Disagreement

Do you find any social matters on which all Christians should agree? Where is disagreement permissible? 

In his sermon Catholic Spirit, John Wesley wrote, “Though we can’t think alike, may we not love alike? May we not be of one heart, though we are not of one opinion? Without all doubt, we may.”  In a memorial sermon for George Whitfield, with whom he often passionately disagreed, Wesley wrote, ““There are many doctrines of a less essential nature. ... In these, we may think and let think; we may 'agree to disagree.' But, meantime, let us hold fast the essentials. …”  So what are the essentials regarding social matters? I imagine on this we would disagree!  It seems to me that if we are earnestly trying to put love into action regarding a social matter, than if we come to a different conclusion, on many matters this is permissible disagreement. Personally, the matters I think Christians should agree center around the value of each person in the eyes of God; we should stand united against what is the exploitation of another – racism, slavery (and its modern versions), abuse, and that which harms the dignity of another. 

Social Creed Then and Now

The Methodist Social Creed was first written in 1908 and has been modified since. Following the comparison handout, discuss:

• How are the iterations similar? Different?  They are similar in that they are expressions of Wesleyan Theology and social praxis.  The 1908 version was a response to the difficult and dangerous employment conditions at the time.  It is limited to speaking about that.  I also think the attitude of the creed seems male-centric. The 2008 version is much more expansive, reaching beyond the 1908 Creed.  The 2008 version also contains statements of faith.
• What does each document say about the Methodist church in their respective times? How are the churches in those eras different?  The church of 1908 was only 50 years from the Civil War. Its context included a second or third generation of freed African Americans facing the challenges of racism, joblessness, and homelessness.  Immigration is a challenge as those from other countries arrive in the United States and are seeking employment. There are no safe labor laws or any attention paid to the environment. It is a male-centric society.  The church of 2008 was encountering not only employment  fairness issues, but also an awareness of the fragility of the environment, the awareness of a need of inclusiveness, and a global economy. The society has survived two world wars and other conflicts.  It was in a consumeristic economy, and was truly a global church.
• Does Methodism need a Social Creed?  Because of Wesley’s emphasis on not only personal but social holiness and the inseparable connection between the two, I think it does need a statement of a social creed.
• What role, if any in your estimation, does such a creed help a church "make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world?"  A creed that states our common beliefs regarding the world helps us, as United Methodists to understand our place in the world and to understand how we can play a role in social praxis.  It helps us to be better disciples, and to have a direction to work to change the world.  Also, as a statement to those outside of the church, it can help to shape an understanding of who we are – an invitation to others to discipleship.

The Wesleys in and after Georgia

 How did John and Charles' respective experiences in Georgia contribute to the May 1738 experience? Why was this conversion so significant for each of them? What did it change?

 

John and Charles had different experiences in Georgia.  Charles spent his time on St. Simon’s Island, serving as secretary to General Oglethrope and as the priest for the new town of Frederica. Oglethorpe and Charles had a rocky relationship, and Charles’s health did not seem equal to the rough conditions of the colony.  As he left, after only six months in the colony, he wrote in his journal, “I was surprised that I felt no more joy in leaving such a scene of sorrows.”   John’s mission to Georgia was less structured than Charles.  He stayed in Georgia for two years, leaving when he was facing charges related to a young colonist named Sophy Hopkeys.  Both brothers left the colony with convictions that their missions had failed or had mediocre success at best. Their experiences were humbling. 

 

Both brothers also came to the conclusions, after conversations with Moravaians on the ship and in the colony plus after their return to England (Peter Bohler), that their faith was only based on an agreement with theology and not on an experience of assurance.  They did not feel as if they believed that they were children of God’s grace, forgiven and loved.  This is what their conversations supplied them. 

 

Charles experienced a conversion on May 21, 1738 (Pentecost).  He wrote that the Spirit of God had chased away the darkness of his unbelief.  Three days later, John experienced a heart strangely warmed.  Richard Heitzenrater wrote, “Faith as trust and confidence was no longer just a propositional truth but rather an experiential reality.”

Communion Inclusion

Who should receive Communion?  Should there be exclusions, exceptions? What is your church's tradition on the matter? Your own opinion?

