The first post in this series can be found here
In "An Extract of a Letter to The Reverend Mr. Law (Wesley's Works, vol 9, pp 467ff), Wesley begins the letter with the following words:
"In matters of religion I regard no writings but the inspired. Tauler, Behmen, and a whole army of Mystic authors are with me nothing compared to St. Paul. In every point I appeal "to the law and the testimony," and value no authority but this."
Notice Wesley's reference to Isaiah 8:20, "the law and the testimony--" Holy Scripture as the place we find authoritative words from God.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Methodists and Sola Scriptura
I want to direct some thinking and attention to the position Scripture occupies in the United Methodist Church. The Reformation principle of "Sola Scriptura," or "Scripture Alone" means that the Holy Scriptures contain all that is necessary to be known about salvation.
A question among UMs is whether or not we hold to this Reformation principle. Some say we hold to, because John Wesley did, "prima scriptura," or Scripture first, but not the only standard of authority. To my mind, there are some who would not even put Scripture first, considering it one among many "sources" for the life and doctrine of the church. But, did John Wesley hold to "prima" or "sola" scriptura?
So, in this post, two portions of the Discipline of the United Methodist Church.
Both come from our Doctrinal Standards-- The Articles of Religion, The Confession of Faith of the Evangelical United Brethren [a German-heritage "methodist" denomination that merged with the Methodist Church in 1968 to form The United Methodist Church], John Wesley's Standard Sermons, and his Notes on the New Testament. These documents form our doctrine.
Article V of the Articles of Religion: Of The Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation:
"The Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be though prerequisite to salvation."
And from the Evangelical United Brethren Confession of Faith, Article IV:
"We believe the Holy Bible, Old and New Testaments, reveals the Word of God so far as it is necessary for our salvation. It is to be received through the Holy Spirit as the true rule and guide for faith and practice. Whatever is not revealed in or established by the Holy Scriptures is not to be made an article of faith nor is to be taught to be essential to salvation."
This is the material sufficiency position of Scripture contained in the Reformation principle of sola scriptura. I hope to add more pieces of Wesley's writings to spur more thinking and discussion.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
A question among UMs is whether or not we hold to this Reformation principle. Some say we hold to, because John Wesley did, "prima scriptura," or Scripture first, but not the only standard of authority. To my mind, there are some who would not even put Scripture first, considering it one among many "sources" for the life and doctrine of the church. But, did John Wesley hold to "prima" or "sola" scriptura?
So, in this post, two portions of the Discipline of the United Methodist Church.
Both come from our Doctrinal Standards-- The Articles of Religion, The Confession of Faith of the Evangelical United Brethren [a German-heritage "methodist" denomination that merged with the Methodist Church in 1968 to form The United Methodist Church], John Wesley's Standard Sermons, and his Notes on the New Testament. These documents form our doctrine.
Article V of the Articles of Religion: Of The Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation:
"The Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be though prerequisite to salvation."
And from the Evangelical United Brethren Confession of Faith, Article IV:
"We believe the Holy Bible, Old and New Testaments, reveals the Word of God so far as it is necessary for our salvation. It is to be received through the Holy Spirit as the true rule and guide for faith and practice. Whatever is not revealed in or established by the Holy Scriptures is not to be made an article of faith nor is to be taught to be essential to salvation."
This is the material sufficiency position of Scripture contained in the Reformation principle of sola scriptura. I hope to add more pieces of Wesley's writings to spur more thinking and discussion.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Monday, November 7, 2011
A Different Way of Pining for Christendom
So it hit me, my ambivalence about liturgy and the Church Year: is it another way of pining for Christendom? There are so many great "feasts" that we don't celebrate on their actual day... All Saints Day is November 1, not NOvember 6, not whatever is the first Sunday in November.
We had an awesome service Sunday, packed house such joy in singing, freedom in preaching, seamless integration of technology...
Are we missing the days when if we had an All Saints Day Service on Tuesday, we would have packed the house, but now with the loss of Christendom, churches are empty on every day but Sunday? Are we missing a culture built around the Church Year?
And if we are missing that, while at the same time generally bashing "Christendom," what's really going on?
We had an awesome service Sunday, packed house such joy in singing, freedom in preaching, seamless integration of technology...
Are we missing the days when if we had an All Saints Day Service on Tuesday, we would have packed the house, but now with the loss of Christendom, churches are empty on every day but Sunday? Are we missing a culture built around the Church Year?
And if we are missing that, while at the same time generally bashing "Christendom," what's really going on?
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Heavy
So, this morning Jon Powers was blowing up my twitter feed with 1John3. I really like that so many people I follow on twitter post so much scripture... it really makes the day so much better. Well, of course, 1 John 3:9 is a difficult and powerful verse. The NIV says, "no one who is born of God will continue to sin."
The King James says, ""Whosoever is born of God doth not sin."
Adam Clarke, probably Methodism's most erudite Scripture scholar said this in his commentary (published 1831? that's what the edition I have says, but was there an earlier one?):
"some say 'he does not sin habitually, as he used to. This is hanging the influence of the heavenly birth very low indeed. we have the most indubitable evidence that many of the heathen philosophers had accomplished, by mental discipline and cultivation, an entire ascendancy over their wonted vicious habits. Perhaps my reader will recollect the story of the physiognomist who, coming into the place where Socrates was giving a lecture, his pupils, wishing to put the man's principles of the man's science to proof, desired him to examine the face of their master, and say what his moral character was. After a full contemplation of the philosopher's visage, he pronounced him the most gluttonous, drunken, brutal and libidinous old man that he had ever met. As the character of Socrates was the reverse of this, his disciples began to insult the physiognomist. Socrates interfered and said, 'The principles of his science must be very correct, for such I was, but I have conquered it by my philosphy.' O ye Christian divines! ye real or pretended Gospel ministers! Will ye allow the influence of the grace of Christ a sway not even so extensive as that of the philosophy of a heathen who never heard of the true God?"
