by Steve | Nov 28, 2017 | Magazine, Magazine Articles, Nov-Dec 2017
Art by Scott Erickson.
scottericksonart.com
Introduction by Jerry L. Walls-
The idea for doing this Protestant Confession first occurred to me while doing research for the book I co-authored with Ken Collins on Roman Catholicism (Roman But Not Catholic: What Remains at Stake 500 Years After the Reformation). One of the big themes of our book is the true nature of catholicism, and the contention that Protestantism, rightly understood, embodies catholic faith at its best. While doing this research I was struck by the fact that a number of Protestant theologians were calling for a recovery and renewal of catholicity. They used different phrases, like “Reformed catholicity,” and “mere Protestant orthodoxy” and others as well. But the essential idea was that Protestants need to recover a deeper awareness of their catholic heritage to be true to the legacy of the Reformers, who very much aimed to preserve and promote apostolic, catholic Christianity.
This notion intrigued me because my research had shown how often Roman Catholic apologists fasten on to the differences among Protestants and paint the Reformation as a movement that led to endless division and factions. The more I thought about this, the more I wondered whether the idea of Reformation catholicism really existed, and if so, what it would look like. Is there in fact substantial catholic unity among the diverse heirs of the Reformation, and if so, shouldn’t we be able to show what this looks like in a concrete way? Or is the notion of Protestant catholicism a mere intellectual abstraction, or worse, an outright contradiction?
As the questions were pondered, the more I realized the 500th anniversary of the Reformation was the perfect time to be doing so. Indeed, I became convinced that one of the best ways we could commemorate the Reformation was to demonstrate substantial Protestant unity in a way that would honor the Reformers’ catholic convictions and intentions.
In January, I wrote to the authors of some of the books who had been calling for a recovery of catholicism to propose the idea of producing a statement that would demonstrate substantial catholic unity among Protestants. I also included a handful of other friends I thought might be sympathetic. I was particularly curious to see if they would be willing to put these ideas into practice, or if they would take the easy way out of declining to specify what Reformation catholicism actually looks like.
I was pleased that the persons to whom I sent my email found the idea interesting and asked for further details of what I had in mind. So I sent a follow up email giving more details and sent it to a few more persons in addition to the original list. One of the persons on that original list was Kevin Vanhoozer of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (whose book Biblical Authority After Babel: Retrieving the Solas in the Spirit of Mere Protestant Christianity had been one of the books that inspired my idea), and he seemed particularly intrigued by the idea of producing such a Confession. We exchanged several more emails, and he mentioned that if we attempted such a document, that it might be a good idea to have a single author write the initial draft for the sake of consistency of style. I called him up and told him I knew the perfect person to write the initial draft, a man with the necessary theological expertise, experience, and academic stature, namely, Kevin J Vanhoozer. Prior to this conversation, we had never talked before, and knew each other only by reputation. Kevin naturally had a lot of questions, and was hesitant, but the more we talked, the more excited we both got about the possible good such a Confession might do if we could pull it off. Before we ended our conversation, Kevin had agreed to write the initial draft.
Together, we drew up a list of notable systematic and historical theologians from various Protestant traditions who we hoped would be responsible to critique the initial draft and work together to revise and rework the Confession in language we all found agreeable. We were delighted with the very positive responses we got to our invitation and the enthusiasm for what we had proposed to do. By the middle of February, our Committee was essentially complete and the process of producing the Confession was underway.
We were also very much encouraged by the enthusiastic support of David Dockery, President of Trinity International University, who has been on board with us from the beginning. We were delighted when Timothy Tennent, President of Asbury Seminary, and Timothy George, Dean of Beeson Divinity School (who we affectionately call 1 and 2 Timothy) agreed to serve as co-chairs of the Steering Committee. After this, everything came together to give us a chance to achieve what we had hoped when we first conceived the idea for our Reforming Catholic Confession.
Working on the Drafting Committee of the Confession was one of the great ecumenical experiences of my life. Kevin’s original document was subjected to extensive criticism and went through two rounds of revision at the hands of the committee. We corresponded by email, and the critical comments and constructive suggestions totaled some sixty single spaced pages between the two rounds of revisions. The spirit of mutual respect and cooperation was remarkable throughout, especially when we dealt with difficult issues that had divided the Reformers, and remained points of contention between our various traditions, such as the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. It was very gratifying to see Pentecostals and Lutherans, for instance, working together collegially to find language we could all agree upon. And Kevin as the lead author modelled throughout what a world class Reforming Catholic theologian looks like as he graciously and expertly incorporated the many suggestions coming his way.