 

I very much appreciated the video’s explanation regarding “unworthiness:” this sacrament was created for the unworthy. For us to assume we need to be worthy in order to participate, I think, creates a situation where we are relying on our own righteousness, and not God’s grace. 

 

Beyond our own response to the invitation to communion, we also need to consider the questions of exclusions and exceptions. I think one of the most wonderful aspects of our practice of communion is that it is an “open table.” All are invited to participate. This is my church’s tradition – at each communion, the open table invitation is issued.  This is so ingrained in my understanding of the Eucharist that I react with resentment when the invitation is not open to all. I was visiting the Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament in Sacramento. I sat in the sanctuary and experienced the beauty and peace of the place, but my response was one of anger that I would not be included in the Blessed Sacrament in this place. I don’t want anyone to feel that way. 

 

Infant Baptism

Name some arguments for and against infant baptism.  Do you agree that "the baptism of children should be limited to those who are likely to be nurtured in the church?"  Why or why not?

Wesley, in his Treatise on Baptism, sets forth several arguments for infant baptism including the belief that infants are guilty of original sin (as we all are), and that infants are capable of making a covenant, as we see in the Hebrew Bible.  In addition, that baptism is a successor to circumcision as a sign of the covenant, and that infants were circumcised, so then they were to be baptized, and that infants are capable of coming to Christ and of admission to the church.  Acts provides historical evidence that infants were baptized by the early church.

 

Arguments against infant baptism include the idea that infants are incapable to making a mature response of faith to baptism. There is no opportunity to teach infants about Christ or for infants to repent of sins prior to baptism.

 

For me, the question of whether or not to baptize infants who are unlikely to be nurtured in the church is where the evangelical and sacramental tensions in our beliefs about baptism are at their highest. If baptism is a sacrament and the work of God (not of ourselves), then why would be deny children baptism? I also think there could be situations where it is difficult to assess if a child will be nurture in the faith in the church. However, I also see the need for nurture in order that the child will experience the grace of sanctification. It is in Christian Community where we learn to practice the means of grace that will help us to mature in our faith, and a child who does not have the nurturing experience of community could miss that.

Church and Politics

What is the best relationship between social/political activism and Christian faith?  List some positive and negative ways the church has sought to influence society.  What distinguishes the positive and negative efforts?

 

I have heard many times in West Virginia that the church should stay out of politics.  I’ve heard it from politicians and from members of the congregation. I think – and I may think this because I am United Methodist – that the church belongs in politics. It’s a dangerous balance, but we need to find a way to do it that brings glory to God (and not harm to people).

 

Who could really argue that the church should not have been involved in halting slavery or bringing safer working conditions to children or to coal miners in West Virginia? Shouldn’t the church work to end racism, gender discrimination, and exclusion? They were and are political stands, to be sure, but they were made at God’s calling. 

 

The truth is that we will not agree on what stand the church should take. The danger arises when we see each other as objects rather than people, and we fail to work together for mutual discernment. The other danger, I think, is when Christian nationalism comes into play, and the values of patriotism and self-centered nationalism become our guiding forces instead of God’s leading.

 

Holiness in Politics and Society

Discuss some practical ways Wesley and early Methodists sought holiness in society and politics. Are any of these surprising? How is this practiced in your church today?

I particularly liked the explanation from the video: if people are invisible to the world, and the person who brings them good news is content to leave them that way, then the good news isn’t very fruitful (my paraphrase). For Wesley, living a Christian life was inseparably intertwined with serving others.  That service extended from bringing the good news of grace, to bringing food, clothing, and other tangible support, to brining causes of injustice and suffering to those who could make changes.  Per the video, for Wesley, evangelism and activism were not separate ministries. How could you bring good news and food to someone who is a slave but do nothing to change their circumstances?

 

My local church, and most church, I think, work hard to provide food and clothing to people, and with more complicated outreach efforts, to help those who need assistance with rent and utilities.  I’m not sure we are very effective at trying to change the systems that cause the issues in the first place. 

