What it means to me to be United Methodist

What it means to me to be United Methodist

People have accused me of overthinking things. Meh. Sticks and stones, ya know? Anyway, I'm not a (n>1) generation UM. (I am, however, a mathophile! Go ahead. Cast that stone. Haters gonna hate.) I became a Methodist…. Well, let's start with where I started before I was a Methodist. I was raised in a Mormonish church. (The family tree of the Mormon variants is almost as colorful and confusing as the Methodist family tree.) However, Mom was raised Dutch Reformed, and only became mormonish when she married Dad in 1950. So when the Jehovah Witnesses came knocking at our door c.1965, asking her if she knew how wrong her church was about the Bible, and would she like them to tell her what the Bible really said, she politely took their proffered copies of Watchtower and Awake! And then started her own search. Yes, she admitted that what she heard from the pulpit was very different from her childhood sermons, but it was also different from what she had heard at that Kathryn Kuhlman crusade in Akron, Ohio in the late '40s. She was talking about this with a co-worker one day (she was working as a part-time secretary) who invited her to a Bible study that took place in her (the co-worker's) home. There was a beginning of a pentecostal revival movement in my hometown, and this prayer group/Bible study was it. Yep, The Jehovah Witnesses saved us from the Mormons, and sent us to the Pentecostals.

Fast forward to 1984. My first marriage had fallen horribly apart, and I had begun to date Sandy. The biggest chasm of my first marriage had to do with religion, and I wasn't going to let that happen this time. Now, I have to admit that I had become somewhat disillusioned with Pentecostalism, and I knew I was never going anywhere close to anybody who thought the Book of Mormon was really scripture, but when Sandy and I got married the only Protestant church in town was (gulp) Methodist. From both Mormon and Pentecostal points of view, those Methodists (along with a list of all mainline churches) were the Church of Laodicea, that lukewarm church that made God want to barf. OK, absent a sign from Above showing me where to go each Sunday morning, I would be there to worship, but I wasn't gonna just believe anything the pastor said. Within a year the pastor was pleading with me to join the church, because they needed a lay leader, and we were the only couple under 60 years old attending.

This all happened in a little town just outside of the Denver, Colorado metro area. Does anybody remember what was the topic of discussion among Colorado Methodists through the '80s? Does the name Julian Rush ring a bell? Here's a headline from 1985 (from the Chicago Sun-Times!) http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1985-06-25/news/8502100749_1_homosexual-pastor-rev-julian-rush-church-officials

to refresh your memory. OK, I had found a church home in a little country United Methodist Church, and I had even made peace with a liberal pastor who didn't seem to have a problem using non-canonical writings as source material for Christmas Eve services. But I was NOT going to become one of THOSE people who thought a gay man could really be an acceptable pastor. Ever. But they really needed a lay leader. And after much prayer, it seemed pleasing to God that I should (shudder) become a member of The United Methodist Church, so as to serve my local church family.

Then I heard The Call.

It wasn't a sound-waves-going-through-the-air-and-into-my-ears sound, but it was an Out Loud, real Voice in my head that said, “I want you to be a minister.” It was right after I took stock of my life, and realized that God had done Great Things in the previous two years, and said, “Thank you, Father.” That was when I heard, “I did it for a reason. I want you to be a minister.” Now, remember, my background is Mormon and Storefront Pentecostal. What do I know about being a minister? So, I answered, “OK, but I don't have a clue what that means. You're gonna have to show me the way.” Now, that also included the caveat that I couldn't imagine this calling could mean being a Methodist minister, but that would seem to go without saying. Now, God is both gracious and persistent, and eventually He made it clear that He wanted me to serve Him within the structure of The United Methodist Church. Which meant that I had to figure out what it meant to be a United Methodist.

