferences were similarly devised. They were simply means of accomplishing the task at hand. Commenting on church practices, in a letter to a friend, Wesley asked:

What is the end of all ecclesiastied order? Is it not to bring souls from the power of Satan to God, and to build them up in His fear and love? Order, then, is so far valuable as it answers these ends; and if it answers them not, it is nothing worth.[17]

If we were driven by this criterion today, what effect would it have upon our church policies? Would it not, at the very least, bring us to examine our programs in the light of their fruitfulness? Activities which are seen to be unproductive would be revised, or dropped altogether. And other programs which seem more promising would be tried.

For us now in the twentieth century, of course, field preaching or the itinerant system, may not be the best recourse. Because these methods were well-suited to Wesley’s generation does not necessarily mean that they are conducive to ours. The question is: Are we determined to get the job done, whatever it takes? When we are, I believe that we will discover ways to do it.

V. Wesley’s Methodists aspired to a disciplined sainthood. Evangelism for Wesley did not end when people made professions of faith. Conversion was only the first step in an ongoing life of discipleship. Hence, the strong emphasis on growing in the likeness of Christ.

Anyone “desiring to flee from the wrath to come, and to save his soul” could become a Methodist. But this desire, as Wesley noted, “must be evidenced by three marks: avoiding all known sin; doing good after his power; and, attending all the ordinances of God.”[18]

This involved participating in a small class meeting each week, where the Methodist discipline was enforced. A class leader was expected to inquire of all persons how their souls prospered, and “to advise, reprove, comfort, or exhort,” as the occasion required.[19] In this manner no Methodist was ever left without regular oversight.

Smaller groups of people met each week in bands. These meetings were for the purpose of recounting Christian experiences, and plainly confessing faults. The leader of each band was required to describe “his own state first, and then to ask the rest, in order, as many and as searching questions as may be, concerning their state, sins, and temptations.”[20] One can imagine the catharsis this regular exercise had upon the people.

Methodists were expected to live holy lives. Perfection of love was always held before them as the standard-a love that found expression toward God in purity of devotion and toward man in selfless service. Out of such holiness flowed their personal witness and social compassion.

Herein was the attraction of their evangelism. It was beautiful in practical holiness. No wonder Wesley exhorted his preachers to follow his example in continually speaking on Christian perfection. Where holiness “is little insisted • on,” he observed, “there is little increase, either in the number or the grace of the hearers.”[21]

It is still true today. Evangelism without holiness, both in the witness and the fruit desired, becomes a contradiction. We must recover, not only the Wesleyan standard of Christian character, but also the disciplined manner by which that life is encouraged. Merely recruiting church members is not enough; new converts must be nourished in a life-style of holiness—a Christlikeness that inevitably radiates love to a lost world.

VI. To Wesley, evangelism meant the mobilization of the whole church for m Wesley’s holistic approach did more than meet the felt needs of people; he involved them in the on-going work. Early Methodism took seriously the priesthood of all believers.

This was immediately evident in the atmosphere created within the class and band meetings. In these little gatherings of kindred spirits, everyone was enabled to participate in the ministry of counseling, encouragement, and prayer. What a natural way to stimulate mutual expression of love, an emphasis inherent in their holiness ethic. From the very beginning of incorporation in the body, they were learning to function as priests by ministering to each other.

Within this context, persons with special gifts would be recognized, and some, appropriately endowed, made class and band leaders. Those with different gifts might be appointed stewards, or assigned some other form of service. Significantly the pastoral functions of ministry, including visiting the sick, comforting the bereaved, and looking after the destitute, were carried on largely by the local people themselves.

Even the preachers appointed by Wesley to the circuits were usually laymen, without any professional training for ministry. In fact, for the most part they had little or no formal education. They were people who came up from the ranks—God-fearing men and women who sensed the call of God for this kind of service.