 

I’m going to brag on the Foundation where I work for a minute (I can do that because the work I am discussing is other people’s work).  We are currently raising funds to grow and implement a Reparations Account and a Clean Water Account (for the southern part of our state, where clean water is an issue). We invest funds in in a socially responsible manner by both excluding companies that make money in ways that are not acceptable to the church and by fostering good investment practices and providing for good works through the investment funds.  I think changing the world is one of the ways a connectional church is beneficial because we sometimes need more than a local church.

Science and Faith

Has science affected how we approach the topic of God? How so, or if not, why not?

 

I think for some, science is seen as a threat to faith. For example, if science hypothesizes that the world was not created in seven days, and I believe that the world was literally created in a week, then science is a threat to faith. If this is true, then I can’t admit that any science might contain truth.

 

As a person who was trained as a scientist, I see science as a descriptor of the work of God. I don’t need to protect my faith from science – I can see the work of God in the theories of science.  My faith tells me of God, and of God’s character.  Science is more of a technical study.  For instance, when comparing the stories in Genesis and the theory of evolution, I can hear the truth in the Bible that God created the world and God declared it to be good. In science, I might see some of the how, but the Genesis truth gives it meaning.

 

Frederick Buechner's said that comparing words of science and faith is like comparing the work of a podiatrist to that of a poet. A podiatrist would describe fallen arches, and the poet would describe how a woman walks in beauty. Both are true - but which you choose depends on the truth you are looking for.

Course: Methodist Identity: Beliefs

 

Essential to Faith and Disagreements

Below are two questions from Week 1 of the Methodist Identity: Beliefs course.

What beliefs do you see as essential to Christian faith, and why? By what measure is a belief made "essential"?’ 

I believe God is the creator of everything that is.  God’s character is love – a love we cannot understand and can only begin to experience.  God is not a God who creates and abandons.  God is involved in God’s creation, every day, all the time.  That involvement does not remove the will of God’s creation, for if it did, we could not love.  In God’s love, God sent Jesus, his son, and himself, to us to show us who God is – the infinite nature of God’s love. Through the son we learn that forgiveness, mercy, and grace are real and are for all of us. Through the son we learn how to live, here on earth, and there, in heaven. God remains with us as the Holy Spirit, and through the spirit, as an example of God’s continuing grace, we can communicate with God, and are made whole. God’s body on earth is the church – the union of God’s creation, sharing God’s gifts to demonstrate God’s love to all. 

 

A belief is essential to Christian faith when its removal would change the revelation of the essential nature of God. I think I “judge” this most often as the big picture of the bible. It’s often only seen in small pieces in individual verses – a single verse doesn’t provide a complete picture. When I consider what makes a belief essential, it is those beliefs that define that “big picture” of God.

How much doctrinal disagreement is permissible, or should even be encouraged? Explain.

 

John Wesley preached, “But as to all opinions which do not strike at the root of Christianity, we think and let think.”  This does not mean that we don’t have common beliefs or a shared doctrine, but our doctrine is limited to essential beliefs. I think doctrinal disagreement is unavoidable. Our Methodist doctrine arose from the beliefs of the church, but that doesn’t mean we all have identical beliefs, the same interpretation of doctrine, or complete agreement on those things outside of doctrine. Doctrine arises from challenges, so disagreement can help us in the refinement of our beliefs – healthy discussions can be a means of sanctifying grace, bringing us closer to God. God, and God’s gift of faith to us is strong enough to not only withstand disagreement but also to be strengthened by it. We are meant to be thinking Christians.

 

All of that said, there are those doctrine that are the root of Christianity. We can certainly disagree about them, and discuss them, but as a church we have decided they are essential.

 

Course Review: Methodist Identity-Beliefs

 Information about the Course

This is a course offered by BeADisiciple.com called Methodist Identity: Beliefs. This is a course offered as part of the Wesley Academy for Advanced Christian Studies, created in partnership with Wesley Theological Seminary and BeADisciple.  The course instructor is Rev. Scott Gallagher. The course is eight weeks long. Each week a video of different experts in the field of Methodist Doctrine, including non-United Methodists (but from related Methodist denominations) as well as United Methodists.  Each week students are asked to do some additional readings (including some of Wesley sermons), post answers to 3 or 4 questions on a Discussion board, and participation in online discussion. 

