OK, I'm going through withdrawal from waiting so long to post the next entry, so since only one person posted Tuesday... I gave into the flesh and here it is.
Be sure and read Drury's final entry on the last post--a good summary. P.S. Feel free to continue posting on it.
2. Wesleyans are people of Spirit.
Although we haven't always wanted to admit it to ourselves, the parent denominations of the Wesleyan Church were as much or more products of the late nineteenth century holiness, revivalist movement as they were of John Wesley. True, Wesley stands there in the Methodist background and, true, the Wesleyan Methodist Connection was birthed in the abolitionist movement. These are all things I want to claim as very important parts of our background (future posts).
BUT, you could argue that the most "rational" Wesleyan Methodists went back into the Methodist Episcopal Church after the Civil War (including one founder). The continued existence of that branch rests in the holiness message of the late 1800's. And that stretch had more in common with Phoebe Palmer's experientially oriented "claim sanctification today" than with Wesley's more methodical "longer way." Like it or not, Wesleyan Methodists must own up to that part of their identity.
As a Pilgrim, there's no question that my background comes from holiness revivals at the turn of the twentieth century. My grandfather was one of many Quaker transplants to a snowballing collection of revivalists in the early 1920's.
And Dieter and D. Dayton may quibble over whether the Azuza street Pentecostal revivals were really offshoots of our blood or not. But there's no denying the points of commonality. We may not speak in tongues, but the charismatic movement was birthed off the same air we were breathing. The similarity made our fathers and mothers so uncomfortable that they sometimes passed around urban legends about people speaking in tongues who were actually cursing in another language.
So it was with glee that I entertained my Methodist wife's question at one of my more sectarian uncle's funerals. "I didn't know you're uncle was Pentecostal," she innocently said. I think he must have turned over in his casket. He was so conservative that he didn't become a Wesleyan when the churches merged in 67. Headed for a one world religion, you know. But I knew what she meant--holy laughter behind us, running the aisles, people standing and shouting, hoopin' and hollerin'. :)
None of this is to say that we cannot (and have not) critiqued some of the more "irrational" elements of our past. But it is a part of who we are. The Wesleyan Church historically is not a strongly rationalist denomination. It is a denomination of the Spirit.
The fundamentalist modernist controversy--arguments about higher criticism, the virgin birth, evolution--these things were pretty far removed from us. We were looking for the Pentecostal power at the time, understood as entire sanctification rather than tongues. These debates of the broader culture had little overall affect on our tradition. A few of our academics paid notice, but the bulk did not.
What do I want to claim from this part of our story?
1. We are more people of the heart than the head.
Here I am not claiming the anti-intellectualism that has sometimes plagued our church. I've heard stories about Wesleyan pastors in the vicinity of Asbury who preached against seminary education with Wesleyan professors from Asbury sitting in the congregation (well, not for long). I could name names of people that I actually like as people. But I'll have no part of such ignorance and inferiority complexes. The pursuit of cognitive knowledge is not our main priority, but we cannot be against it and be like God.
I hope we will always put people ahead of knowledge, meeting the concrete needs of others ahead of working out fine theological points. We need some people who like to ask how many angels fit on the head of a pin too, but I hope that will never be our top priority. We need some people who can parse Greek and Hebrew verbs too (pick me, pick me), but I hope we will always emphasize practical ministry over cognitive depth (without divorcing the two).
2. We can skip straight from pre-modern to post-modern.
I realize that postmodernism is a bad word to many, and we should oppose the extreme form of postmodernism that rejects truth altogether. But let's simply say that we're so late in catching up to modernism that we can effectively by pass its quirks and catch right up with where the flow of history is at the moment.
What were the quirks of modernism that we are in a perfect position to by pass? With regard to the Bible, fundamentalists and modernist evangelicals went crazy with scientific methods of exegeting and excavating the biblical text. The famed "EB" of Asbury and Traina's methodical Bible study taught the student how to create detailed diagrams of textual observation and a self-contained set of terms like "recurring contrast with causation and generalization." These are very valuable methods for arriving at the original meaning. I use them and don't want to lose them.
