A liberal, Yoderian, biblical, Wesleyan chorus

A pair of stories I linked to a few days ago has been rumbling around in my head. The British writer of the stories was diagnosing the problems of liberal Christianity and providing his prescription for a cure for what ails it.

The articles keep bouncing around in my head because of all the other voices they set to chattering as I was reading them.

The writer argues for a form of Christianity that affirms the liberal nation-state: particularly the separation of church and state and the notion that government exists to preserve and extend human liberty. But he argues that the form of Christianity that affirmed this political philosophy took a wrong turn when it tried to divest itself of “cultic” practices.

The second pillar of the new liberal Christianity is a bit more surprising. For in the past, liberal Christianity has downplayed the ritual side of religion, often seeing it as a road leading to Rome. I prefer the term “cultic” to “ritual”. Of course, I’m not advocating creepy cults that brainwash people. The word “cult” just means worship; I like it because it has a strong and rather exotic aura (whereas “worship” suggests the blandness of Songs of Praise, and “ritual” is redolent of Catholic and Anglo-Catholic tradition). The word has, in fact, a primitive aura, which is appropriate, for Christianity must step away from claiming to be the religion of rational civilisation and accept its affinity with primitive religious practice (this was Wittgenstein’s great contribution to theology).

His great hope is for liberal Christianity to recapture its cultural relevance and influence. He does not really discuss how this form of liberal Christianity would escape the Arianism or Deism that characterizes so much contemporary liberal Christianity. Somehow, it seems, cultic practices would take care of that.

I do not know if other proponents of liberal Christianity would affirm this writer’s thesis, but I did find it an interesting argument. It is one that set off other voices in my head.

As I read his piece, I could hear Stanley Hauerwas jeering in the background. A self-described high-church Mennonite, Hauerwas likes to tell Christians that if they celebrate Mother’s Day or have an American flag in the church they are practicing a form of Baalism. They thing this writer affirms as foundational, Hauerwas names a disease.

As I read, I was also thinking of those problematic passages in the New Testament where Paul and Peter urge the fledgling church to give honor to the emperor. Often these parts of the New Testament are dismissed as overtures by a persecuted church to keep the storm-troopers at bay. But I do wonder if giving honor to the emperor and affirming the liberal nation state might be more or less the same kind of move. Is the church called the way Jeremiah called Israel to settle down and work for the good of Babylon during its days of exile?

And here the third voice emerges. American Methodists have always been put in an awkward position by John Wesley’s Toryism. He wrote in strong language against the American Revolution and was a firm defender of the king and the close bond between the Church of England and the state. (Jason Vickers has written a poorly titled but interesting book on Wesley as an establishment Anglican.)

If liberal Christianity is at all what the writer in the British newspaper argues it is, it is no wonder that John Wesley fits so awkwardly into contemporary United Methodism. We are a denomination created to be a stalwart of liberal Christianity — just when all forms of Christianity were losing their cultural ascendancy. Wesley can’t be shoved into the liberal Christian box without making a bloody mess of him. This does not stop some people from doing it, of course. That they then parade around the bloody corpse of Wesley as a banner for liberal Christianity is either tragedy or farce.

These are the voices I carry around most of the time.

I came to the church through liberal Christianity. I was introduced to post-liberalism by Will Williion and Stanley Hauerwas. I discovered the Bible only well into this process, and I met John Wesley when I discerned a call to ministry. This chorus of voices still spend a lot of time in my head. There are others, but these are the loudest.

And here endeth the tour for today. Please stop by the gift shop on your way out to pick up a T-shirt or postcard.

Bono and Fanny Crosby

Patheos has an excerpt of a book featuring some of U2 lead-singer Bono’s reflections on Jesus and Christianity. I found this passage interesting.

Bono: I really believe we’ve moved out of the realm of Karma into one of Grace.

Michka: Well, that doesn’t make it clearer for me.