Scripture tells me that I am to be obedient to whatever authority God puts over me. OK, so where does the authority reside in The United Methodist Church? My answer – The Book Of Discipline. And the most authoritative paragraphs in the BOD? The Restrictive Rules. So, can a United Methodist really believe anything she/he wants to, and still be a United Methodist? Just about. Well, OK, there is the Confession of Faith, but that's a Johnnie-Come-Lately, added to make the takeover of the EUB palatable. What we have are Doctrinal Standards, not confessional or creedal standards. So, a Methodist isn't required to sign off on any belief statement. No, preachers have to sign off on what is authoritative to be taught. There are no standards for what they believe. There are standards for what I teach.

I had been serving my first appointment as a Licensed Local Pastor, having gone through License To Preach school but not yet having started Course of Studies, and wondering what I had gotten myself into. I found myself looking down the barrel of my first funeral, having gone to exactly two funerals in my life before this. So, I went to the Cokesbury Store. Yeah, they still had those then. I did find a really helpful Funerals 4 Dummies guide, but I also picked up a book from the closeout table: Sugden's edition of Wesley's Standard Sermons. And I started reading Wesley. I have to tell you. I really thought, “You know, if this is what Methodist believe, I'm in!” It didn't take long to realize that most methodists only have a vague idea about who John Wesley was, much less lean on his Sermons for their morning devotionals. But not long after I found my copy of Sugden I found the Restrictive Rules, and I knew that I could indeed be a Methodist.

Several years later I got my Baker reprint of the Jackson 3^rd Edition of the Works of John Wesley (in 13 volumes!) which are still a part of every day of my life. And every day I continue my (possibly quixotic) project to help recover the Methodist Movement in the 21^st Century. I'm chasing Wesley, finding a doctrine that makes more sense now than ever before. For me, that's what it means to be United Methodist.

The difficulty of United Methodist doctrine

There's much being said about the kerfuffle in the United Methodist Church surrounding the LGBTQWERTY issues. There is a current defense of the denomination's current stand, based on Article 6 of the Articles of Religion, specifically the last phrase.  Of course, this opens a debate about what defines the "commandments which are called moral."

 Unfortunately, it's a legal argument, and only based on the Articles of Religion. Our Doctrinal Standards are those plus – and if we don't spend time processing how Wesley addressed the issue in the Sermons and Notes, I think we continue to wallow in a post-modernist personal deconstruction of what these words mean, since it worked so well in persuading each other in the meaning of the words of Scripture. (Yes, I'm frustrated. At myself, at the Church, at my fellow Christians… )


Of course, the problem with deferring to the Sermons and Notes for direction on this is that Wesley wasn't either exhaustive or organized in expressing himself. Therefore, the Sermons and Notes aren't reference works where we can look up a topic, rather they are best used as a hermeneutic lens whereby we see how to understand scripture. Which means we almost have to look broadly through them to begin to see as Wesley would see. (Which, of course, was the flaw of the Quadrilateral. It could be distilled down to four bullet points, which each of us got to deconstruct and then attach our own authoritative meaning to. Then we just found ten others who came up with roughly the same construct, which convinced us we were right.)


As a start, I think we would need to sit down together and commit to reading, processing, and discussing the following sermons: Sermon On The Mount (Discourse 5) (#25); The Original, Nature, Property, and Use of The Law (#34); and The Law Established Through Faith (both Discourse 1 and 2) (#'s 35 & 36). Along with this, I would suggest “On Preaching Christ”, a letter Wesley wrote in 1751 (found in Volume 11 of Works) and “Thoughts on Gospel Ministers”, an essay found in Volume 10 (Works). But that's just my list. I suspect the group would need to be open to reading other parts of Wesley, as well.


And the sixty-four trillion dollar question is, how would we do that? What size room would we need? How big would the table need to be? How many hours? Days? Would we require everybody to agree on a final consensus statement? As I read “Minutes Of Some Late Conversations” (Volume 8, Works)(No, not what is referred to as The Large Minutes. I'm not sure how others refer to these, but in my head I refer to them as the Doctrinal Minutes) I suspect that this is what we should be doing. This would be Holy Conferencing. But it would take way too much work. And, (here comes the Eeyore in me) it probably wouldn't work anyway. Never mind.

