“You’re outta there!”
Baseball has clear norms. Three strikes you’re out, at the old ball game.
John Wesley had clear norms for his early Methodists too. Turns out he invented the three strike system. Sort of.
A few weeks ago I noted that John Wesley had a clear minimum standard for people wishing to join the Methodist movement: they had to want to “flee from the wrath to come; which they saw continually hanging over their heads.” They wanted, in short “to be saved from their sins.”
This seems to indicate a clearer sense of the problem than many Christians have, including new converts if they are told that the whole process is complete if they simply say “the sinner’s prayer” or declare that Jesus is their “personal Lord and Savior.”
- Wesley’s converts came with a clear sense of fear that the troubles they had created in this life were going to dog them in the next.
- Wesley gave his converts a clear way to go about becoming new people–a way to, one step at a time, leave the old problems behind.
In between he had a clear baseline for what Christian living needed to look like. To paraphrase, it comes down to three strikes:
- Don’t do bad stuff.
- Do good stuff.
- Do the regular Christian stuff.
In every case he is clear about the motivation. Members of his community did all three things
“to evidence their desire of salvation.”
That is, you get in because you want salvation and you stay in because you show you still want salvation.
He is also very clear about what he means by each of the three.
1. His list of forbidden things can sound restrictive, but it will make sense to those familiar with Scripture: no taking God’s name in vain; no sabbath breaking; no drunkenness; no brawling; no cheating people in business; no disrespectful talk about government officials; no use of media that don’t help you know and love God. Etc.
2. His list of the good things a member of the community should do is equally important: being a Christian is not just avoiding stuff. They are all expected to show mercy; to give food and clothing to poor people; to help people who are sick or imprisoned; to help others in countless other ways as much as they can.
3. Perhaps in a day when people say they are “spiritual but not religious” the most interesting criteria are the specifically Christian things: to be a member of the Methodist community one had to have a church and go to worship there regularly, hear the Scriptural message preached, receive the Lord’s Supper; and in private he or she had to study Scripture, and pray, and fast.
That baseline portrait of lived Christianity was really important to the movement. It provided a set of norms that everyone agreed on and everyone understood. Meet the norms and you get to stay in the movement, a part of the community. Break the norms and there are consequences. As Wesley put it,
“If there be any among us who observe them not, who habitually break any of them … We will admonish him of the error of his ways; we will bear with him for a season: but then if he repent not, he hath no more place among us.”
What kinds of behaviors are required to continue in your Christian community?
What kinds of behaviors can lead to being, well, shall we say, “fired”?
____________
If you enjoyed the post please share it on Facebook or other social media — you can use the buttons below.
Great post, Gary. It reminds me of how much more people used to have a sense of the spiritual expectations placed upon them by a community. Today, everything is “custom spirituality” – whatever an individual crafts as important for their own development (e.g., the spiritual but not religious movement). Your paraphrased three things are so basic, but yet are often lost today. This is a great reminder. 🙂
Thanks Natasha! Great to hear from you. I think you are right — we are in a very individualistic age, even when it comes to spirituality. Maybe especially in terms of spirituality. In movements like Wesley’s Methodists, spiritual life was a corporate affair, and the community really mattered.
This is good stuff. However, one more thing needs to be added: a Methodist is required to meet weekly in a small group for accountability and support. Wesley knew that living the Christian life, as described in the General Rules, is impossible apart from Christian community and the relationships of a small group. That’s why he required all Methodists to meet weekly in their class under the pastoral care and leadership of their class leader.
Steve, you are absolutely right — and about two steps ahead of me. I’ll be posting on his small groups soon. I didn’t want to start there because too many folks who start there don’t see beyond the small groups to the shape of the faith and life he required.
Thanks!
These baseline beliefs are still held by the United Methodist Church, unfortunately a great number of Methodists are not fully informed. In our “Rethink Church” movement we are attempting to rediscover the Wesleyan formula. Great article!
Thanks Irvin — I’m grateful to you for clicking “like” on the posts before, and now I’m glad to hear from you. I’d love to hear more about the “Rethink Church” movement sometime. Feel free to email me through the contact tab here on the blog.
And those of you reading these words, be sure to click through his avatar and check out Irvin’s blog!
I like how you’ve recast Wesley’s rules. I will certainly share your perspective with my youth group.
Thanks Daniel — let me know what they think!
Hope you’ll stop by again soon…
when you said “his rules”, did you mean wesleys rules or your own interpretation of his rules? cause in one you said something about tecnology. and i dont think wesley had technology. also, in restrictions, what about sexual immorality?
that is a big one that a lot of people dont want to restrict themselves on.
Thanks for your questions Dorothy.
I didn’t actually mention “rules,” though the document by Wesley I was working with is called “The Nature, Design, and General Rules of the United Societies…”
When I referred to Wesley’s “norms” I meant Wesley’s own as found in that document, but in the post I’m paraphrasing except where I put it in quotation marks.