Bono: You see, at the center of all religions is the idea of Karma. You know, what you put out comes back to you: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, or in physics; in physical laws every action is met by an equal or an opposite one. It’s clear to me that Karma is at the very heart of the universe. I’m absolutely sure of it. And yet, along comes this idea called Grace to upend all that “as you reap, so you will sow” stuff. Grace defies reason and logic. Love interrupts, if you like, the consequences of your actions, which in my case is very good news indeed, because I’ve done a lot of stupid stuff.

Michka: I’d be interested to hear that.

Bono: That’s between me and God. But I’d be in big trouble if Karma was going to finally be my judge. I’d be in deep s—. It doesn’t excuse my mistakes, but I’m holding out for Grace. I’m holding out that Jesus took my sins onto the Cross, because I know who I am, and I hope I don’t have to depend on my own religiosity.

I find this interesting because I’m a United Methodist who reads John Wesley and sings “Blessed Assurance” on a fairly regular basis. In those last few lines above, Bono appears to be hoping for assurance that what he believes about Jesus is in fact true. The old Methodist response would have been to seek, and ye shall find. Assurance will be given to any who ask for it and seek it with persistence.

I don’t think we really teach that any more. I am much more likely to hear a variation on Bono’s hope than Wesley’s assurance. I wonder if Bono has ever heard of Fanny Crosby.

Wisconsin talks about covenant

Here is the account of the handling of the clergy covenant proposed by a group within the Wisconsin annual conference.

“Rev. Steve Scott presented the Clergy Covenant report at Sunday morning’s Plenary session. The team was formed at the 2012 Annnual Conference session to address procedures for clergy in order to help resolve issues that harm the clergy covenant within the Wisconsin United Methodist Church. “This is all very personal,” Scott said. “We are the church together. What we have discovered is that we can either continue to debate over differences in theology or we can focus, as this team is charged to do, on living together in better ways.” Bishop Jung affirmed the document as “a tool to be used for future conversation, not as a document up for debate or approval.”

The report was presented to the clergy session according to this report. The presentation to the clergy session dropped a controversial recommendation regarding sexuality. The Q&A on the clergy covenant web site gives some indication of the discussion around that provision. Before the conference, the web site had said the covenant would be voted on by the clergy session. I cannot find sign of that now.

The Wisconsin conference website has a link to a video of the plenary session at which the covenant was discussed. The covenant discussion begins at about 1 hour and 8 minutes into the session. Here is a report of the clergy session presentation. Here is a report of the plenary session presentation. These appear to be advanced texts and not transcripts of the actual presentations.

In my brief watching of the video from the plenary session, I believe I heard the presenter says that the recommendation about sexuality (recommendation 6 in the report linked in the first paragraph of this post) was not presented to the conference because doing so was the only way to ensure that everyone in the clergy covenant group returned to the group again when they started to meet again. I may be misinterpreting it, but it sounds like some conversation went on between the time the group published its report and the time the presentations were made at annual conference session.

Wesley’s favorite fruitful practice

In 1787, John Wesley recorded in his journals the outcome of a worship schedule change.

The Methodists changed the time of their prayer and preaching service to be the same time as regular church. This was undoubtedly not something that Wesley was enthusiastic about, but I suspect was urged strongly by Methodists who were not as attached to the Church of England as he was.

In his estimation, according to a note on Nov. 5, 1787, that experiment failed.

The congregation was, as usual, large and serious. But there is no increase in the society. So that we have profited nothing by having our service in the church-hours, which some imagined would have done wonders.

We can see here Wesley’s practical side, but it is more striking to me how he measures the success or failure of the move: Did it enhance the size and work of the Methodist society?

In other words, if I interpret him properly, what mattered was not bodies in pews on Sunday but disciples in formation as part of the society. In our language, what he really wanted was not more worship attendance, but larger numbers of people engaging in “intentional faith development.”

Covenant cheese-head style?