Of course, the final document does not fully express the views of any of the traditions represented. Still, it was very encouraging that we could find substantial common ground even on contested issues historically fraught with controversy. The issue for our document is not, “does this say everything you would prefer?” but rather, “can you agree with us thus far?” And again, the ground of common agreement is both robust and rich. The Confession makes no pretense of eliminating all our differences, nor does it aim to replace the official doctrinal confessions of our various churches. But it does show that the diverse heirs of the Reformation who follow the principle of sola scriptura (scripture alone is our final authority for doctrine) are deeply united on core Christian doctrine. And that is cause for celebration as we mark the 500th anniversary of those epoch-making series of events that we call the Reformation.
To read the full document, click here.
Jerry L. Walls is a Scholar in Residence and Professor of Philosophy at Houston Baptist University. He is the author of Hell: The Logic of Damnation; Heaven: The Logic of Eternal Joy; Purgatory: The Logic of Total Transformation. Additionally, Dr. Walls was the author of The Problem of Pluralism: Recovering United Methodist Identity.
Art by Scott Erickson (scottericksonart.com).
![Pursuing Pentecost]()
by Steve | Nov 28, 2017 | Magazine, Magazine Articles, Nov-Dec 2017
By Stephen Seamands-
In the Wesleyan tradition, we often celebrate John Wesley’s experience at Aldersgate on May 24, 1738, when he “felt his heart strangely warmed.” And no doubt, had there been no Aldersgate, where Wesley himself came to a profound assurance of his own personal salvation, there surely would have been no Methodist movement. As he recorded in his Journal, “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.”
But six months later another crucial event occurred in John Wesley’s life. Though often overlooked, it too was indispensable in launching the movement. I like to think of it as the original Methodist Pentecost.
It happened in the wee hours of the morning on New Year’s Day, 1739. Wesley, his brother, Charles, his friend, George Whitfield, and about sixty others, who were members of a group known as the Fetter Lane Society, were gathered together for a New Year’s Eve watch night service. Here’s how Wesley describes what happened:
“About three o’clock in the morning, as we were continuing instant in prayer, the power of God came mightily upon us, insomuch that many cried out for exceeding joy, and many fell to the ground. As soon as we were recovered a little from that awe and amazement at the presence of His Majesty, we broke out with one voice, We praise Thee, O God; we acknowledge Thee to be the Lord.”
This outpouring of the Holy Spirit where, as Wesley says, “the power of God came mightily upon us,” catapulted Wesley outward. It caused him and those gathered there to become other-directed as never before. Up until then Wesley had primarily been absorbed in his own quest for personal salvation. Aldersgate gave him the deep certainty he needed about that. However, as a result of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Fetter Lane, his focus shifted. Wesley was thrust out beyond himself so that the salvation of others, particularly those outside the church, became his burning passion.
This shift became evident to all four months later in what Dr. Albert Outler, Methodism’s preeminent Wesley scholar, called Wesley’s “embarrassing descent into field preaching.” Following the New Year’s Day outpouring, his friend, George Whitfield, had begun preaching outdoors in late February. He was amazed at the positive response of the unchurched common people, and the profound way God worked through this unconventional approach to preaching and evangelism. So he told Wesley what he was doing and urged him to follow suit. He even invited Wesley to watch him do it.
But everything in John Wesley — his church background, his academic and ministerial training, his personality type — cried No. He was an ordained Anglican priest and an instructor at Oxford who firmly believed all things should be done “decently and in order.” Preaching was therefore only meant to happen inside a church and from behind a pulpit. Some in the Church of England even maintained that preaching outdoors, or field preaching as it was called, was a violation of civil and canon law.
Wesley himself was certainly not well suited for it. As to personal preference, he was finicky about his personal appearance. He always dressed as neat as a pin and wouldn’t tolerate dirt on his clothing. An introvert at heart, he preferred the quiet of a library to the ruckus of an unruly crowd.
In his Journal entry for March 31, 1739, Wesley expressed his reservations: “In the evening I reached Bristol and met Mr. Whitefield there. I could scarcely reconcile myself at first to this strange way of preaching in the fields, of which he set me an example on Sunday; I had been all my life (till very lately) so tenacious of every point relating to decency and order that I should have thought the saving of souls almost a sin if it had not been done in a church.”
However, in spite of all his reservations, he could no longer hold back. As a result of the outpouring of the Spirit at Fetter Lane, Wesley had been thrust beyond himself. A few days later, on April 2, 1739, he crossed the Rubicon. As he records 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 the round adjoining to the city to about three thousand people. The scripture on which I spoke was this, … ‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor.’”
When Wesley says he “submitted to be more vile” he really meant it! And from what he said years later we know that he never really liked field preaching. But when the Spirit of the Lord comes upon you like it came upon Wesley and the others that night at Fetter Lane, how can you hold back? How can you not become a witness for Christ and boldly proclaim the glad tidings of salvation?