Discipline as Doctrine

If you've been a United Methodist very long, there's a good chance that you have been confronted with this quote from John Wesley:

“I am not afraid that the people called Methodists should ever cease to exist either in Europe or America. But I am afraid, lest they should only exist as a dead sect, having the form of religion without the power. And this undoubtedly will be the case, unless they hold fast both the doctrine, spirit, and discipline with which they first set out.”

This is the opening paragraph of a short piece titled “Thoughts Upon Methodism,” dated August 4, 1786. Just to put this in context, Wesley himself was 83 years old, and had been engaged almost every day for the past 48 years in preaching, teaching, discipling, and pastoring the Methodist movement across Great Britain. Just the week before he wrote this he oversaw the General Conference at Bristol. By Wesley's own account, “everything was transacted with great calmness; and we parted, as we met, in peace and love.”
You see, in spite of the tranquility of the conference, there had been some hints that they could have had some “warm debates.” There were those who wanted the organization to embrace new ideas, get with the times, step up and demand their place in the culture. They saw Wesley's age in the lines of his face, and some just couldn't hardly wait for their turn to be in charge. Wesley knew this, and it grieved him. As he continued to write out his thoughts upon Methodism, he he brought up how Methodists came to be Methodists, and then he closed:

“[Methodism] is only plain, scriptural religion, guarded by a few prudential regulations. The essence of it is holiness of heart and life; the circumstantials all point to this. And as long as they are joined together in the people called Methodists, no weapon formed against them shall prosper. But if even the circumstantial parts are despised, the essential will soon be lost. And if ever the essential parts should evaporate, what remains will be dung and dross.”

What was it that he saw as the key to Methodist success? What was the “doctrine, spirit, and discipline” that he found to be at the heart of the Methodist movement? Although “Thoughts Upon Methodism,” being a short piece, doesn't go very deep into the details, it does start us down the right path so we can flesh out the details of what he referred to as we peruse the depth of his Works.
He summed up the essence of the doctrine that gave life to Methodism as

“the Bible is the whole and sole rule both of Christian faith and practice. Hence they learned, (1.)That religion is an inward principle; that it is no other than the mind that was in Christ; or, in other words, the renewal of the soul after the image of God, in righteousness and true holiness. (2.)That this can never be wrought in us, but by the power of the Holy Ghost. (3.)That we receive this, and every other blessing, merely for the sake of Christ: And, (4.)That whosoever hath the mind that was in Christ, the same is our brother, and sister, and mother.” He then set the standards for the efficacious preaching of this doctrine could be summed up by a focus on “salvation by faith, preceded by repentance, and followed by holiness.”

However, it was the Methodist experience that the best preaching wasn't enough. It became obvious that there had to be a way to hold each Methodist accountable for changing the way they lived their lives in response to the preached message, so that holiness truly could be the result of being a part of this movement. Out of this came the Methodist structure of Societies and Classes. This, Wesley came to be convinced, was necessary in spite of the fact that there was nothing in the scriptures that required this structure. This insistence on that which he recognized as prudential, even if not instituted by the Scripture, was an important part of what he was referring to when he wrote about the “few prudential regulations” that “guarded” a “plain, scriptural religion” and created an environment that allowed it to flourish in a culture that despised religious fanaticism.
This understanding of the need for disciplined accountability in a Christian's life for the Gospel to truly be transformative was what Wesley feared would be set aside, leaving Methodists as a people who had “the form of religion without the power.” As one reads Wesley's sermons, one becomes aware that as much as he taught about Jesus and grace, about repentance and forgiveness, about our sin and Christ's atonement, was that he also taught about how none of that meant anything unless we were willing to be changed by it. And this sanctification was something that required a cooperative effort on our part; a willingness to order our lives in such a way as to be open to the guidance, teaching, and leading of the Holy Spirit. That there were prudent ways to hold ourselves and each other accountable for this cooperation, so as to make this work of the Holy Spirit something more than what God does to us; making it something God is doing with us, and what we do with God as we respond to His love.
The doctrine of the Methodist Movement wasn't just “salvation by faith, preceded by repentance, and followed by holiness.” It was a doctrine of prudential discipline, as well. It was this doctrine that formed a people that changed the world. It wasn't a statement about sexuality, or a resolution demanding that governments do right things. It was a people who lived out a personal discipline so as to be able to be used by God.
Anybody think we might have been getting it wrong for a while now?

