Mainline or Methodist (Part 6)

Today we reach the final chapter in Dr. Scott Kisker’s book, Mainline or Methodist. Thank you to everyone who has been reading along with this series. In the final chapter, Kisker admits that he is a historian and not someone who easily makes suggestions about directions to take in the future. However, as a committed United Methodist, he uses this chapter to propose several ways forward.

More than anything, he hopes to recover Methodism within United Methodism. While this may seem like a strange comment to people outside of the UMC, Kisker reminds us of something very important.

Methodism was always most church (defined, as Wesley did, as “a company of faithful” people) when it was a movement…Methodists became more “churchy,” and we gradually ceased to be “one” through schisms, we ceased to be “holy” through lax discipline and compromise, we ceased to be “catholic” through denominational prejudice, and we ceased to be “apostolic” (that is, a “sent people”) through sloth.

Kisker imagines that Methodism might be recovered by once again becoming a movement rather than a church, and could mean that someone could be Methodist (in discipline and practice) as part of any denomination whatsoever. More than that, this suggests being United Methodist doesn’t necessarily make you a Methodist! He goes on to say that this movement toward recovering Methodism could begin with groups of individuals starting class meetings on their own, or even having Sunday school classes reframe their purpose in ways that modeled the class meeting. This kind of small group life would involve asking seriously, “How does your soul prosper,” or in today’s language, “How are you doing spiritually?” No vague comment about spirituality will suffice to grow as disciples. We need to regain the practice of reporting to fellow Christians how we are doing in the traditional means of grace: prayer, scripture reading, study, etc.

This means that we would have to take the character of our tradition seriously. Kisker even suggests that our official vision statement, “to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world,” is too vague. Although it is certainly Christian, it doesn’t really suggest who we are. He proposes returning to Wesley’s call, “to spread scriptural holiness over these lands.” Imagine that!

We United Methodists have been playing church for a long time without being a Christian society. We have [as Wesley feared] been “having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.” (1 Timothy 3:5, KJV)

To quit playing church and begin being the church, we need a renewed commitment to salvation,

A renewed commitment to holiness necessitates a renewed commitment to salvation, since holiness is the purpose of salvation.

After many other helpful suggestions and dreams, Kisker closes with helpful words,

Methodism began as a means of grace and a system of accountability. It was an order within the larger church for the renewal of the Church. If we are to recover that usefulness to the kingdom of God in the world, we need what we once had: a missional focus, clear simple rules, and a clear simple and flexible structure.

Can this be done within the United Methodist Church? I personally think it can. However, we will need strength and resolve to continue spreading scriptural holiness over the land, because this vision isn’t shared by everyone. And like other phrases, “scriptural holiness” can be shaped and defined by whoever is using it. My prayer is that we will continue to move closer in line with the work of God’s Holy Spirit and capture the passionate desire for salvation that the early Methodists had. Then, we will see true renewal and revitalization.

Mainline or Methodist (Part 5)

In chapter 5, Kisker turns his attention to conferencing in the Methodist tradition. His description of the way annual and general conferences function is not much different than my experience with them over the past five years. We meet as an Annual Conference every year. We ordain a new group of Deacons and Elders, we honor those who cease active service, we remember those who have died in the previous year. We also get to spend time in worship and in reviewing legislation that comes from various committees across the conference. Additionally we get to reconnect with sisters and brothers in Christ that we haven’t seen much in the prior year.

Kisker believes the majority of United Methodists would be surprised that none of these activities are the reason conferencing was established within Methodism by John Wesley. That, instead, grew out of Wesley’s oversight of the Methodist movement. It is describes beautifully here,

In 1738, a high church Anglican, Oxford academic met Jesus for real and began acting very contrary to character. He lowered himself to preach outside of a church and to focus his attentions not on the promising young men in the university, but on the working class men and women struggling along in early industrial England.

As a result, Wesley incorporated lay leadership and lay preaching in the leadership of the early Methodist groups. The first conference, then, was designed to gather the spiritual leaders of these Methodist groups, those in particular who were open to the leading of the Holy Spirit, to think, talk, and pray together as they sought God’s direction. All of their questions reflected these general questions,

What to teach;
How to teach;
What to do; that is, how to regulate our doctrine, discipline, and practice

The early Methodists didn’t gather to discuss legislation that made little difference in the lives of the people they served. Instead of meeting and using the same tactics and practices as congress, we are called to confer for only one reason,

We confer for one reason and one reason only. Because we are called to play a part in a movement of God’s Spirit. And that movement is big…United Methodism matters only if it is connected to, a part of, that movement. If not, it is worthless, and might as well cease to exist. To make sure we are continuing to be part of that movement requires discernment. And discerning the Spirit of God requires a seeking community.

I agree wholeheartedly with Kisker’s read on the situation at this point. Not only our churches, but any of our institutions cease to matter if they are disconnected from the movement of God’s Spirit.

After a discussion of the steps it would take to truly conference in our world today, Kisker closes with a segment that provides hope for what could be,

It might amaze people to find out that at one time conference was a place of expectation – where revival might break out – where people might get converted to God…Conference was a place where ordinary people might find something extraordinary to pledge their lives to – a movement of God’s Spirit sweeping this world… Many a newcomer gets converted at annual conference, but I fear it is generally not to Jesus.