And what an amazing, Spirit-empowered witness John Wesley became! For the next fifty years he preached all over England in the open air. He travelled some 225,000 miles on horseback, preached 40,000 sermons, won as many as 144,000 converts to Christ and established a vast network of Methodist societies within the Anglican Church.
Wesley was severely criticized, even by family members, for field preaching. Anglican church leaders reprimanded him because he would not respect the established boundaries of parishes. But to no avail. In a famous letter to James Harvey, he explained why he found it necessary to invade the parishes of other clergy:
“Man forbids me to do this in another’s parish: that is, in effect, to do it at all; seeing I have now no parish of my own, nor probably ever shall. Whom, then, shall I hear, God or man? …
“Suffer me now to tell you my principles in this matter. I look upon all the world as my parish; thus far I mean, that in whatever part of it I am I judge it meet, right and my bounden duty to declare, unto all who are willing to hear, the glad tidings of salvation.”
When the Spirit is poured out on us, as it was upon John Wesley, then the whole world will become our parish too. It will be our “bounden duty to declare … the glad tidings of salvation.” As Jesus said, “you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea [our immediate surroundings], and Samaria [across cultures], and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8).
Jesus stressed that this would happen “when the Holy Spirit comes upon you.” So just before he ascended, he promised his disciples he would be “sending upon [them] what [his] Father promised” (Luke 24:49). And in his final instructions he told them to “stay here in the city [Jerusalem] until you have been clothed with power from on high” (Luke 24: 49).
The disciples took his instructions to heart. Their recent failures in abandoning and denying Jesus had made them painfully aware of their impotence to carry out his mission. So this time they did exactly what he said. After Jesus ascended, they went back to the upstairs room in Jerusalem where they were staying and for the next ten days, along with “certain women, including Mary the mother of Jesus, as well as [Jesus’] brothers” they “constantly [devoted] themselves to prayer” (Acts 1:14). Then on the Day of Pentecost, the ascended Christ fulfilled his promise. The Holy Spirit was poured out upon them (Acts 2:1-4).
The ascended Christ wants to send the Holy Spirit on us today so that we too can join him in accomplishing his mission. But for that to happen we must first do what Jesus told his disciples to do. We must wait and devote ourselves to prayer until we are endued with power from on high.
The great Methodist missionary E. Stanley Jones often said that “Unless the Holy Spirit fills, the human spirit fails.” Like the disciples, then, we need to tarry and wait. We need to ask the ascended Christ to send the Holy Spirit upon us to clothe us with power so we can be his witnesses and join him in his mission. We need to devote ourselves to prayer and find others who will pray with us.
As we pray, we should ask Jesus to increase three things in us.
First, ask him to increase our desire for more of himself and more of the fullness of the Holy Spirit. “Before we can be filled with the Spirit,” says A.W. Tozer, “The desire to be filled must be all consuming…The degree of fullness in any life accords perfectly with the intensity of true desire. We have as much of God as we actually want” (The Divine Conquest). In speaking about the Spirit, Jesus himself said “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me” (John 7:37). So let’s ask the Lord Jesus to make us thirsty by increasing our desire for more of the Holy Spirit.
Second, ask Jesus to increase our will to surrender and give up control. Richard John Neuhaus is right: “It is our determination to be independent by being in control that makes us unavailable to God” (Death on a Friday Afternoon). In order to experience more of the Spirit’s presence in our lives, we need to surrender areas where we are insisting on being “independent by being in control.” Where in our lives does self need to be dethroned and Christ enthroned? Are there areas of unhealed hurt and pain where we are holding on to anger, bitterness, and unforgiveness? So let’s ask the risen Christ to empty us of anything that’s preventing the Holy Spirit from being in control. Let’s ask him to increase our will to surrender all to him.
Third, we should ask Jesus to increase our faith in his promise and the heavenly Father’s promise to fill us with the Holy Spirit. Jesus described this promise of the Father when he said, “If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” (Luke 11:13). In asking him to fill us with his Holy Spirit, we can be confident that the Father wants to give more than we are willing to receive. The Father will give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him. We don’t have to overcome his reluctance to fill us with the Spirit — just take hold of his willingness.
And Christ the Son’s willingness too! He himself told the disciples, “It is to your advantage that I go away … if I go I will send him [the Holy Spirit] to you” (John 16:7). “And see, I am sending upon you what my Father promised” (Luke 24:49).
The heart of the Father longs for us to experience the person, the power, and the presence of the Holy Spirit. And the Son, through his life, death, resurrection, and ascension, has accomplished everything necessary for that to happen. We should ask that our faith and confidence in the Father and Son’s promise to pour out the Spirit on us will increase. 