The King James says, ""Whosoever is born of God doth not sin."
Adam Clarke, probably Methodism's most erudite Scripture scholar said this in his commentary (published 1831? that's what the edition I have says, but was there an earlier one?):
"some say 'he does not sin habitually, as he used to. This is hanging the influence of the heavenly birth very low indeed. we have the most indubitable evidence that many of the heathen philosophers had accomplished, by mental discipline and cultivation, an entire ascendancy over their wonted vicious habits. Perhaps my reader will recollect the story of the physiognomist who, coming into the place where Socrates was giving a lecture, his pupils, wishing to put the man's principles of the man's science to proof, desired him to examine the face of their master, and say what his moral character was. After a full contemplation of the philosopher's visage, he pronounced him the most gluttonous, drunken, brutal and libidinous old man that he had ever met. As the character of Socrates was the reverse of this, his disciples began to insult the physiognomist. Socrates interfered and said, 'The principles of his science must be very correct, for such I was, but I have conquered it by my philosphy.' O ye Christian divines! ye real or pretended Gospel ministers! Will ye allow the influence of the grace of Christ a sway not even so extensive as that of the philosophy of a heathen who never heard of the true God?"
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
It's Back
So, I want to get back to posting here at Weekly Wesley. I'm starting it off with something I posted last year, a letter from the Methodist Bishops to the Church in 1824. This is a serious word. What do we make of their prediction? How do we reform ourselves to once again "spread Scriptural Holiness across the land?"
"If Methodists give up the doctrine of entire sanctification, or suffer it to become a dead letter, we are a fallen people... If the Methodists lose sight of this, they fall by their own weight. Their success in gaining numbers will be the cause of their dissolution. Holiness is the main cord that binds us together Relax this and you loosen the whole system. This will appear more evident if we call to mind the original design of Methodism. It was to raise up and preserve a holy people. This was the principal object which Mr. Wesley, who under God, was the great founder of our order, had in view. To this all doctrines preached in methodism tend. Whoever supposed, or who that is acquainted with the case can suppose, that it was designed in any of its parts to secure the applause or popularity of the world, or a numerical increase of worldly or impenitent men? Are there any provisions made for the aggrandizement of our ministers or the worldly-mindedness of our members?
"None whatever."
"If Methodists give up the doctrine of entire sanctification, or suffer it to become a dead letter, we are a fallen people... If the Methodists lose sight of this, they fall by their own weight. Their success in gaining numbers will be the cause of their dissolution. Holiness is the main cord that binds us together Relax this and you loosen the whole system. This will appear more evident if we call to mind the original design of Methodism. It was to raise up and preserve a holy people. This was the principal object which Mr. Wesley, who under God, was the great founder of our order, had in view. To this all doctrines preached in methodism tend. Whoever supposed, or who that is acquainted with the case can suppose, that it was designed in any of its parts to secure the applause or popularity of the world, or a numerical increase of worldly or impenitent men? Are there any provisions made for the aggrandizement of our ministers or the worldly-mindedness of our members?
"None whatever."
Sunday, June 5, 2011
I Don't Like the Lectionary, Either
Issues with the Church Year are also tied up with the lectionary for me. I don’t like the lectionary that the UMC has available. Not sure what kind of lectionary I would like, to be honest.
Here’s what I hear: “the lectionary keeps me from preaching just what I like.” Ok, but is that really a problem for you? And so now, you are going to preach what some editorial board likes?
Or I hear, “the lectionary makes sure you stay balanced between the Old and New Testaments.” Actually not true, you have to make that commitment. And again, I wonder why you would not do so anyway?
These answers in favor of using the lectionary come so quickly that I suspect we haven’t really thought about them.
So I will ask the same question about the lectionary that I do about the Church Year: what are its liabilities and limitations?
Here’s what I hear: “the lectionary keeps me from preaching just what I like.” Ok, but is that really a problem for you? And so now, you are going to preach what some editorial board likes?
Or I hear, “the lectionary makes sure you stay balanced between the Old and New Testaments.” Actually not true, you have to make that commitment. And again, I wonder why you would not do so anyway?
These answers in favor of using the lectionary come so quickly that I suspect we haven’t really thought about them.
So I will ask the same question about the lectionary that I do about the Church Year: what are its liabilities and limitations?
More on the Church Year
So far, everyone seems really pumped about the Church Year. Would anyone care to post on its liabilities and limitations?
One that comes to mind is a fellow who said since Lent, fasting has fallen off for him.
Or I think about how on Easter there was all kinds of activity on Twitter saying "he is risen." But now, none of that. Is He no longer risen?
Do we talk about the birth of Jesus any time outside Christmas?
I wonder if there is a kind of nostalgia in us. We should be able to date our letters by a sacred feast. We wish that Christianity was enough of a cultural force that we could actually do a good service for Ascension Day ON Ascension Day, but who would come to Church at 11 a.m. Thursday? Or even if we had it in the evening?
One that comes to mind is a fellow who said since Lent, fasting has fallen off for him.
Or I think about how on Easter there was all kinds of activity on Twitter saying "he is risen." But now, none of that. Is He no longer risen?
Do we talk about the birth of Jesus any time outside Christmas?
I wonder if there is a kind of nostalgia in us. We should be able to date our letters by a sacred feast. We wish that Christianity was enough of a cultural force that we could actually do a good service for Ascension Day ON Ascension Day, but who would come to Church at 11 a.m. Thursday? Or even if we had it in the evening?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)