Following Three Simple Rules

There have been those who have said that all that was required of a Methodist was to follow three rules-

First, do no harm, by avoiding evil of any kind.

Second, do all the good you can do. This one has been enshrined in posters in many churches, as part of a quote attributed to John Wesley himself. The problem is, John Wesley never actually said what the poster says he said. He did often offer the advice to "do all the good you can" to those he corresponded with, but more often he was critical of those who thought it was enough.

Third, attending upon all the ordinances of God. Or, said another way, availing oneself of all the means of grace. Or, go to church (and take communion), pray, read your Bible, and listen to Christian radio.

It's easy to see how this has come about in 20th Century America, but it was prevalent in 18th Century England, as well. In Wesley's journal entry of November 25‘“, 1739, he tells of preaching at a local church, on Romans 14:17, "The kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost."

“Dr. W—— told me after sermon, 'Sir, you must not preach in the afternoon.' 'Not,' said he, 'that you preach any false doctrine. I allow, all that you have said is true. And it is the doctrine of the Church of England. But it is not guarded. It is dangerous. It may lead people into enthusiasm or despair.'”

“I did not readily see where the stress of this objection (so frequently stated) lay. But upon a little reflection, I saw it plain. The real state of the case is this: — Religion is commonly thought to consist of three things, — harmlessness, using the means of grace, and doing good, as it is called; that is, helping our neighbors, chiefly by giving alms. Accordingly, by a religious man is commonly meant, one that is honest, just, and fair in his dealings,- that is constantly at church and sacrament; and that gives much alms, or (as it is usually termed) does much good.”

“Now, in explaining those words of the Apostle, 'The kingdom of God' (or true religion, the consequence of God‘s dwelling and reigning in the soul) 'is not meat and drink,' I was necessarily led to show, that religion does not properly consist in any or all of these three things; but that a man might both be harmless, use the means of grace, and do much good, and yet have no true religion at all.” (Wesley's Journal-November 24, 1739, Works, Vol. 1, Extract 4)

This is confirmed by his notes on Luke 18:9-12-

“He spoke also this parable to certain people who were convinced of their own righteousness, and who despised all others. "Two men went up into the temple to pray; one was a Pharisee, and the other was a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed to himself like this: ‘God, I thank you, that i am not like the rest of men, extortionists, unrighteous, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. l fast twice a week. I give tithes of all that l get.’” (Luke 18:9-12; World English Bible)

“He spake this parable — Not to hypocrites; the Pharisee here mentioned was no hypocrite, no more than an outward adulterer: but he sincerely trusted in himself that he was righteous, and accordingly told God so, in the prayer which none but God heard.” (Wesley's Notes on the New Testament, Luke 18:9)

“I fast twice in the week — So did all the strict Pharisees: every Monday and Thursday. I give tithes of all that I possess — Many of them gave one full tenth of their income in tithes, and another tenth in alms. the sum of this plea is, I do no harm: I use all the means of grace: I do all the good I can.” (Wesley's Notes on the New Testament, Luke 18:12)

Notice here that he's equating even the well-intentioned adherence to these three rules to trusting in one's own goodness. It's almost as if Wesley was trying to get us to see that the pharisees of Jesus' time do indeed have a parallel in our day, and many of them are the good church members who shake the preacher's hand at the close of worship each Sunday, and say, "Good sermon, pastor,” and leave trusting in their own goodness.