The use of lay preachers provoked criticism by the more educated clergy of other communions, of course. Augustus Toplady, for example, accused Wesley of “prostituting the ministerial function to the lowest and most illiterate mechanics, persons of almost any class.” Further reflecting his disdain, as well as the extent of Methodist lay involvement, Toplady advised:

Let his [Wesley] cobblers keep to their stalls. Let his tinkers mind their vessels. Let his barbers confine themselves to their blocks and basons. Let his bakers stand to their kneading-troughs. Let his blacksmiths blow more suitable coals than those of controversy.[22]

This is our Methodist heritage. We have come from the workshops of common laborers, not theological seminaries. Wesley did not belittle ordination, 1nor university training. He was himself a college man, probably one of the most thoroughly educated clergymen of his day. But he knew that any evangelistic movement that reaches the masses must bring its own people into the harvest.

We, too, must learn to multiply ourselves by equipping others for the work of the ministry. Most Methodists today have little personal sense of responsibility for reaching the world. We know the theory of every member involvement, but by our example, one would get the impression that ministry requires professional training and ecclesiastical sanction. It is imperative that we rediscover the daily work of making disciples through our vocational callings. Whatever our gifts, there is a ministry for all, not only in testifying to the grace of God, but in helping new Christians assume their role in the great commission.

VII. Wesley’s evangelism was the overflow of true revival—coming alive to the power of God. This reality, on a personal level, gave direction to the experience of salvation, and preserved Wesley’s Biblical theology from the complacency of dead orthodoxy.

The refining fire of Pentecost inflamed Methodists with love for a lost world, and constrained them, by any means at hand, to herald the Gospel to every creature. By the same mighty inworking of the energizing Spirit, they were brought under godly discipline, and molded into an army of laborers.

Here was the genius of Methodism. It was not another religious institution, but a movement of renewal, joining together earnest souls seeking first the kingdom. To the question in the Larger Minutes, “What may we measurably believe to be God’s design in raising up the preachers called Methodists?,” Wesley answered: “Not to form any new sect; but to reform the nation, particularly the church; and to spread Scriptural holiness over the land .”[23]

One could be a Methodist without leaving one’s own communion, or even becoming a member of a Methodist society. Their purpose was to “spread life among all denominations,” wrote Wesley in 1790, though he added prophetically: “Which they will do till they form a separate sect.”[24]

For more than 40 years Methodism existed as an ecumenical body in the midst and alongside established churches. Certainly the parachurch nature of the original societies was seen as no impediment to their spiritual effectiveness. Indeed, “it could be argued,” according to A. Skevington Wood, a foremost Methodist historian, that ‘Wesley’s societies were most useful when they remained independent of ecclesiastical control, whether Anglican or eventually Methodist.”[25]

Ponder the implications of this for our day. If the power of Methodism is somehow diminished when institutionalized, why should we feel so obliged to perpetuate the ecclesiastical structures? Would we not more nearly represent the vision of Wesley by concentrating our energy upon developing spiritual resources rather than bureaucratic organizations?

By the same criteria, why should we limit our fellowship to those within the Methodist constituency? In the true Wesleyan catholic spirit, do we not have affinity with people from every denominational background who are in the flow of revival, be they Baptist, Pentecostal, or Roman Catholic? The same applies to relationships with many contemporary interdenominational fellowships. Inde ed, are not our ties in the Spirit much closer to these persons of kindred heart and aspiration than any ecclesiastical loyalty to a particular denomination? Then let us cultivate our oneness with the movement of God’s Spirit in our time.

Methodism at its heart is a revival movement, and the spirit of Wesley is more alive today than ever before.

