At the Christmas Conference of 1784 that established the Methodist Episcopal Church in the newly independent American states, Thomas Coke delivered a sermon at the ordination of Francis Asbury that appeared to be aimed in part at setting out a clear break with the Anglican foundations of the Methodist movement.
According to John Wigger’s biography of Asbury, Coke was pretty direct in pointing out the flaws in the colonial Anglican church. He said it had been “filled with the parasites and bottle companions of the rich and the great. … the drunkard, the fornicator, and the extortioner, triumphed over bleeding Zion, because they were faithful abettors of the ruling powers.”
Coke decried the Anglican clergy’s teaching that sinners could not know for certain that their sins were forgiven by the witness of the Spirit. And he saw in that the source of moral failures. “We cannot be ignorant that they justify as innocent many of the criminal pleasures of the world – card playing, dancing, theatrical amusements, &c. – pleasures utterly inconsistent with union and communion with God.” (Quotations are taken from Wigger’s book, p. 144.)
Here again I come across the division in the colonial and post-colonial Methodist movement over the effort to distinguish from the Anglican and elite church by appeal to moral discipline and experiential religion. The same tensions were evident in the clash between Pilmore and Asbury I commented upon in a previous post.
What I notice is that in practice – if not in rhetoric – the United Methodist Chuch seems to reflect the colonial Anglicans a great deal more than the Methodists. We have lost any inclination for holiness if it entails abstaining from what are generally considered innocent pursuits. We have a bias in favor of educated clergy over passionate lay preachers. We nearly chase after the wealthy, respectable, and influential segments of the population. We mix comfortably with governors and bankers.
Have we become the very thing Wesley and Asbury and all those early Methodists set out to renew?
I am a part-time local pastor serving 
The doctrine of original sin is surely more humbling to man than the opposite: And I know not what honour we can pay to God, if we think man came out of His hands in the condition wherein he is now.
Yes, so now what?
Well, the first question I have – if you are correct, Matt – is should we mourn that our celebrate it?
It depends on whether or not you believe in resurrection.
My recent blog post has a lot of your recent writings in mind. I have very little confidence in the bureaucratic future of our denomination, but I have the utmost confidence in the future of the Gospel within all denominations. I’m utterly convinced we need to invest our lives heavily in the latter in whatever place we’ve been called to serve.
Great post, Matt. I agree with your point 100%.
IIRC, that was why the Salvation Army split off in 1865.
John,
You’ve hit the nail on the head this time. For more on this topic, I highly recommend Scott Kisker’s book “Mainline or Methodist?” (http://tinyurl.com/y8mgdkc).
John,
I’ve said that we need to get back to the partner that brought us to the dance. Methodism was a radical departure from the organized church. We can’t forget that John and Charles were thrown out of churches in England for their testimony of grace and witness of piety.
A bishop said it well when a group of pastors were called for a pastor’s conference some time back. With post-9/11 jitters in the air, this bishop stood up in front of the group of pastors and said, “They’ve told us not to meet in large groups, and here I call you United Methodist preachers here together.” To which she received some nervous laughter. Her next reply generated none, “But really…no one sees us as a great threat, do they.”
I look for a day when the United Methodist Church as it stands is no longer. As an elder, that scares me. As a Christian, I can’t wait for the liberation.
The Methodists stopped being Methodists so long ago that the Methodists are no longer even in living memory. Our tradition(s) can be a source of renewal – at least, in theory – but people define “Methodist” by their own experience of it. So, re-asserting Methodism in our day will be most strongly opposed by the people who understand themselves to be “Methodist”! And, some of these people have the power to stamp out or discourage true Methodism should it arise (here & there) again. Experienced religion, disciplined spiritual lives, and a radical optimism of grace (to the point of affirming Perfect Love) are all the distinguishing marks of Methodism. If the UMC must die so that such an experience of faith can be found again, then so be it.
Thank you for that turn of phrase “radical optimism of grace” as a way to talk about perfectionism.
Oh, and one more thing: if you affirm a radical optimism of grace you also tend to believe that the world can (and should!) be made a better place. (You are not just content to “hold on” in an evil world until the Rapture!)
I saw a video which, for me, inspired the thought that we need to cease being content to be safely good, and begin to strive to be dangerously holy. My gut tell me the UMC is no longer interested in being safely good. Rather, we seem to be just going with the flow.