The course can be part of a certification called Certificate in Advanced Christian Study.  The certificate involves completion of six courses such as this one.  The course can also be taken as a stand alone option.

Summary

From the website: This is an adult education course hosted by Gregory Ingram featuring contributions by 9 of the world’s leading Methodist scholars. It builds on the history of Methodism by examining Methodist beliefs and focusing especially on those doctrines that make Methodists distinctive.

Eight half-hour long presentations by leading Methodist theologians offer valuable information and insight concerning core Wesleyan ideas. The course will benefit both lifelong Methodists and those coming to Methodism from other traditions.

Lessons include:

1. The Nature of Methodist Doctrine – Sharon Grant & Ted Campbell
2. Divine Trinity and Christology – Scott J. Jones
3. Prevenient Grace and Repentance – Elaine A. Robinson
4. Justifying Faith and Assurance – Walter Klaiber
5. Sanctification – Sondra Wheeler
6. Baptism and Christian Initiation – Henry Knight
7. Eucharist – Lawrence Hull Stookey
8. Eschatology – Randy L. Maddox

Impressions

This course is one of two required courses for a Wesleyan Emphasis for the Advanced Studies certificate. 

I did enjoy the course and am grateful for the opportunity to work my way through it.  It expanded my knowledge of what we belief together as United Methodists and provided the opportunity for me to read our two doctrinal statements and discuss them with others, along with other questions that arise from consideration of the doctrines.

I believe this course will be beneficial both to my work at the Foundation and as I teach the Conference CLM Course.

The only drawback I found is that our course enrollment was  low and a couple of people dropped out of the course as we moved through the weeks.  We ended up with four students:  this complicates my goal of responding to at least two other people's posts since one of the four was me.  It worked out though.  The leader's participation adds to the course.

While I worked through the course, I read the book Methodist Doctrine: The Essentials by Ted A Campbell and read at least three of John Wesley's sermons each week.  I would recommend doing this if you have the time. It adds more dimensions to the course - although the course would stand alone without it.

Throughout the next weeks, I will share a few posts based on my responses to some of the questions.

Great course - I recommend it.

Posts about the Class

Posts about the class will have the tag Methodist Identity: Beliefs

Catholic Spirit

I'm really enjoying the Wesley Theological seminary offerings through Be A Disciple.  The course I just finished is Methodist  Identity: Beliefs. 

As I worked through the course - I read some of  Wesley's sermons.  The day I wrote this post, I read Catholic Spirit. The man is articulate and inspired.  If you are interested in reading it yourself, it's online.   In this sermon, he is discussing what he considers to be essential beliefs of a Christian (I'm not listing those, but they are worth reading), and how, beyond those beliefs, we are to think and let think. It's a beautiful sermon on how to treat someone who disagrees with you. It's something I think we should all read.

From the sermon:

"If it be, give me thy hand." I do not mean, "Be of my opinion." You need not: I do not expect or desire it. Neither do I mean, "I will be of your opinion." I cannot, it does not depend on my choice: I can no more think, than I can see or hear, as I will. Keep you your opinion; I mine; and that as steadily as ever. You need not even endeavour to come over to me, or bring me over to you. I do not desire you to dispute those points, or to hear or speak one word concerning them. Let all opinions alone on one side and the other: only "give me thine hand."

What does it mean to "take my hand?" Wesley says it means to love me with a love that is kind.  Pray for me. Move me to good works. Love me not only in deed but also in action.  Do we do that? Do we take the hand of someone who disagrees with us? Will we not only ask for their love and prayers but also give them? Will we love a person we disagree with through our actions?

Doesn't this sound like something we need to read? To take to heart?

But while he is steadily fixed in his religious principles in what he believes to be the truth as it is in Jesus; while he firmly adheres to that worship of God which he judges to be most acceptable in his sight; and while he is united by the tenderest and closest ties to one particular congregation, --his heart is enlarged toward all mankind, those he knows and those he does not; he embraces with strong and cordial affection neighbours and strangers, friends and enemies. This is catholic or universal love. And he that has this is of a catholic spirit. For love alone gives the title to this character: catholic love is a catholic spirit.