Do you not see it? You will notice its appeal in the response of multitudes to the Gospel invitation at a Billy Graham Crusade; you will sense its intensity in a little neighborhood home Bible study; you will feel its excitement in a Southern Baptist evangelism conference; you will catch its earnestness in a Salvation Army street meeting; you will find its commitment in a Campus Crusade action group; you will realize its explosive force in the mushrooming Sunday school of a growing independent church; you will know its presence in the joy of a Catholic charismatic renewal celebration; you will thrill with its vision in the hearts of young people going to the mission fields of the world; and in a thousand other forms of Spirit-filled witness you will recognize the dynamic of revival in our time. Here is the real Wesleyan movement, the spirit of true Methodism, by whatever name it is called.

Here I find my identity—and my fellowship. Here, too, I can rejoice, confident that the ingathering of the Church of Jesus Christ will increase with the years, until that day the work is done, the harvest finished, and the kingdom comes to fruition in the eternal praise of God.

[1] Adopted from a description of this event by Halford E. Luccock and Paul Hutchinson, The Story of Methodism (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1926), pp. 13-18.

[2] John Wesley, The Journal of the Rev. John Wesley, A.M., ed. by Nehemiah Curnock, I (London: Robert Culley, 1909) , pp. 475, 476. The description of this experience, as well as the struggles leading up to it, indicate that it was for Wesley an evangelical conversion. Though there were evidences of spiritual awakening much earlier, as far back as 1725, it was not until Aldersgate that a complete turning point in his life becomes obvious.

[3] John Wesley, Journal, I, op. cit., p. 476.

[4] This is the hymn generally believed to have been sung on this occasion, though it is not named by either John or Charles. Another possibility, sometimes proposed, is Wesley’s “And Can It Be.”

[5] John Wesley, A Short History of Methodism, The Works of John Wesley, ed. by T. Jackson VIII (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1872), p. 348.

[6] John Wesley, Journal, V, op. cit., p. 169.

[7] John Wesley, “The Means of Grace,” Wesley s Standard Sermons, ed. by E. Sugden, I (London: Epworth, 1968), pp. 249, 250.

[8] John Wesley, Journal, VI, op. cit., p. 117.

[9] A document drawn up by a Theological Study Commission on Doctrine and adopted by the General Conference in 1972, now printed as “Doctrine and Doctrinal Statements and the General Rules,” The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church, 1980 (Nashville: United Methodist Publishing House, 1980), p. 41.

[10] Ibid, p. 40. My response to this statement may be seen in “The New Doctrinal Directives of Methodism,” an unpublished paper issued in 1972, available from Good News, 308 E. Main St., Wilmore, KY 40390. 504 each, including postage.

[11] John Wesley, Journal, 11, op. cit., p. 257.

[12] John Wesley, Minutes of Several Conversations, Works, V 111, op. cit., p. 310.

[13] John Wesley, Journal, IV, op. cit., p. 325.

[14] John Wesley, Journal, II, op. cit., p. 156.

[15] L. Tyerman, The Life and Times of the Rev. John Wesley, I (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1870-71), p. 234.

[16] A. Skevington Wood, The Burning Heart (Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, 1978), pp. 94–97. This study, incidentally, is the best all-round treatment of Wesley’s evangelistic ministry that I have seen.

[17] John Wesley, The Letters of the Rev. John Wesley, ed. by John Telford (London: Epworth, 1931), 11, p. 77.

[18] John Wesley, “On God’s Vineyard,” Works, VII, op. cit., p. 209, cf. “General Rules,” Works, VIII, op. cit., pp. 270, 271.

[19] John Wesley, A Plain Account of the People Called Methodist, Works, VIII, op. cit., p. 253.

[20] John Wesley, Rules of the Band Societies, Works, VIII, op. cit., p. 272.

[21] John Wesley, Letters, IV, op. cit., p. 149.

[22] Quoted by Howard A. Snyder, The Radical Wesley (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1980), p. 64.

[23] John Wesley, Minutes of Several Conversations, Works, VIII, op. cit., p. 299.

[24] John Wesley, Letters, VIII, op. cit., p. 211.

[25] A. Skevington Wood, op. cit., p. 193.