Wisconsin’s clergy covenant team — a group that was commissioned by the annual conference after the Amy DeLong trial — released its recommendations for consideration at the upcoming Wisconsin Annual Conference. The group’s web site says the recommendations will go to the clergy session.

Jeremy Smith has written favorably about it here.

The purpose of the group was to make proposals to help repair the covenant among clergy in Wisconsin. One section that seems to capture the heart of the document’s goals is quoted here:

The Wisconsin Annual Conference will no longer participate in the Book of Discipline’s categorical discrimination of lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender people. Sexual orientation and partnered status create no barrier to effective and faithful leadership.

The Wisconsin Annual Conference of The United Methodist Church professes that any person whose gifts and call are otherwise affirmed will be welcomed into candidacy, ordination and appointment.

GLBT persons already ordained will now be free to live un-closeted and truthful lives, without threats of retributive action.

Additionally, United Methodist clergy in the Wisconsin Annual Conference will be free from complaint, punishment, prosecution or trial if he/she conducts same-gender Holy Union ceremonies.

Is Jorge Acevedo Richard Gere?

Jeremy Smith is starting a series of blog posts about what he sees as a dystopian future of the United Methodist Church if the practices of the biggest and most influential congregations take hold.

Never one to shy away from an in-your-face headline, Smith calls his first category vulture churches.

Read the first post here.

To get the Richard Gere reference in the headline, you need to read the post.

I’ll be interested to see how Smith engages with the pros and cons of the church growth models he describes.

Church leaves UMC over pastor move

This story reports on a United Methodist Church in Alabama that ceased to be United Methodist when its pastor was told he would be moved.

We have a lot of churches where the bishop would not dare try to move the senior pastor. I wonder if we are beginning to see a new trend of churches — especially newer ones — withdrawing from United Methodism rather than allow a pastor to leave.

Here is a follow up story that confirms the actions planned in the first story.

Do we choose happiness?

Dan Dick writes about the way our happiness is our decision.

Among those who self-report contentment, happiness and satisfaction — as well as those identified as happy or content by others — an overwhelming percentage (between 80-90%) report making a conscious decision to be happy, positive, and joyful.  The source of contentment for the truly content is internal, not external — they do not expect the world to bend over backwards to make them happy; true happiness comes from within.

Dick argues in his post that our happiness is a choice. It is up to us. It is something we decide.

Perhaps it is because I’ve been reading John Wesley’s sermons on the Sermon on the Mount, but I found myself wondering how these claims impacted our reading of the beattitudes:

“Happy are people who are hopeless, because the kingdom of heaven is theirs.

“Happy are people who grieve, because they will be made glad.

“Happy are people who are humble, because they will inherit the earth.

“Happy are people who are hungry and thirsty for righteousness, because they will be fed until they are full.

“Happy are people who show mercy, because they will receive mercy.

“Happy are people who have pure hearts, because they will see God.

“Happy are people who make peace, because they will be called God’s children.

“Happy are people whose lives are harassed because they are righteous, because the kingdom of heaven is theirs.

“Happy are you when people insult you and harass you and speak all kinds of bad and false things about you, all because of me. Be full of joy and be glad, because you have a great reward in heaven. In the same way, people harassed the prophets who came before you. (MT 5: 3-12, CEB)

Dick seems to me to be arguing that the order of Jesus’ words are inverted. He argues that if I choose to be happy, if I make a decision to be happy, then I will have peace and joy. I’m not sure Dick would extend this to saying that choosing to be happy makes me humble and merciful, and hungry for righteousness.

But there do seem to be some important theological issues at stake here. Is happiness a choice I make that bears fruit in holy dispositions? Or does cultivating the holy dispositions — mercy, purity of heart, peace, humility, etc. — make me happy? (These questions also are in some tension with my post yesterday about dependence on God.)