Do we need a personal Pentecost in our own lives? Does our church need to experience another Methodist Pentecost? Then Jesus would say to us, “Wait until you have been endued with the Spirit’s power.” So let us devote ourselves to prayer and join with others in praying that our desire for the Spirit’s fullness would intensify, our surrender to the will of the Spirit would deepen, and our faith in the promise of the Spirit would increase.
Rest assured, if we do, the Holy Spirit will be poured out upon us. And when the Spirit comes, like Wesley we will be thrust out beyond ourselves to join Christ in his mission to the world.
Stephen Seamands is Professor of Christian Doctrine at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky. This article is adapted from a chapter in Dr. Seamands’ recent book, The Unseen Real, published by Seedbed (used by permission).
![Pursuing Pentecost]()
by Steve | Nov 28, 2017 | Magazine, Magazine Articles, Nov-Dec 2017
By David Watson-
“The more things change, the more they stay the same.” That was the refrain that echoed through my mind again and again as I read through James Heidinger’s new work, The Rise of Theological Liberalism and the Decline of American Methodism (Seedbed). The theological disagreements — some would say crises — that we face in The United Methodist Church today are nothing new. They did not begin twenty or thirty years ago. They did not begin with the introduction of the so-called “Wesleyan Quadrilateral” into the United Methodist Book of Discipline in 1972, or even with the formation of The United Methodist Church in 1968. Rather, Heidinger argues, they stretch back to the late nineteenth century, when the influence of German philosophy and theological liberalism began to make its mark on the Methodist theological landscape in the United States.
The premise of this book is straightforward: “the era of the early 1900’s in American Methodism was the critical period in which Methodism experienced major doctrinal transition, revision, defection, and even denial of her Wesleyan doctrinal heritage.” This era saw the rise of both theological liberalism and the social gospel, two distinct but related movements. Since this early period of revision, the disproportionately large influence of liberalism upon American Methodism has continued to erode its doctrinal foundations. Such doctrinal erosion lies at the root of our decline.
Heidinger distinguishes between two uses of the term “liberalism.” In one sense, liberalism can mean, “a spirit of openness, graciousness, or liberal-mindedness.” The liberalism he takes up in his book, however, is different from this. It is “a movement during the early 1900’s that challenged and soon displaced the very substance of the church’s classical doctrine and teaching.” This theological movement replaced traditional teachings of the church with ideas more palatable to the “modern” mind. It dispensed with miracles and the supernatural, made Jesus primarily a moral exemplar, replaced the pervasive sinfulness of humanity with a notion of innate human goodness, and therefore rejected traditional understandings of Christian atonement.
The book consists of an introduction and thirteen chapters, preceded by a very helpful foreword by Professor William J. Abraham. The opening chapter sets the table: sound, scriptural doctrine is essential for our identity as the body of Christ. There will be no true spiritual renewal without theological renewal.
The next two chapters begin the critique of the liberal tradition. Here Heidinger describes the intellectual climate of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and some of the effects it had upon Methodist doctrine and theology. As more and more Methodist academics went to study in Germany, they brought back to the United States a brand of modernist theology popular in Germany at the time. Particularly influential were theologians Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834) and Albrecht Ritschl (1822-1889). Their teachings would find a firm foothold in the Methodist academy of the early twentieth century.
As one would expect, the introduction of these theological innovations would create controversy. In Chapter 4, Heidinger describes the resistance that began to emerge among Methodists who objected to the revision of orthodox Christian doctrine by Methodist theologians. This resistance included the formation of the Methodist League for Faith and Life under the leadership of Harold Paul Sloan of the New Jersey Conference. Heidinger draws a striking parallel to our situation today: “The Board of Bishops continued to present a united front in its relationship to the Modernist/Liberalism controversy within the church, even though some bishops were aware of, and distressed by, the church’s doctrinal unfaithfulness…. [W]hen challenged and urged to act on behalf of doctrinal faithfulness and confront the matter head-on, they opted instead for a facade of unity as a Board of Bishops rather than choosing to contend for the faith that was under attack.”
Methodist leaders of this period chose by and large to avoid controversy and conflict. They were “determined to avoid the ugliness and bitter controversy of heresy-hunting that they saw taking place in other major denominations.” Instead, they attempted to develop an ethic of openness and tolerance, and therefore relaxed membership standards and baptismal vows. They also devalued creedal formulations. Heidinger takes up these trends in the next chapter. During this period there was a strong push to cast Methodism as a “non-creedal” tradition, and to affirm faith lived out through acts of love, deemphasizing any doctrinal confessions of faith. Boston University’s Borden Parker Bowne (1847-1910), a key figure in the development of the deeply individualistic philosophy of “personalism,” exerted far-reaching influence on Methodist theology in the United States.