I didn’t refer to technology either, but I suspect you are thinking of where I mentioned “media.” Here’s a quotation of some of Wesley’s words about the things Methodists need to avoid which lies behind my reference:
“…the taking of such diversions as cannot be used in the name of the Lord Jesus; the singing those songs, or reading those books, which do not tend to the knowledge or love of God…”
Books are among the world’s old fashioned media, and many things in the realms of “diversions” could be lumped under that term as well. Of course the word is often used today to mean “electronic media” but the word “media” is much broader in meaning.
And, if Wesley were alive today, he surely would object to many things found in the new media invented in our time.
Oh, I forgot to answer one of your questions: In this particular document Wesley makes no mention of sexual immorality. I have not read broadly enough in Wesley’s writings to know if he ever wrote or preached on the topic — some who are reading the posts would surely know, and maybe one of them will chime in here.
Of course even if he didn’t preach or write about sexuality (and it seems likely to me that he would not, considering that this was the 1700s) there is every reason to assume his standards were much stricter than those prevailing today.
Your post on Christian community makes me think of the value of institutions — not only the church, but also the family, school, and so forth — for creating a sense of duty and commitment.
Being part of an institution is what transforms good intentions and inspiration into something that lasts beyond the moment. Through institutions we learn the habits of the heart (or virtues) that make behavior a matter of character and not of whim. Bereft of institutions, I can’t learn to be a human being, let alone a Christian human being. Institutions are therefore a great gift to us. But like most gifts, they have a price: Sanctions, including exclusion. The question is not whether institutions may exclude, but on what basis.
My sense is that institutions and their rules of exclusion must meet one rule: What is in the real interest (as opposed to pathological interests) of human beings. The real interest of all human beings can be summed up this way: to make progress in the capacity to love and reason.
In my view, Wesley’s standards nicely reflect this rule. It is hard to imagine, for instance, any human being making much progress in love or in reason who violates consistently and grievously Wesley’s first two standards, which involve avoiding evil and practicing compassion.
Moreover, avoiding evil and practicing compassion puts us in a better position to understand the true significance of studying the Bible, worship, and the other specifically Christian acts of piety that make up Wesley’s third standard. Understanding these things in the right light helps transform them from empty gestures into true sources of nourishment that help us avoid evil and be compassionate.
Thanks, Gary, for your comments. I wonder if there is a difference between “institutions” and “communities” regarding your insights about guiding and nurturing life and flourishing. Wesley had an institutional framework in the Church of England. He created a community framework in his system of class and band meetings, or in today’s vernacular “small groups.” Of course over time the community structure involved into an institution.
In the minds of the modern Methodist, homosexuality and drunkenness are no longer sins. Holiness has all but disappeared from the pulpit of the UMC.
Thanks, David, for your comment — hope you’ll come by again. More on Wesley in coming weeks.
As I noted to someone earlier, Wesley didn’t comment on sexuality in the text I was writing about. I’m curious as to whether he ever wrote on the topic, though I would not be surprised if he didn’t.
As to drunkenness, I suspect you would find some diversity of opinion among today’s Methodists.
Some of what Wesley says sounds like any drinking other than something prescribed by a physician is well on the way to drunkenness. But he was also in a culture where much heavier drinking was the norm than it is in North America today. (In the British Navy in the early 1800s the daily allotment of rum was staggering — pun intended.)
I know that what evolved in North America a century after Wesley, leading up to prohibition, was a kind of industrialized drinking of cheap distilled spirits that got the poor workers drunk and soaked up their meager financial resources as well as eroding the well being of their relationships. That kind of drunkenness would, I think, be seen as a deep problem today as well — though we might treat it as a disease rather than a solely moral problem.
His teaching on holiness is a very serious matter indeed and worthy of more attention by all!
The above article was posted on the Confessing Movement of the Methodist Church facebook page. Your info says you are Presbyterian USA. Some comments from others on the facebook site indicated you had left the church. Did I mis-read? If you are Presbyterian, why are you writing about being Methodist? Not that I mind. I am very ecumenical. But just wondered where your foundation is coming from? I’m 72 and a life-long Methodist. Have a few things to say to David McKee about ‘Modern Methodists” but would like to hear from you first.
Thanks for your questions, Catherine.
I am indeed a Presbyterian, a Teaching Elder in good standing in the John Knox Presbytery of the PC(USA).
I’d love to see the comments saying I’d left the church! That’s hilarious!
I made the post on my own blog, and it goes out automatically to my own Facebook page and Twitter feed. (Feel free to “like” my page…) Someone else has apparently kindly put a link on the Facebook page of the UMC Confessing Movement. I’m not connected to that page, so actually had no idea it was there. (Special thanks to whoever shared it!)
Why am I writing about Methodists? There is a distinction to be made here. I have never written a post about the United Methodist Church. I’ve actually been posting about John Wesley and the early Methodist movement as reflected in some of his writings.
Why am I writing about Wesley and his movement? I’m a Church Historian. I write about all kinds of things within the history of Christianity. If you were to look at my book (Kneeling with Giants: Learning to Pray with History’s Best Teachers — InterVarsity Press, 2012) you would see that I write on people from every branch of Christianity.
Wesley is interesting. He is one of the most remarkable people who ever served our God. In my current research and writing I am exploring movements where distinctive approaches to community prompted deepened discipleship and effective mission. Wesley is one of the great examples.