John Meunier

Every now and then someone suggests a good pastoral or small group question to ask is “How is it with your soul?”

I don’t know where the question started, so I might be stepping in it here, but that strikes me as not a terribly Wesleyan question. It is much too vague. It leaves much too much room for speculation.

Wesley asked questions such as: What known sins have you committed since we met last week? Have you assurance that Jesus Christ died for you? How many sinners are reformed because of your preaching?

Wesley was not one to ask a fuzzy question, so far as I can tell.

Someone once asked how it was possible to review the Methodist classes and determine someone should be kicked out. Wesley’s journal notes suggest he was stunned by the question. What do you mean? Is that hard? You ask the person. You talk to people who know him. If any of them are honest you can easily figure out who is not keeping the rules of the society.

Wesley did not find the human soul nearly so mysterious as we often do.

I’m not saying we should not use the question. I’m just saying I don’t think John Wesley would use it.

Noah Webster’s American revision of the King James Bible: An American King

John Wesley had to raise money for the building campaign, too.

Monday, 19, and the other afternoons this week, I took up my cross, and went in person to the principal persons in our society, in every part of the town. By this means, within six days, near six hundred pounds were subscribed toward the public debt; and what was done, was done with the utmost cheerfulness. I remember but one exception: Only one gentleman squeezed out ten shillings, as so many drops of blood.

From his journal of November 1764.

The Christian Century has a commentary by United Methodist pastor John Nash extolling the liberating benefits of going off the lectionary.

He starts by recounting a common argument on behalf of the lectionary.

Now I know that one of the arguments for why the lectionary should be used is that it forces us to have to cover texts we otherwise would not preach on. But, since there are always at least four selections, most of the time I could avoid some troublesome texts, and have found that most preachers do as well.

I’ve never liked the “forces you to preach hard texts” argument on behalf of the lectionary. Indeed, the lectionary is pretty good at skipping lots of the really hard texts and verses. Look at the places where the lectionary skips a verse or several. Often it is because the Bible is going places that a preacher might find tough to talk about.

So, I don’t particularly find that argument compelling. It certainly is not why I preach the lectionary.

Nash then touches on a big part of the reason I do preach the lectionary, although not intentionally.

In my newest church, I was told that past ministers have used the lectionary but the preference would be not to be glued to it, and so for the first time in my ministry I have gone “off lectionary.” I have to say it is completely refreshing and reinvigorating for me, and the congregation seems to be liking it as well. I am now into my second sermon series and it’s done a lot to allow me to sort of set down my own theology and thinking at the beginning of my ministry here.

Going off the lectionary has allowed him to set down his “own theology and thinking” at the start of his ministry.

On this point, I am still persuaded by people such as Will Willimon and Walter Brueggemann. The preaching act is not an opportunity for me to expound my theology and thinking. The preaching act is an opportunity for me and the congregation together to turn to the Word in search of God’s voice speaking to us all.

By submitting to the discipline of the lectionary, I am saying that the Word comes first. It speaks before any questions I may have or any agenda I may want to bring to it. What it has to say sets the agenda for what we will do and talk about in church this Sunday.

I don’t think the Revised Common Lectionary is the only way to submit to this discipline. Preaching through books of the Bible has the same discipline about it. There are likely other ways. I like the lectionary because the symbolic unity of the church that is involved in having churches across town and around the world reading the same texts on Sunday morning.

I certainly don’t fault preachers who ditch the lectionary. Two thousand United Methodists are gathered at Adam Hamilton‘s church this week to learn how to be better leaders. Hamilton is a big proponent of non-lectionary preaching and argues that such preaching is crucial to his ministry.

Hamilton argues that the Holy Spirit guides him in the choice of sermon topics. I suppose, in the end, I find the Holy Spirit confirming my submission to the lectionary. In either case, I hope neither of us is trying to expound our own theology, but God’s Word.

In November 1764, John Wesley preached for a few days in Norwich to larger and larger gatherings. The response led to this note in his journal:

If I could stay here a month, I think there would be a society little inferior to that at Bristol. But it must not be; they who will bear sound doctrine only from me, must still believe a lie.

I take his point to be against the celebrity preacher and in favor of moving preachers precisely because the attachment to a single pastor — in this case John Wesley himself — is dangerous to the souls of men and women.

It is all the more interesting to me because Wesley clearly sees the potential to grow the society if he would just stay there for a while. But he sees that a society that is built on the foundation of the preacher is built on sand.

The point is underscored by his journal entry of a few days prior where he expresses exasperation at how “changeable” the society has been over the years. He recounts the rising and falling membership like this.

1755 – 83

1757 – 134

1758 – 110

1759 – 760

The increase in 1759 Wesley credits to the society taking on “the Tabernacle,” which drew in many followers of Calvinist Methodist James Wheatley, who Wesley described as “deeply ignorant; all bullocks unaccustomed to the yoke.” (This web page has a brief background on Methodism in Norwich and the Tabernacle. You have to scroll down to get to the entry on James Wheatley.)

1760 – 507

1761 – 412

1762 – 630

1763 – 310

The big fall off Wesley attributed to putting an end to the serving of the sacrament at the Tabernacle.

1764 – 174

Here we see Wesley’s careful counting of the people. He obviously cared about numbers. But he appeared to place more importance on what he deemed proper order (withdrawing the sacrament) and good practice (itinerancy) than with propping up numbers.

Morgan Guyton is wrestling over God’s will: Agonizing Over the Will of God.

He’s asking for prayers, but since he’s agonizing in public, you might want to go to his blog and offer some support.

In ¶310 of the United Methodist Book of Discipline you find questions from John Wesley. They are to be used to consider candidates for ordained or licensed ministry.

1. Do they know God as a pardoning God? Have they the love of God abiding in them? Do they desire nothing but God? Are they holy in all manner of conversation?
2. Have they gifts, as well as evidence of God’s grace, for the work? Have they a clear, sound understanding; a right judgment in the things of God; a just conception of salvation by faith? Do they speak justly, readily, clearly?
3. Have they fruit? Have any been truly convinced of sin and converted to God, and are believers edified by their service?

These are the questions that guided Wesley in his oversight of the Methodist preachers.

I do not know if the men and women who considered my candidacy for ministry asked these questions. At some stages of the process, it does not seem possible that they could have. For one, some of the people could not have known me well enough or my works to render a sound judgment.

In all our talk of speeding up and shortening the ordination process, I wonder if what we need more is to go slower, but go deeper. The three questions above, it seems to me, are more than sufficient for us to use in considering who should and who should not be ordained. But we should invest the time and build the relationships that would allow the already ordained to know the called well enough to answer all three of Wesley’s questions.

That, it seems to me, would be a better revision of the ordination system than any that I have heard.

The Call to Action report says multiple styles of worship are a key to vitality. Here is Ed Stetzer‘s take on it: Should Churches Have Multiple Styles of Worship: Consumerism or Contextualization?