In Chapter 6, Heidinger describes more specifically the contours of the theological liberalism that emerged in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It was, he maintains, a new form of Christianity characterized by a rejection of all of the supernatural elements of our faith, a negation of most traditional Christian doctrines, and an emphasis upon the moral teachings of Jesus. This leads to a discussion in the seventh chapter of the social gospel, a theological and ecclesiological movement meant to address problems of rapid urbanization in the early twentieth century. In the absence of clear doctrinal teaching, many Methodists began to see the formation of a just society as the basic goal of Christian faith.
Chapter 8 recounts the internal tensions and divisions one might expect from such theological upheaval, including tensions between clergy and laity, the rise of the Holiness Movement, and the battle fatigue created by these disagreements. A sort of classism developed among Methodist clergy in the early twentieth century. Drawing upon a 1926 article in the Christian Century, Heidinger refers to three “grades” of Methodists. The upper grade consisted of “seminary professors, agency heads, bishops, [and] denominational leaders,” most of whom were seminary graduates and theologically liberal. The second grade was made up of clergy who “aspired to be part of the upper grade, but who had probably come into the ministry through the Conference Course of Study.” In other words, they were not seminary graduates, and therefore had not received the same intellectual and theological formation as those who had been to seminary. The third grade consisted of “pastors with limited formal education who served the smaller and more rural churches with the smallest membership and least amount of financial resources.” Among the second and third grades, which were much more traditional in their beliefs, there arose strong opposition to the theology and leadership of the upper grade. Despite these dangerous tensions, however, the denominational leadership was reluctant to take any definitive action, opting in most cases to try to “keep the peace.”
The following two chapters describe the evangelical presence within Methodism that remained despite the liberal proclivities of denominational leaders, as well as evangelical responses in the form of various protest and reform movements. In this chapter, Heidinger introduces the “great deep” of Methodism, a term he will use many more times throughout the book. By this, he means to refer to the vast majority of Methodists (now United Methodists) who profess the historic Christian faith. While many “higher-ups” in the denomination have coalesced to the theological trends of the day, the great deep maintains the faith once for all delivered to the saints.
In Chapter 11 Heidinger begins to move into more recent decades. He describes the broad dominance of liberal perspectives in our seminaries (though there have been exceptions) and discusses theologian Thomas Oden’s critique of United Methodist theological education. He also recounts the beginnings of AFTE and the John Wesley Fellows, an initiative intended to identify and support promising evangelical graduate students who could go on to teach in United Methodist institutions. This is followed by a chapter describing the “trivialization of doctrine,” in which Heidinger focuses primarily on the 1993 Reimagining Conference and the controversy surrounding the dissenting statements of Bishop Joseph Sprague.
The final chapter discusses the importance of “getting the gospel right,” emphasizing the traditional Christian faith as a key element of both vibrancy and unity. Seven appendices include the texts of statements issued by conservative/evangelical constituencies of The United Methodist Church in response to the ongoing challenge of the erosion of doctrine in our tradition.
For those who are versed in the denominational struggles besetting The United Methodist Church, many of the themes of Heidinger’s analysis should sound familiar. The disconnect between the seminary-educated and the laity, the reticence of the bishops to address the theological conflict that exists in our denomination, the ongoing attempts to “keep the peace” at the expense of theological coherence and integrity, and deflationary notions of both doctrine and Scripture are very much part of the warp and woof of Methodism today.
Heidinger zeroes in on a key factor in the erosion of Christian doctrine within Methodism: the influence of modernist thought on Methodist academics, particularly those who had studied in Germany. Many of the presuppositions of German liberal theology struck at the very root of Christian orthodoxy. Particularly significant was the rejection of what we often call “miracles” or the “supernatural” – God’s direct intervention into the nexus of human history. Once Methodist theologians began to devalue such beliefs as the Incarnation, the pervasiveness of human sinfulness, Christ’s atoning work on the cross, his bodily resurrection from the dead, and the divine inspiration of Scripture, it was only a matter of time before our tradition would begin to lose its bearings. We no longer had the compass of the historic faith of the Church catholic to guide us.
Heidinger’s discussion of the influence of German liberal theology on American Methodism is both pointed and insightful. We cannot, however, lay theological liberalism entirely at the feet of the Germans. The skepticism of French philosopher René Descartes (1596-1650) had a profound effect upon subsequent philosophy and theology. Likewise we should not underestimate the influence of both British Deism and the English philosopher Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947), who developed the philosophical basis for the liberal tradition of process theology. Theologians of the twentieth century were forced to reckon with the evolutionary theory born of the writings of English scientist Charles Darwin (1809-1882), and this was no small matter. The liberal theology of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century emerged from the insatiable intellectual hunger of the European Enlightenment, and its influence upon both philosophy and theology in the United States was simply unavoidable.
