… and the United Methodist News Service does not take notice of his mistakes. [NOTE: The UMNS has updated the page with the story and removed most of the quote that I copied from the original version of the story.]
The UMNS has a story about a youth gathering in Las Vegas. At the gathering author Tony Jones gave the keynote, where he critiqued “big institutions” and pointed to John Wesley as an example of a leader who broke the rules.
Here is what he is quoted as saying:
“Wesley rode around on a horse, ordaining people as he went. He didn’t insist they attend seminary,” Jones said. “He was kicked out of Anglicanism because he broke the rules, yet I think he’d struggle with the modern institutionalism of his own movement.”
Okay, well, Wesley did ride a horse, but the rest is not true. He did not ordain people willy-nilly “as he went.” He did retain in British Methodism a strict line between the ordained and the lay preachers. Even when he set up superintendents in the former colonies, he did not toss out expectations for clergy education and training. And he was never kicked out of the Church of England.
I suppose it is not so bad that Jones gets Wesley wrong, but I do worry that he was teaching United Methodist youth the history of their own movement. And it is a concern that the story appearing right now on the UMC homepage makes no effort to correct the obvious errors Jones made.
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.
doh! good catch, John.
He did retain in British Methodism a strict line between the ordained and the lay preachers. Even when he set up superintendents in the former colonies, he did not toss out expectations for clergy education and training.
I agree with what you say above. It’s still a big meme in British Methodism that Wesley didn’t care about training and education. Confused, I think, by the history of the British Methodist Church which didn’t step outside of Anglicanism until after both Wesleys’ deaths (Charles was even more vehement about the matter than John and derided John for ordaining Asbury and Coke for the Americas.) We (in the UK) did subsequently ordain for the ministry of Word and Sacrament former Local Preachers who didn’t have a lot of academic training. Whether that is “a good thing” or “a bad thing”, I don’t think it’s correct to say that Wesley didn’t care about theological education.
And he was never kicked out of the Church of England.
Although he did break a lot of rules and was banned from more than one pulpit. The connundrum for me is that he was a stickler for “good order” in Methodism but broke that rule himself within the Anglican Church time and time again. I admire his pragmatism (“OK, no one is prepared to ordain priests for the Americas, so I’ll do it myself because the people need spiritual leaders”) but there are many instances when he seems to have been darn sure that he was right and everyone else – including his superiors – was wrong.
Yes, John Wesley did not suffer from self-doubt or a need to please others. It is a good reminder to people like me not to place him on too high a perch. He was human.
John, thanks for addressing this. Unfortunately, this is a consistent pattern for Tony Jones. His disdain for institutions and tradition too often gets in the way of his understanding of history. He likes to make history conform to his biases. I have posted a comment in response to the article. It would be great if others, like yourself, would also post comments.
My hope is that some of the event leaders corrected Mr. Jones before he left the building. Unfortunately, my experience with Tony is that he won’t listen.
I really wish our UMnews would cover things from OUR perspective. When I read articles they often seem more “objective” than much of what I read in the traditional media.
John, I actually think the story would be more objective if it did not simply let Jones’ mistatements stand as if they were true. Of course, if you do that, you probably should not quote him at all. It would seem a bit unfair to quote him saying something false and then point out that he said something false when the point of the story was something else entirely.
I’m all in favor of objective reporting, but a good reporter (something I know a little bit about) does not print things they know are false without taking note of that. Of course, maybe the writer and editor in this case are not aware of the facts. That raises another worry.
John, I did not say that Wesley was kicked out of Anglicanism. I know that he wasn’t.
He did not abide by the rules, and the system ejected him. I’ve spoken to many Anglicans who tell me that the biggest mistake in their history was letting Wesley go. They wish that the Wesleyan movement had stayed a renewal movement within Anglicanism.
Neither did I say that he ordained people “willy-nilly.” Now it’s you who is misreporting history. I said that he found leaders with charisms in the towns that he visited and ordained them to lead the church in those towns. And I said that I am quite sure that the UMC would not allow a rogue bishop or DS to engage in that behavior today.
As to whether Wesley ordained people against the rules of the time, I will defer to PamBG’s comment above.
Tony, thank you for taking the time to comment.
He did not “ordain” people in England. Maybe you are using the word in a different manner than I am, but he did not ordain people. He kept a sharp distinction between lay preachers and ordained clergy. He disciplined Methodists who tried to administer the sacraments.
Near the end of his ministry when the American Revolution left Methodists in the former colonies without clergy to administer the sacraments, he did send the colonies superintendents ordained to that work. And that certainly was a breach of church rules, but that was not part of his riding his horse around and setting up lay societies all over England.
I have no argument with the point that Wesley was criticized for breaching church order. But he was a great respecter of the institution of the church. He would struggle with our current lethargy, lack of zeal, and poor discipline, but he was a strong proponent of organization, order, and institutions.
And he never left Anglicanism. They did not let him go. He did not leave. He was not kicked out. He died an Anglican priest. I take it from your comment you are saying the story misquotes you. The Anglicans may have wished they followed his lead. After his death, the Methodists broke away from the Church of England, but he wrote strongly against such a move during his entire ministry.
I retract “willy-nilly.” It was a clumsy paraphrase of “ordaining people as he went.” But again, he was not ordaining people. He was setting up lay societies and lay leadership over those societies. They were not set up as “churches” and Wesley told the people called Methodist to go to Sunday worship at the parish church and present themselves for the sacraments as often as they were offered.
This is the part of the history that I am taking issue with. If the article misquoted your talk, you should send them an e-mail.
I’ve spoken to many Anglicans who tell me that the biggest mistake in their history was letting Wesley go.
I have never heard, within British Methodism, the remark that the Anglican Church “let Wesley go”. I have heard this a number of times in the United States. I’ll defer to any Methodist historian who happens by, but I was always taught that both Wesleys stayed within the Church until they died. I am certain that both John and Charles urged British Methodists to stay within the C of E. I’d be interested to know what people think are the facts of his “ejection”.
As to ordaining ministers irregularly for America – as a priest, rather than a bishop – John Wesley was not entitled to ordain anyone, so that was certainly irregular.
My understanding is that he tried to get the Bishop of London to ordain additional priests for America and that the Bishop refused. It was only after this that John made a conscious decision to found a new church in the Americas whilst remaining part of the Church of England. The “two track” approach that he took is certainly confusing, particularly if viewed only from the American perspective – as we Yanks are prone to do with world history. Wesley was ever the pragmatist.
As to ministers without theological education, I have seen way too many people who have been hurt by receiving and believing bad theology from uneducated preachers. I am the first person to be cynical about ministerial privilege, but I believe that a good theological education is valuable and necessary – although not sufficient – for a healthy church.
The version of the story that now appears on the UMNS page has edited out most of Tony Jones’ quote. What appears in my post above is no longer in the story.
In Las Vegas, I spoke exclusively of Wesley’s work in North America.
Here is a good account of the ordinations of Wesley.
http://www.inumc.org/pages/detail/269
My primary concern in the initial post was that United Methodist news was spreading incorrect information about John Wesley. Unless the quote from you in the original version of the story was wrong, your understanding of Wesley is incorrect in some basic ways. And your comment further up appears to contradict the idea that your comments in Las Vegas were only about North America – where Wesley did not ride around ordaining people at any rate.
But, I do not imagine you are looking to me for guidance on historical facts.
My concern was over misinformation to Methodists. The story has been edited to remove those errors, so my concerns are satisfied.