But who said the original meaning was the "be all and end all" of Scriptural authority or that the original text is automatically more authoritative than the one God let the church use for over 1500 years? Modernism did. Meanwhile, our nineteenth century forebears blissfully (and quite naively) interpreted the biblical text with little sense of historical or literary context. Ask Steve Lennox... he about went crazy studying the hermeneutical methods of the late nineteenth century holiness authors.
But as unaware of context as these holiness preachers were, they ironically read the Bible much as New Testament authors like Paul and Matthew read the Old Testament. The modernist evangelical claim that we should get our theology from the original meaning of the Bible deconstructs when we find that, in the original meaning of the Bible, the Bible does not interpret the Old Testament in terms of its original meaning. In the words of Pac Man, wee-ee-ee-ee-ee-ee-ee-oink oink.
So our Spirit-filled forebears caught the Spirit on issues like slavery and women. They had a spiritual common sense that saw women as full participants in the Spirit and saw the spiritual forest so well that they didn't get bogged down in the minute trees of problem passages. That's the way Jesus and Paul used Scripture.
I am not advocating that we throw away the original meaning--especially now that a few Wesleyans are catching on to what it is. But I do think the fact that we slept through modernism puts us in a good position to move forward in a way those breathing the last breath of modernist evangelicalism can't (can you say Wheaton, Trinity, Gordon-Conwell?). We can affirm both the way God inspired the original meaning and yet also acknowledge that God has and does speak through the words in ways the original authors might never have imagined. And He does this primarily through His church.
3. "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity."
It may not have seemed like this was the motto of the Pilgrim Holiness Church, but it was. I believe we should have core doctrinal distinctives. But I like the liberty of our church on so many issues:
a. baptism: you can infant baptize, believer baptize, never baptize, immerse, sprinkle, or pour. You just can't believe that baptism itself saves you. I like it.
b. end times: on this one I am grateful for the Wesleyan Methodists. If it had been up to the Pilgrims, all Wesleyans would have to be pre-millennial and believe in a pre-trib rapture. As it is, you just need to believe that Christ will come again. Beyond that you can be pre-mill, post-mill, a-mill, pre-trib, post-trib, mid-trib, no trib...
c. communion: you could actually believe in transubstantiation and be Wesleyan if you wanted. Mind you, I don't know any Wesleyans that view communion this way, but it's possible.
We are basically a pietist denomination. And what other traditions might say as a put down (much as they did when they called Wesley an "enthusiast"), I take as a strength. Other traditions that have staked their identity so much in a modernist paradigm now find some of their fundamentals challenged by contemporary worldview developments. Meanwhile Wesley says, "If your heart is as my heart, then put your hand in mine."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
Dr. Ken,
Thanks for these last two posts. I believe that we have an identity crisis in the Wesleyan Church. It's hard to make forward movement when you don't know who you are in the past. We have a past to build on and a future to look forward too. May we learn from the mistakes of the pasts but not be too ashamed to build on the past that is good. Dr. Bob Black of SWU gives a great history of our movement that can make us proud (in the right way).
I look forward to future posts.
Bob Black was here on campus to give some of his presentation and I know he's making the rounds (Florida last month). He's one of those great minds we haven't found a way to "exploit" fully :). If I was a Wesleyan publicist, I'd put people like him on show like we were a circus--"Can you believe this guy? Isn't he great?" :)
P.S. Maybe that's why no one has ever thought to put me in charge of PR?
P.S.S. Is this the Dave Hansen I was at Asbury with?
Ken, I absolutely loved this article; it was more than just an entry, it's publishable. You lived up to your "genius" reputation today by refining some of the main ideas describing us out of all of the chaff of history.
Growing up in a Wesleyan church, I wasn't really sure how we were different from other denom's. I actually remember having a conversation with a friend who attended a local Baptist church and not knowing how to explain a Wesleyan Church. I'm glad we're taking the time to define our identity for those of us unsure of it.