Understanding the pervasive influence of Enlightenment thought upon American academics, however, makes clearer one of Heidinger’s more salient points: when we were faced with theological challenges, the responses of our denominational leaders was time and again inadequate. Rather than providing intellectual responses to theological claims that struck at the root of our faith, many leaders simply capitulated, even hailing these beliefs as liberators from a benighted past. These leaders did not recognize that the modern world in which they lived was itself a particular historical moment. It was no less culturally conditioned than the ancient world in which the biblical texts were written or the period of late antiquity in which so much classical Christian theology emerged. Modernist Christianity gave its own philosophical presuppositions a place of privilege, and thereby substituted a modern quest for self-actualization for the ancient story of sin and salvation that has sustained the church through the centuries. Put more simply, the problem with Methodists over the last century-and-a-half has not been that theological challenges have emerged, but that we have not faced them with sufficient theological mettle and intellectual rigor.
Another important contribution of this work is in the array of historical resources that Heidinger marshals in service to the narrative he crafts. Magazine articles, spoken addresses, meeting minutes, and other such resources make up an impressive body of historical evidence shaping and substantiating Heidinger’s claims. Many names of those who played important roles in the story of Methodism over the last century will be unfamiliar to most readers, and Heidinger helps us to recover their contributions and witness. This work helps us to understand not just how we got where we are today, but the contributions of so many who labored in service to the historic faith of the Church.
When reading this book, it is important to keep in mind that it is indeed about the rise of theological liberalism. It is not a comprehensive overview of liberalism, nor does it claim to be. It is, moreover, specifically about the rise of theological liberalism in the United States. The book wisely stays with its stated focus, and this focus itself suggests several topics in need of further investigation and elucidation. The influence of Paul Tillich and the Niebuhrs on American Methodism is surely ripe for further exploration. While Heidinger does spend some time talking about the influence of Rudolf Bultmann, the colossal influence of this figure on American liberal theology cannot be overstated, and surely bears more investigation. It would be fascinating to explore the influence of process theology, or its evangelical twin, open theism, on United Methodist theological education. Currents of liberation theology and various forms of identity-based theology also run strongly through our seminaries. To trace their influence would be a useful and interesting project.
Dr. David Watson
Many believe that our current denominational battles are about human sexuality, but that is only the presenting issue. In fact, our disagreements are much deeper. They are about theology – about the identity of God, about sin, redemption and sanctification. They are about the nature and goal of human life, the purpose of Christ’s atoning work on the cross, and what we mean when we speak of “salvation.” Heidinger is one who has taken a stand for the historic faith of the Church. He stood in the gap when many others would not. It is because of such courage, determination, and commitment to the faith of the saints and martyrs that this ancient and venerable tradition has subsisted into the present day in The United Methodist Church. I am grateful for Jim Heidinger, grateful for his witness, and grateful for this work.
David Watson is the academic dean of United Theological Seminary in Dayton, Ohio. He is a United Methodist clergyperson and the author most recently of Scripture and the Life of God (Seedbed).
by Steve | Nov 28, 2017 | Magazine, Magazine Articles, Nov-Dec 2017
Dr. Sandra Richter, professor in biblical studies at Westmont College, teaches at Seedbed event. Photo courtesy of Seedbed.
By Heather Hahn-
Great periods of Christian revival in the U.S. need not be consigned to the church’s circuit-rider past. Even without the saddle sores and sawdust trail of yesteryear, a new generation of Christians can be just as fired up with the Holy Spirit. That’s the basic idea behind the New Room Conference, an annual event that draws together United Methodists and other Christians in the Wesleyan family to “sow for a Great Awakening.”
The phrase “is so much more than a tagline to us,” said the Rev. David Thomas, a United Methodist elder and one of the event’s organizers. “We really believe that’s the only honest expression of our need.”
Throughout the conference on September 20-22, some 1,500 Christians worshipped and heard presentations about the ways they could help wake up the world to God’s saving work. Speakers expounded on the importance of praying, relying on the Holy Spirit, engaging in Wesleyan-style small groups, and multiplying churches. Conference participants also could choose to delve deeper at a breakout session on one of these topics or a session on the Bible called “One Book to Rule Them All.”