I suspect part of the distinction that needs to be made here is the definition of happiness. Dick is using self-reports. Are you happy? Wesley interprets happiness as holiness. He argues that there is no real happiness that is distinct from holiness. I suspect a lot of people in America who self-report as happy would not necessarily embrace a Christian definition of holiness of heart and life as the meaning of happiness. So, these two voices might be talking past each other.

What do you think?

Do first impressions matter?

My Indiana colleague Adam Roe wrote an interesting post a few days ago about the way reading Augustine helps us understand John Wesley. (I find reading the church fathers always helps me understand Wesley.)

Roe is concerned in his post that starting our exposure to Wesley with his first standard sermon “Salvation by Faith” sets the wrong tone for understanding Wesley’s theology. It obscures the degree to which Wesley’s theology starts and as built upon a foundation of joy in God.

The key to tying all this together is “glory and joy.” Wesley and Augustine share a sense that the heart is involved in a loving, glorious, joy-filled relationship both individually and within the context of the City of God, the church. This, for me, fundamentally changes Wesley. Rather than a call to severe works-righteousness, it places the emphasis back on being loved by God, and responding in love.

I found Roe’s point interesting because it brought back to my mind the first exposure I had to Wesley. The first sermons of his I remember reading — maybe not actually the the first ones I read but the first ones I remember — were “A Caution Against Bigotry” and “Catholic Spirit.” Although I find those two sermons are often mis-read by 21st century readers, they do set a different tone for me than if I had started with “Salvation by Faith” and “Almost Christian” and “Awake, Thou That Sleepest.”

That may be, in part, why when I read “Salvation by Faith” now, I notice that even there Wesley speaks of salvation as being about joy and love and peace.

They are also saved from the fear, though not from the possibility, of falling away from the grace of God, and coming short of the great and precious promises. Thus have they “peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. They rejoice in hope of the glory of God. And the love of God is shed abroad in their hearts, through the Holy Ghost, which is given unto them.” And hereby they are persuaded (though perhaps not at all times, nor with the same fullness of persuasion), that “neither death, nor life, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate them from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

It would be an interesting inquiry. Does the way in which we first encounter Wesley change how we experience his theology?

Merciful blogging

From John Wesley’s second sermon on the Sermon on the Mount:

Because the merciful man rejoiceth not in iniquity, neither does he willingly make mention of it. Whatever evil he sees, hears, or knows, he nevertheless conceals, so far as he can without making himself “partaker of other men’s sins.” Wheresoever or with whomsoever he is, if he sees anything which he approves not, it goes not out of his lips, unless to the person concerned, if haply he may gain his brother. So far is he from making the faults or failures of others the matter of his conversation, that of the absent he never does speak at all, unless he can speak well.

The quote above comes from a long discourse on what it means to have mercy. I quote it here because it strikes me as a good rule for blogging and bloggers. I know too well the temptation to point out the errors of others. I’ve fallen prey to that before. Wesley reminds me here that it is not merciful, and therefore not Christian, to do so.

He makes one exception:

Sometimes he is convinced that it is for the glory of God, or (which comes to the same) the good of his neighbour, that an evil should not be covered. In this case, for the benefit of the innocent, he is constrained to declare the guilty. But even here, (1.) He will not speak at all, till love, superior love, constrains him. (2.) He cannot do it from a general confused view of doing good, or promoting the glory of God, but from a clear sight of some particular end, some determinate good which he pursues. (3.) Still he cannot speak, unless he be fully convinced that this very means is necessary to that end; that the end cannot be answered, at least not so effectually, by any other way. (4.) He then doeth it with the utmost sorrow and reluctance; using it as the last and worst medicine, a desperate remedy in a desperate case, a kind of poison never to be used but to expel poison. Consequently, (5.) He uses it as sparingly as possible. And this he does with fear and trembling, lest he should transgress the law of love by speaking too much, more than he would have done by not speaking at all.

How many of us who go by the name of Christian take such care before writing about the sins and errors of others?