Admittedly, I'm a little sketchy on being a pietist. Although, the way that you have described "pietism" in the Wesleyan tradition is key. Something though that needs to be added is that our piety (in the beginning, especially in the Wesleyan-Methodist Connection) was not only individual, but also social. We actually believed we could end slavery, women's suffrage, war, etc.
Great post on Wesleyans as people of the Spirit. I too emphasize our proto-pentecostal heritage (even over our post-methodist heritage).
I would like to contribute that from an ecumenical perspective, we are both at a disadvantage and an advantage when we categorize ourselves broadly with our pentecostal brothers.
On the one hand, there is the short-term disadvantage that the organized dialogues between Christian churches (whether the fundy ICC, evangelical NAE, or mainline NCC) are dragging their feet to include Pentecostal-like groups. Concerns have been voiced regarding sufficient continuity with tradition in terms of doctrine, polity and worship.
On the other hand, there is a long-term advantage in that the Pentecostal category is not only the fastest growing but becoming the largest group of Christians in the world. Interest in this sector of Christianity is increasing among other Christian groups. Therefore, our association with this group will gain us a hearing among Christianity at large, which is part of our mission: "to spread scriptural holiness accross the land."
Thus I suggest that tapping into this aspect of our identity is not only true, but strategically viable. Such matters are worth considering, for the question of identity is not just about us but how we relate to others.
Terminological side note:
I have no shame in or quarrell with being named a "Pietist," but I do not believe the term (either historically or conceptually) captures the idea Ken is trying to put forth. In my opinion, the term "Pentecostal" is both historically and conceptually more apt.
I, too, like nathan crawford, am somewhat uncomfortable with over-emphasizing personal piety only because in the contemporary church it *seems* to create more of an emphasis on verticle/inward holiness without a similar emphasis on horizontal/social holiness. The folks who lived earlier in our tradition seemed to, at times, find the balance....but i suspect that history and experience prove it is a hard balance to maintain. This is not to say that piety is not to be esteemed; it is to say that it is often incomplete--in practice! Holiness includes not only individual purity and healing, but also communal--and this means that the social things that Jesus rebuked, such as, poor treatment of "the least of these" is something to consider on a more corporate level if we want to have an identity as "holy" in The collective (one) Body, that is, the Church. I do not sense/prophesy that this resurgence of a desire for social justice in our denomination is a "trend" or "fad" or "church growth tactic" as someone previously stated. I think it is the growing awakening in the hearts of our members by the Spirit to incorporate justice and mercy into our faith and social practices. I think (and believe there is biblical precedent for this) emphasis on social holiness is a necessity for wholeness....
Ha... I don't know whether I'm ready to call myself a Pentecostal... I'm not committed to "pietist," but it seemed in the ballpark... Can I mutate it and add another entry in the dictionary... :)
Nate and anonymous, I started with this angle because I think it stands at the "heart" (ha, ha) of our tradition. The third angle I plan is that Wesleyans are Wesley-an and there I'll hit the social angle directly. It will also show up in the second angle, Wesleyans are people of the Bible (with an emphasis on the fact that traditions always emphasize those parts of the biblical record that best capture their identity).
Your thoughts on the Wesleyan Church being able to jump from premodern to postmodern easier than perhaps some other denominations is quite fascinating to me. I have been dialoguing with several "emergents" and with you every once in awhile about how I see postmodernism playing out as a "twist" on premodernist thinking. It's picking up the history we left for the "humans can do it all" phase of modernity, all the while recognizing the downfalls of being naive and incomplete.
However, I wonder what denominations, according to the categories of premodern/postmodern would be able to jump as easily? In the regards of exegesis, I know some Southern Baptist brothers and sisters who are still rather premodern in their thinking, but I see no chance of "evil postmodernity" sneaking into their worldview (although, I believe it is, they just refuse to recognize it). There has to be something to this jump other than exegetical practices. Perhaps, it must be accompanied by a willing and slightly accomodating spirit? If so, are they Wesleyans still able to make that jump as easy? Do you sense that willingness that is needed?