That wasn’t the event’s only Lord of the Rings reference. Thomas called the gathering “the fellowship of the frustrated.” “We believe this restlessness is a sign of the Spirit,” he quickly added. “We are frustrated in a holy kind of way. It’s an early indicator of awakening.” The New Room Conference — named for the Methodist movement’s first meeting house in Bristol, England — is an outgrowth of Seedbed, the publishing arm of Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky. Since starting in 2014, the event has grown from an initial 250 participants, and has changed venues to accommodate the bigger crowds. This year’s conference was at Church of the City, a nondenominational church in the Nashville suburb of Franklin. Next year, the event will be in a neighboring suburb at Brentwood Baptist Church, which has a bigger auditorium.
The conference focuses on matters of discipleship, not internal church debate. There are no resolutions, no speeches from the floor, and no discussions about church law and human sexuality. J.D. Walt, Seedbed’s founder and “Sower-in-Chief,” told United Methodist News Service, “This is a no-United Methodist angst zone.”
This was the Rev. Beth Ann Cook’s third year to attend. “New Room is the one conference I go to every year that fills me up, that gives me the Holy Spirit overflowing,” said Cook, pastor of First United Methodist Church in Logansport, Indiana. “This is the best drink of cold water I can imagine for someone who’s parched, and that’s why I’m here.”
The Rev. J.D. Walt, “sower-in-chief” at Seedbed. Photo courtesy of Seedbed.
The Rev. Adam Weber, lead pastor of Embrace Church in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, said he was eager to attend after watching the conference streamed online last year. “I grieved and grieved that I wasn’t there myself,” he said. This year, he not only attended but also preached about the “insane privilege to speak with God” in prayer. He is the author of Talking with God: What to Say When You Don’t Know How to Pray. “On my own, I can do so little,” Weber prayed. “But thankfully, you are God who can do so much.”
One main message repeated throughout the event: If you want to be a better disciple, join a band. By that, speakers did not mean the guitar-playing kind. Instead, New Room organizers invited people to join or form the sort of band meetings John Wesley instituted in the early days of the Methodist movement. It was an idea he got from the Moravians. Band meetings — groups of three to six people of the same gender and marital status — focus on confession. The first of five questions at a band get-together is: “What known sins have you committed since our last meeting?”
“The premise is very simple, actually,” the Rev. Scott Kisker told those gathered. “You are going to risk being known in order to risk knowing that you are loved.” Kisker and the Rev. Kevin M. Watson are co-authors of The Band Meeting, and they both spoke about the importance of such groups in their own faith development. Both men are United Methodist elders and professors at United Methodist seminaries — Watson at Candler and Kisker at United.
They explained how the meetings offer an avenue to both repent and experience God’s transforming grace in community. “The band meeting was the engine of holiness in early Methodism,” Watson said. He argued it could serve that purpose again. “When we commit that we are going to show up and do the best that we can to tell the truth,” he said, “there is a way God uses that to bring about deeper and deeper holiness, deeper and deeper healing in people’s lives.”
Throughout the New Room Conference, people who desired to be part of a band could sign up on a net hanging near the front of the auditorium. The net imagery is deliberate, organizers said. The conference is trying to form a network of bands, with at least one such group in every U.S. county.
The conference also announced a new network to support church planters. The goal is not to create a new denomination, the Rev. Timothy Tennent, president of Asbury Theological Seminary, told UMNS. “We are setting up training to help all the traditions in church planting,” he said.
For the Rev. Susan Kent, the whole event was a chance to be spiritually refreshed and see what other churches are doing. “We at our church have been doing awakening,” said Kent, pastor of women’s ministry and worship at The Woodlands United Methodist Church near Houston. “To come and see all the other churches that are being stirred by the Holy Spirit is so beautiful.”
Heather Hahn is a multimedia news reporter for United Methodist News Service.
by Steve | Nov 28, 2017 | Magazine, Magazine Articles, Nov-Dec 2017
By Scott Jones-
The recent proposal by the group “Uniting Methodists” is a welcome addition to the conversation in our church because it proposes a new form of unity that should be considered. They have put forward brief proposals in preparation for a meeting this November. Under the heading “Ordination” they say: “We call for disciplinary changes so that annual conferences are neither compelled to ordain LGBTQ persons, nor prohibited from doing so.” (Call this the AC Option). Under the heading “Officiation” they say: “We call for disciplinary changes so that clergy are neither compelled to officiate at same-sex weddings, nor prohibited from doing so.” (Call this the Clergy Option).
I have argued previously that our current crisis stems from the principled disobedience of clergy, bishops, annual conferences, and a jurisdictional conference and that we must now craft a new form of unity for Wesleyan Christians. There are several possibilities, including this one.