Of course, having found Wesley speaking thus in a journal entry from 1739 and in a single entry on his Notes on the New Testament, it's only fair to ask if this agreed with what he wrote for an audience of the general public. In 1742 Wesley published a pamphlet for general distribution titled The Character of a Methodist. In it he said,

“We do not place the whole of religion (as too many do, God knoweth) either in doing no harm, or in doing good, or in using the ordinances of God. No, not in all of them together; wherein we know by experience a man may labor many years, and at the end have no religion at all, no more than he had at the beginning. Much less in any one of these,- or, it may be, in a scrap of one of them: Like her who fancies herself a virtuous woman, only because she is not a prostitute; or him who dreams he is an honest man, merely because he does not rob or steal. May the Lord God of my fathers preserve me from such a poor, starved religion as this! Were this the mark of a Methodist, I would sooner choose to be a sincere Jew, Turk, or Pagan.” (From The Character of a Methodist, para 4; Works, Vol. 8; c.1739)

Then there is this from a sermon published in 1760. It would take a bold preacher to speak this:

“Do you say, 'Nay, but I do no harm to any man; I am honest and just in all my dealings; I do not curse, or take the Lord’s name in vain; I do not profane the Lord’s day; I am no drunkard; I do not slander my neighbor, nor live in any willful sin?' If this be so, it were much to he wished that all men went as far as you do. But you must go farther yet, or you cannot be saved. Do you add, 'I do go farther yet; for I not only do no harm, but do all the good I can?' I doubt that fact; I fear you have had a thousand opportunities of doing good which you have suffered to pass by unimproved, and for which therefore you are accountable to God. But if you had improved them all, if you really had done all the good you possibly could to all men, yet this does not at all alter the case 'Nay, but I constantly attend all the ordinances of God: I keep to my church and sacrament.' It is well you do: But all this will not keep you from hell. Go to church twice a day; go to the Lord’s table every week; say ever so many prayers in private; hear ever so many good sermons; read ever so many good books; still, "you must be born again:' None of these things will stand in the place of the new birth; no, nor any thing under heaven.” (From Sermon 45, On The New Birth; Works, Vol. 6)

It seems obvious that Wesley wouldn't find the three simple rules sufficient for a Christian. It does raise the question, though – where did anybody get this idea? That's the next post.

Yes, Methodists do have doctrinal standards

AN EXPLANATION OF THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE DOCTRINAL STANDARDS OF THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
(specifically, as it pertains to my understanding of the Church's relationship to the issues of open sexuality)

by Bruce Ferguson

The United Methodist Church, as an organization, is defined by the contents of The Book Of Discipline. At the heart of this definition are 6 paragraphs in the Discipline known as the Restrictive Rules. The legislative requirements to change them are are so tough that it would take an Act of God to do so. It is safe to say that, whatever else gets debated in the Church, arguing about the need to change these will truly be a waste of time. The first one of these is

¶ 17. Article I.—The General Conference shall not revoke, alter, or change our Articles of Religion or establish any new standards or rules of doctrine contrary to our present existing and established standards of doctrine.

