I left last night's service encouraged. The theme was on social holiness. The speakers, Christy Lipscombe and Jo Anne Lyon, presented concern for the whole person in a way that clearly integrated spiritual transformation with physical and social transformation. No one could accuse either of preaching a purely social gospel in any way.
I left feeling surprised by the conference. We have had good people in leadership these last years, but not leaders who inspired us or who made us feel like we really had any clear identity. I did not feel that way last night. I felt as if I was hearing some faint cries of a real voice from the Wesleyan Church.
In fact, I wondered if we have ever done anything in the last 40 years of any great significance at all. Jo Anne mentioned that in 1968, when the current form of the church emerged, we were in the Vietnam War, Bobby Kennedy had just been assassinated, as Martin Luther King Jr. before. The civil rights movement was well under way. The cold war was very chilly indeed.
And we were talking about how the rapture was going to take place.
The decades for almost a hundred years before that were spent seeking the experience of entire sanctification. I know some lives were truly changed in material ways too--at least in the early years of the twentieth century. But the middle part of that century was inward turned, legalistic, and generally insignificant in terms of impact on the world.
So we have the beginnings of the Wesleyan Methodist Church with regard to slavery and later women and we have the changing of lives in the early part of the twentieth century and the trickle thereafter.
I wondered last night if we were about to do something more worthy to be put in the annals of the universal church last night. It has been an unexpected conference for me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I'm thinking about how much has been changed and needs change in today's postmodernity...Perhaps, along the lines of the Quadralateral, we should affirm Christianity as the highest philosophy. Since we all approach our faith differently, then we need to affirm how the "approach" happens, not negating the other "sides" of the Quadralateral...then instead of Wesleyans, Lutherans, Etc. which are predominately named after "famous" men...we would have "everyone" under the name of Christ... "Christian humanists"( experience); Christian universalists (tradition); Christian agnostics (reason); and
"Christian fundmenatlists" (text)...then we could understand our faith based on the commonality of Christ while affirming the different methodologies....AND the theology would be based on the people who alligned their ethics within those types of methodlogies...What think ye? Augustine's "City of God" needs a new rendering, "City of Man"....
I want to defend what I am proposing in revamping Christian faith. Since "postmodernity" affirms some very important points;
1.the limits to all knowledge/truth in objective form
2.the basic need for faith (faith in faith, but, negatively, without "reason")
3.individual's commitments and convictions, and yet, directs the individual to "community", as ethically understood....
on the other hand this "model" will affirm some very important aspects to Christian faith based on critical realism (not idealism):
1.the humanity of Jesus, the Christ
2.the call of all men "under Christ"
3.the affirmation of the need for an ethical/moral base in understanding faith
4.a bridge for a "global Christian faith"
I am certainly not prepared to undertake this "adventure", but I am sure that different people in the Academy have been working on it...
You are a Christian philosopher, so do you think that this idea has any "footing"? Or perhaps, I am only in the "caboose" in understanding the need and understanding what the task of a postmodern apology would look like...
So, it is beginning and ending with man, with God, in Christ as the focus...
This view of Christianizing the Quadralateral also focuses on bridging the Jewish ethics of OT and Jesus as exemplary life...
while not disaffirming different "images" of understanding Christ
I have a model of intellectual, moral and faith development that I think goes along with the development of the individual...
Angie, these are all great thoughts, but they are also a good example of you blogging in the comments section of another blog. What I would do in a case like this is post a comment here something like "Your post got me thinking about Christianity as the highest philosophy. I've posted some of my thoughts on my blog, http://angievandemerwe.blogspot.com."
Then we can engage your thoughts in the comments section of your post.
It's really easy (and free) to set one up. You just go to blogger.com and follow the appropriate links from there. Anyone would be glad to show you how.
I think you would accumulate an impressive series of thoughts over time if you started a blog. Who knows, maybe you would eventually think about publishing them!
Ken it's interesting that you bring up "movements" within society as correlating with the imprint of the church. I personally have been thinking about this a lot, especially in this election season. I can't help but wonder how as a community the church decides to pick its battles, which then leads to a type of "identification" of the church with a particular movement of some kind. I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing per se, but it is a bit sobering to think about how I wish to be identified with a particular church battle as a member of the church community.