The “Uniting Methodists” group includes some seasoned and trusted leaders of our denomination. Unfortunately, they have chosen not to give the details of their proposals and to address how they would actually work. Perhaps their group is too diverse to agree on these at this time. That is unfortunate because we are only nine months away from the deadline for petitions to the special session of General Conference. At this stage of the discussion, proposals should be more fully developed. We are running out of time for deep analysis of serious proposals.
Another possibility is that leaders don’t want to disclose the ramifications. Some leaders in the moderately progressive part of our church believe that we need small steps like these because in the next 10 years the UM Church will become fully inclusive of LGBTQIA persons. They privately see these proposals as gently leading the church toward a conclusion they regard as both inevitable and correct. Thus, these are not stable plans for unity but transitions toward a progressive church.
Because our conversation is so important, I think two ramifications of these proposals should be named, whether or not members of the group are aware of them. Combined, they mean that their proposed new form of unity is diocesan Methodism.
The AC Option proposal would mean the end of itinerant general superintendency. Bishops right now are able to serve any episcopal area in their jurisdiction because all make sacred promises to uphold our discipline and to maintain our doctrine. Under the AC Option plan, there would be wide differences between bishops and their practices regarding homosexuality. Each bishop would have to declare his or her willingness to ordain and appoint LGBTQIA persons or not do so before an assignment to an area could be made. The most likely way to handle this is to copy the Episcopal church where each diocese elects their own bishop who serves them until retirement. Each diocese would then set its own bishops’s salary and pay its own episcopal office expenses. We would then need a general church Episcopal Fund only for Central Conferences unless the diocesan model applies there as well.
The Clergy Option would end itinerancy. Currently, all pastors are committed to preaching and maintaining United Methodist doctrine and obeying its discipline. We welcome a spectrum of interpretations but there are clear limits. For example, no United Methodist pastor can in principle refuse to baptize infants. No United Methodist pastor can in principle reject the ordination of women. We are committed to open itinerancy without regard to race or gender. Allowing an option about performing same-gender marriages means every local church would have to clarify whether they wanted a progressive or traditionalist clergy (on the issues of homosexual practice) appointed as their pastor. Coupled with the AC Option, each local church would have to specify if they were open to someone without regard to sexual orientation and gender identity. The best solution to this also comes from the Episcopal Church where each congregation chooses its own rector and the bishop has much more limited influence in the process.
Assuming the constitutional issues can be solved, (see para. 19) I welcome a debate about whether a diocesan polity is the best new form of unity we can devise. Thanks to the Uniting Methodists for putting such a bold idea on the table.
Scott Jones currently serves as the resident bishop of the Texas Conference of the United Methodist Church with his office in Houston. This editorial originally appeared at extremecenter.com and is reprinted by permission. Bishop Jones’ most recent book is The Once and Future Wesleyan Movement (2016).
by Steve | Nov 28, 2017 | Magazine, Magazine Articles, Nov-Dec 2017
By Thomas Lambrecht-
The new group “Uniting Methodists” is in the process of forming to (in their words) give voice to the “broad center” of The United Methodist Church. A recent information session about the group was held at Church of the Resurrection in Leawood, Kansas, led by the Revs. Adam Hamilton, Tom Berlin, and Olu Brown. “We can’t keep doing what we’re doing,” Hamilton is reported to have said. “Who’s going to speak up for that broad, middle in the center?”
It’s a good question. For the last 40 years, the “broad, middle” of global United Methodism was, of course, expressed by the General Conference. The Uniting Methodists position is that there is a “middle ground” that would allow same-sex marriage and ordination in the church, but not require it. This would effectively allow individual pastors to make their own decision about doing weddings and individual annual conferences to decide whether or not to ordain practicing homosexuals. Their hope is to keep much of the church united around this “Third Way” or “local option” approach.
There can be no discussion about the broad center of the church without actively engaging our brothers and sisters in Africa, and other locations outside North America. We are an unmistakably global church connected by a common covenant with 45 percent of United Methodists living outside the U.S. Those members are by and large conservative, and many would not be able to live in a denomination that allows same-sex marriage and ordination. When a caucus groups says it wants to construct a solution for the “80 percent of United Methodists in the middle,” they are excluding the voices of nearly half of the church.
Uniting Methodists portrays itself as a “centrist” group that welcomes people of both progressive and conservative theological perspectives and would allow the practices of both perspectives to coincide without hindrance. There is a group within The UM Church that would respond to such a voice. Given the heavily progressive leanings of the group’s leaders and interested persons, however, that may not be a fully accurate portrayal. The attempt to hold together mutually contradictory theologies may only result in an uneasy truce that invites a return to conflict in the not-too-distant future.
In the final analysis, the church will need to decide: do we perform same-sex weddings or not? Do we ordain practicing homosexuals or not? Will we welcome gay bishops or not? There is not a lot of middle ground in those decisions.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