Since the first American Methodist Conference in 1773 Wesley's Explanatory Notes and Standard Sermons have been accepted as doctrinal standards. These, along with the Articles of Religion, were codified as standards at the Constitutional Conference of 1808. Although the precise number of sermons was never clearly stated, it has been accepted that the collection published in 1843 by Thomas Jackson as Series 1, which includes 53 sermons, is appropriately authoritative.
The 25 Articles Of Religion are the result of Wesley editing down the 39 Articles of the Church of England to that which would be appropriate for a church free from the rule of the King of England.
THE STANDARDS OF DOCTRINE THAT SEEM TO APPLY TO THIS ISSUE.
(Specifically, language that would be more inclusive of the GLBTQ community)

Article 6—Of the Old Testament (From the Articles of Religion)
“The Old Testament is not contrary to the New; for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and man, being both God and Man. Wherefore they are not to be heard who feign that the old fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the law given from God by Moses as touching ceremonies and rites doth not bind Christians, nor ought the civil precepts thereof of necessity be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian whatsoever is free from the obedience of the commandments which are called moral.”

The Mosaic Law (that which is understood to have been given to Moses from God on Mount Sinai) which begins in Exodus 20 and continues on through Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy has been divided into three parts (by both Jewish and Christian theologians) with remarkable consistency. The Law is divided into the civil, the ceremonial, and the moral parts. The proscriptions against same-gender relations in Leviticus 18 and 20 are understood to be part of the moral law.
The following Standard Sermons are instructive as to the proper understanding of the moral law in the Christian's life. Simply put, Wesley contends that the moral law was in place long before the giving of The Law to Moses; that this giving of The Law merely codified the moral code God expected all humans to live by from the very beginning, and that the new covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34 that was to write God's law on our hearts was in fact the Holy Spirit bringing this code in all its fullness to every Christian's personal awareness. Therefore, any teaching that we were no longer expected to be moral according to this is an abomination to God.

Standard Sermon 25, 5^th Discourse on the Sermon of the Mount (Matthew 5:17-20)

Standard Sermon 34, The Original, Nature, Property, and Use of the Law

And from Wesley's Explanatory Notes:

(from Wesley's Notes on the New Testament; 1 Peter 4:11) “The oracles of God teach that men should repent, believe, obey. He that treats of faith and leaves out repentance, or does not enjoin practical holiness to believers, does not speak as the oracles of God: he does not preach Christ, let him think as highly of himself as he will.”
(from Wesley's Notes on the New Testament; 1 Timothy 1:8) “We grant the whole Mosaic law is good, answers excellent purposes, if a man use it in a proper manner. Even the ceremonial is good, as it points to Christ; and the moral law is holy, just, and good, on its own nature; and of admirable use both to convince unbelievers, and to guide believers in all holiness.”
Bishop Scott Jones wrote the book on United Methodist doctrine. In United Methodist Doctrine: The Extreme Center he writes:

“If dissent from doctrine involves disagreement with something very close to the center of the Church’s teaching and attempts to get the Church to change its teaching fail, then a responsible person will surrender his or her conference relationship and leave the Church. Rather than preach a unitarian understanding of God, theories of white supremacy, or other doctrines contrary to the core teachings of the Church, persons of integrity will come to the conclusion that they do not belong as a representative of the United Methodist Church and should in good conscience join another religion. There are certain beliefs like the Trinity and God’s love for persons of all races that are so central to the United Methodist understanding of the gospel that fundamental disagreement with them requires the breaking of fellowship. This is the spiritual basis for the chargeable offense in ¶2702, 'dissemination of doctrines contrary to the established standards of doctrine of The United Methodist Church.' In cases where doctrinal dissent is so fundamental and yet the dissenter will not voluntarily leave the Church, the Church must protect the integrity of its own witness by removing the person from its fellowship.” (United Methodist Doctrine-The Extreme Center, Scott J. Jones; p294; Chapter 10: “Preaching and Maintaining United Methodist Doctrine”)

As a member of The United Methodist Church, I believe that I am constrained by our Discipline by specific doctrinal standards. These are not up for a vote, nor are they meant to be disregarded. This is who we are. I know that not all communities of Christian faith are so constrained. However, as an act of integrity, when i call myself United Methodist, I acknowledge the authority of these standards. Therefore, as a minister within The United Methodist Church, I am morally obligated to limit my preaching, teaching, and behavior to that which does not go counter to these standards.