Mike, while I do find the terms pre- , modern, and post- at least initially useful, I usually replace them when I get into the thick of it with my own terms "reflective" and "non-reflective," categories in which we all find ourselves simultaneously.
But, basically, I consider post-modern in our context as a reflective pre-modernity.
When it comes to comparing Southern Baptists with Wesleyans, I would say that our pre-modernity has never really been fundamentalist in spirit--it's been what I've called pietist in spirit. Fundamentalist identity I see formed in reaction to modernity--it acknowledges the challenges of modernity as it fights it and in the process becomes infected with some of its categories (Southern Baptist as Frankenstein).
But I see the Wesleyan background as more purely pre-modern in that we never even realized there are two blind men in Matthew while only one in Mark. Now we can acknowledge it and post-modernly say, "Who cares? Jesus sure can heal people, can't he!"
So we never staked fundamentalist reactionary claims to modernism. In fact our leadership has consistently rejected the idea that we are fundamentalists--for as long as I think the subject has come up.
P.S. As usual, Mike, I more answered my question than yours.
Baptists forgive me, but I do think that the Wesleyan-Arminian trajectory has always been more optimistic and warm hearted than the Calvinist trajectory, with God choosing who will be saved and a generally more rational orientation. By the way, Louisville Southern Baptist Seminary has seen a resurgence of 5 point Calvinism since their current president fired all their best professors.
(I smile to think that we have infected the broader Baptist tradition so that they now believe in free will and that anyone can be saved, not to mention that we can be assured of our salvation in this life. These are not indigenous Baptist beliefs)
So I think there is something about the Wesleyan-Arminian tradition that puts it as a leading candidate (along with the Barthian Reformed) to lead in the coming era of church history.
With respect to the discussion over the future of exegesis, especially in the Baptist and Wesleyan churches--
There was a book published in 2003, edited by Ellen Davis and Richard Hayes of Duke Divinity school (some of you already know of it) called "The Art of Reading Scripture". It discusses where the church may be able to go in its reading and interpretation of Scripture; how we might go about escaping the era of hard-line modern exegesis and regain a more Holy-Spiritual reading of Scripture. It challenges the church to reaffirm some of its more ancient beliefs with regard to inspiration, and to observe the exegesis of the church doctors and fathers as an example. It also reaffirms the lost belief (or should I say that this belief is no longer practiced) that both Old and New Testaments are the Scriptures for the church.
Anyways, it may not come from a Wesleyan or Baptist church circle, but I recommend it to anyone who is interested in where pastoral theology and exegesis could take its course in a postmodern culture.
*The Art of Reading Scripture*, eds. Ellen Davis and Richard Hays.
Hmmm, aren't they at Duke? Let's see, Hays is a Methodist, right? :)
Dangit, I'd love to get in on the conversation, but I have as much authority of expressing Wesleyan beliefs and traditions as the pink power ranger from days of yore. I probably shouldn't talk this early in the morning anyway, since I just tried to answer the phone by picking up my coffee cup. So, after saying a lot of nothing, I'm finding all this facinating since I am not used to putting so much emphasis on denominational identity.
Ken, thanks for the leadership in publishing this series calling Wesleyans to be something of clarity. We’ve had 25 years emphasizing leadership and this is something clarifying where to lead the church.
As to social action I too have a high value on it. I know you plan to make that a Weslay-an part of our heritage in your next post which I await with glee for I shall post a rebuttal to it arguing that in fact our social action heritage is more rooted in our revivalist-holiness heritage than John Wesley and Methodism. So, set up the target and I’ll go get my arrows. ;-)
I'm at a Jesuit/Roman Catholic University doing my Ph.D. and are having Vatican officials come in next week to make sure we are teaching the tradition. So, the tradition is coming up a lot around here. And a real issue is how do we forge an identity faithful to our tradition/history (these two seem to be equated often, although I would like a prying apart) while being faithful to the world in which we live? I mean, is forging an identity just a retelling of a tradition/history or is it being faithful to that tradition/history in the world in which we live?