Case in point,the church has been fighting--as far as I can tell--a pro-life battle and it seems that there isn't a whole lot of ground being won. I am coming under fire from some acquintances due to the fact that in this election I am not voting exclusively as a "pro-life" person, but am voting because I think its about time an unjust war needs to end. This decision of mine isn't made because I think the war is more important that being pro-life, but I will confess that plenty of people I know feel that being pro-life is more important than ending the war (this of course from people that actually do not support the war). I am by no means a utilitarian, but at some point does the church need to focus on what it can realistically accomplish in society?
Jonathan,
I appreciate your comment, as it emphasizes and important point...real action on the Church's part. But, my struggle has been to understand my faith, which had underwritten my actions. Without a "reason", then, I'm afraid that I wouldn't have a "reason" for others: other than giving them a "little better life". Is that enough? Perhaps, but then, I will be an atheist, as I am already oriented to agnosticism....Am I just painting "in the clouds"?
By the way, Ken, I did begin my own blog site; http//angiespoint.blogspot.com
Well, Angie, thanks for the link. Think it's a better alternative to understand your comments in your context than it is to try to match them to Ken's. :)
Will check it out...
Dr. Schenck, I hope so. I look around at the Wesleyan Church and think to myself how stable and humble they are in heart... What I mean is, there seems to be a solid foundation (theologically mid-range, emphasis on the Holy Spirit, appreciation of consensus points within the Church as a whole etc.) for God to work with...
If you agree, what do you personally think is keeping us from fulfilling our mission today as the Wesleyan Church as a whole(which maybe we are, I don't know)? And what do you think is keeping the WC from making the next step toward Heaven on Earth (anti-slavery,women's equality etc)?
. But the middle part of that century was inward turned, legalistic, and generally insignificant in terms of impact on the world.
My hope is that there is no intent to denigrate the efforts of godly men and women of the church during that period who dedicated their lives to the mission of winning souls for the Kingdom.
Lest the primary focus of the WC become "impact on the world", a role, btw, well played by numerous other christian organizations, it would be well to focus on what she does best, viz. pointing a lost world to salvation in Jesus Christ.
Those aforementioned laborers in the WC and the Kingdom of God had sufficient foresight to provide institutions such as yours in which scholars such as yourself can study, teach and build a better church organization. Praise the Lord for his guidance and for the wisdom he has provided and will provide. May God bless your efforts. [Let us not forget where we've been so that we don't lose our way to our destination.]
Thank you Vanilla for providing a little reason to the "touchy-feel" of the original post. I am one who thinks we're moving in the wrong direction. Frankly we've become more like the United Methodist Church than I care to become and if it continues I'll be finding a new church home.
Why is there such a huge movement within the Wesleyan Church for a social gospel that no longer emphasizes personal holiness? Why the call for "change" for the sake of change? Where did all of these people come from? They need to go back to their liberal social churches and leave ours alone.
I wish you could actually see all the holiness sermons from the General Conference because none of the four sermons could be characterized as liberal in any way.
The first one by Chris Bounds on personal holiness affirmed "the shorter way" as the official Wesleyan position and made John Wesley himself look like a liberal. It clearly considered a Keswick view as outside the bounds of Wesleyan positions on holiness.
The second one by Jim Garlow on corporate holiness was clearly conservative. He referenced his own quest at his church to combat the movement to legalize gay marriage in California and the very real political implications it has caused in his own congregation.
The sermons by Lipscomb and Lyons on social holiness clearly put the spiritual way before any social concern.
I'm sorry that I have given a different impression. A person might leave the Wesleyan Church over women in ministry, but don't leave thinking that there was anything liberal about any of these sermons. Quite the contrary.
By the way, Bounds is United Methodist, but I guarantee his views on holiness are as conservative as any person you could name, including our Wesleyan founding fathers. He completely busts any preconceived notions people might have about Methodists.
Post a Comment