To be completely open, our Book of Discipline offers the following instructions to the Church to govern its daily life:

¶ 4. Article IV. Inclusiveness of the Church
The United Methodist Church is a part of the church universal, which is one Body in Christ. The United Methodist Church acknowledges that all persons are of sacred worth. All persons without regard to race, color, national origin, status, or economic condition, shall be eligible to attend its worship services, participate in its programs, receive the sacraments, upon baptism be admitted as baptized members, and upon taking vows declaring the Christian faith, become professing members in any local church in the connection. In The United Methodist Church no conference or other organizational unit of the Church shall be structured so as to exclude any member or any constituent body of the Church because of race, color, national origin, status or economic condition.

¶ 214. Eligibility
The United Methodist Church is a part of the holy catholic (universal) church, as we confess in the Apostles' Creed. In the church, Jesus Christ is proclaimed and professed as Lord and Savior. All people may attend its worship services, participate in its programs, receive the sacraments and become members in any local church in the connection (¶ 4). In the case of persons whose disabilities prevent them from reciting the vows, their legal guardian[s], themselves members in full covenant relationship with God and the Church, the community of faith, may recite the appropriate vows on their behalf.

¶ 304.3 Qualifications for Ordination
While persons set apart by the Church for ordained ministry are subject to all the frailties of the human condition and the pressures of society, they are required to maintain the highest standards of holy living in the world. The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. Therefore self-avowed practicing homosexuals¹ are not to be certified as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church.1. "Self-avowed practicing homosexual" is understood to mean that a person openly acknowledges to a bishop, district superintendent, district committee of ordained ministry, board of ordained ministry, or clergy session that the person is a practicing homosexual.

¶ 806.9 Fiscal Responsibilities [of the General Council on Finance and Administration]
[The General Council on Finance and Administration] shall be responsible for ensuring that no board, agency, committee, commission, or council shall give United Methodist funds to any gay caucus or group, or otherwise use such funds to promote the acceptance of homosexuality or violate the expressed commitment of The United Methodist Church "not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends" (¶ 161F). The council shall have the right to stop such expenditures. It shall not limit the Church's ministry in response to the HIV epidemic.

These paragraphs are not part of the Restrictive Rules, and as such, continue to be refined by General Conference every four years. However, to the extent that they fall within the area of doctrine, such refinement can be expected to fall within the parameters of our Doctrinal Standards.

The Church Of 1955 (CO55)

Doesn't ANYBODY in the church know it's the 21st Century?

The acclaim for the new Wesley Study Bible is impressive. Having just read the list of contributors, I must admit that I don't know most of them, but the names I recognize I respect. And although reviews of this Bible are mixed, I suspect that this Bible would have made leading Bible studies 20 or 30 years ago more productive in advancing the Wesleyan message. Remember those Bible studies? There would always be one spiritual giant who would not only know his or her Bible, but would quote authoritatively from the study notes written by Mr. Scofield or Mr. Ryrie. Which would be fine if we were all 5-Point Calvinistic Dispensationalists, but we weren't. Some of us were just reading and studying the Bible. We didn't start with Calvin's presuppositions, so we didn't see the absolute predestination. We didn't start with Mr. Darby's presuppositions, so we don't have this dogmatic need to try to explain why God has done certain things at certain times, and why we can expect Him to do things (or refrain from doing things) in the future.

Back to work!

I've been away too long! Not that I haven't been wading through Wesley's writings, just not posting. But it's time to get back at it!
I'm chasing threads through JW, finding the ones that seem to be unheard today, or at least marginalized, pushed aside for the current theo-fad. Here's a beginning list:

Faith

Salvation

Grace (now, I think this is the most fascinating! Ties a lot together.)

Kingdom of God

Obedience

Our purpose (Who am I? -> What is the church?)

The Connexion vs. the Connection

There's more, but those are some threads I'm chasing. Pray for me!