This is probably outside the realm of what you are doing Dr. Schenck, but I thought I'd throw it out.
Well, you know it's because they're Jesuits... you always have to check up on them! Ha.
P.S. I hope they won't inflict you with the "comfy chair."
Thanks for the great article on our two disconnected pasts. As a seminarian, I sought to reclaim what I felt to be the "lost" root of social holiness. I became more "rational" and began to de-emphasize the "Pentecostal" root. After five years of inner city ministry (social?) and then a brief stint in a small town with 10 Wesleyan churches, it seems that trying to really wed the two families is impossible. Because of that I look forward to Keith's promised rebuttal.
During my years in the 'hood, I knew that social action was powerless without Pentecostal power and the deliverance it promised people stuck in cycles of dependance and oppression. But I could not get people with one tendency to really work with the other. Mostly, I could not get anyone to work with me. "That's a great vision you have. I wish YOU the best."
As with most issues, it is NOT an either/or but a both/and. Has there really ever been a time when the two were clearly evident in our history?
As a side note, it is encouraging to me to hear the recent undergrads speaking of the forgotten masses and actually doing something about it. I just wish there had been more around when I was there.
My question on this whole identity thing is who this identity is directed at. Is this about us finiding ourselves so we will know deep down inside who we are or is this about us being able to say "wesleyan" to the average person on the street and them having 2 sweet clues what we are talking about.
I've reconsidered my thoughts on denominational identity (or lack thereof). I know I sometimes hesitate to reveal that I grew up "Pentecostal" because then people want to ask about my experience handling snakes (which happens to be very extensive:-). I don't go to a Pentecostal church now, and quite frankly, some of Pentecostal-ism holds a stigma for me because of my experience with it (no pun intended). In that regard, I understand the character of Wesleyan identity would be a concern for some.
All that to say, I've had an "AH HA!" moment.
AJ, the idea that "The Wesleyan Church" will become a household name is no part of anything I'm trying to do here. I'm trying to tell our story the way I tell it when I'm telling someone what I like about my church. There are of course other ways to tell it, selecting and emphasizing other features. It is thus, as Drury hints, a forwarding looking retelling.
I sincerely believe that our tradition has vast unused potential. There are things that situate us theologically to be leaders to take American Christianity in directions it should go. For the last thirty years I think we have gone where everyone else is going, and I have strong feelings against some of them (e.g., Wesleyans becoming hesistant about women in ministry, Wesleyans who think sin is normal for a Christian, Wesleyans who believe "all sin is the same," Wesleyans who think Democrats are thereby on their way to hell...)
AJ brings up an interesting point. I'm going to venture an answer. I think that forging an identity is both/and. It allows us to know who we are, for ourselves and what the mold of our community is. However, it then allows us to project this out into other communities. It also allows us to bring what other communities say/do into our community and assimilate it properly.
Ken, thanks so much for these posts on our identity. I think you have nailed it pretty well. When can we expect your book on this subject? BTW, if you did write a book on this we should make reading it a membership commitment! ;-)
This writing and others that I have read in the last year or so have truly changed my thinking in regard to the Wesleyan Church. I was counted among the gripers, whiners, and complainers on www.emergentwesleyan.com in the past but I don't have a dark view of the Wesleyan Church anymore. I know we're not perfect by any means but we are heading in a good direction.
Your pointing out how the Wesleyan's have skipped modernism was an excellent observation. I'm in an IWU grad class on postmodernism right now. When we studied modernism I thought back to the backward Southern Indiana, Wesleyan church I grew up in and I thought, "I never heard a lot of preaching on reason or a high opinion of mankind." The Wesleyan church I grew up in was very pre-modern. I also remember the whooping and shouting, aisle running, etc. My grandmother told me of the Pilgrim Holiness church she was in and how people were slain in the spirit regularly. That part of our past isn't just the crazy uncle no one talks about, it's part of our DNA.
Thanks for touching on these important parts of who we are.
Post a Comment