I actually think this (conversion) could happen at our annual conference, if only based on the strength of our Bishop’s preaching. He effectively offers the gospel in ways that call people to repentance and conversion. I can picture women and men giving their lives to the extraordinary call of Christ in response to the worship that we sometimes encounter at conference – if you were at last year’s ordination service, you’ll know what I’m talking about.

However, I also sense the frustration that Kisker describes. Sometimes we spend thirty minutes to an hour working on a piece of legislation that is basically passing a proclamation about something or another that apparently goes in a file that never impacts anything. I still remember a piece of legislation that proposed the highest paid employee of a church couldn’t make more than a certain percentage more than the lowest paid employee. It was poorly thought out and didn’t factor in a consideration of rural churches whatsoever, but we spent forever talking about this inane piece of legislation. That’s the kind of thing conference can devolve into.

All in all, I think Kisker’s hope for conferencing probably won’t happen in my lifetime, and it is probably the weakest chapter in an excellent book. In the next (and final!) installment, we’ll look at his thoughts for a way forward.

Mainline or Methodist (Part 4)

In Chapter 4 of Dr. Scott Kisker’s work, Mainline or Methodist? Recovering our Evangelistic Mission, Kisker begins to discuss the “method” behind Methodism. This chapter opens with a critique of what passes for evangelism and discipleship within the UMC today. Kisker doesn’t hold back when he says most of what passes for evangelism in our denomination today,

[is] at best, a bankrupt vision of God’s purposes for creation and a truncated understanding of salvation. At worst, we find practices that are little more than thinly veiled attempts to manipulate others through politics or marketing techniques.

Our challenge is to reclaim the strong theological grounding of the early practices of the Methodist movement. Rather than trying anything to see if it works, or allowing our theology and practice to be grounded only in our personal preference or politics, we should follow Wesley’s practice of grounding our understanding of both evangelism and discipleship in the way, “God’s grace is active, working to save God’s beloved creatures.”

Kisker’s read of these practices follow Wesley’s admonition to preach Christ in all of his offices: prophet, priest, and king. The corresponding practices, are field preaching, class membership, and band membership. These also correspond to convincing (what we often call prevenient), justifying, and sanctifying grace. His summary at the end of the chapter is helpful,

With those asleep in sin, Methodism’s missional task is to minister in Christ’s prophetic office – publicly, in the open air, at the market cross – to convince people of their need for God. With those already convinced of their need for God, Methodism’s missional task is to introduce them to the one who can meet that need – to their great high priest. With those who know God’s forgiving love, Methodism’s missional task is to work to save them from the power of sin – bring every part of their lives into the love of Christ the king.

These theological and missional tasks were expressed in practices that many United Methodist congregations (and affiliated organizations) have given up: open air preaching, class meetings, and band meetings. Here is a basic description of those practices.

Open-air preaching: Wesley found places where real people gathered as part of their daily lives and introduced them to the message of God’s salvation. He preached outside the walls of the Church, many times as often as twice a day. He hoped to see people awakened to the, “hollowness of their search for happiness” in anything outside of God. Kisker challenges us to find the modern-day equivalent of the market square. In my D.Min. paper, I explore whether or not this is the virtual world of social media (Facebook, twitter, etc.), but we’ll leave that for another day. After being awakened by God’s grace through open-air preaching, people were gathered in the class meeting.

Class meeting: here, people were given opportunities for further response. People were invited to talk in smaller groups about their spiritual state and were expected to live as followers of Jesus. These groups were limited to twelve members where people experienced authentic Christian fellowship, often for the first time. Kisker cites Tom Albin’s research which showed, “the majority of experiences of the new birth happened after membership in the class meeting, at times in the meeting.” In a sense, people most often belonged before they believed. Kisker writes,

Perhaps it is not possible to recover the class meeting as it was for our present day. But if our ministry is to be effective in the present age, we must recover what they provided: small, disciplined, hospitable, caring fellowships for non-Christians and Christians alike.

In our day, I wonder if traditional Sunday school groups can fulfill this role. Kisker doesn’t seem to think so, but I think it’s possible.

Band meetings: finally, after being awakened by field preaching, incorporated into caring groups of discipline and community, early Methodists were joined in the band meeting. Band meetings were sepearted by gender and were more confessional in nature.

To be a part of a band meant being willing to shuck pretense, to be humble before a brother or sister in Christ. It meant acting as a priest one to another, acting in love toward another whose sin you know. It meant allowing someone, who knows your sin, to act in love toward you. It meant humility. It meant Christlikeness. It meant holiness.

People who participated in this methodical process often experienced “full salvation,” as they were empowered to experience healing, forgiveness, and participation in the work and ministry of Christ. At the church I serve, this can best happen through our COS group ministry. In fact, I’ve experienced this very thing with a small group of three other men that I meet with weekly. Through their encouragement, support, and accountability, I see how I’m growing in grace and loving God and neighbor more than I have in a very long time.

Together these practices, rooted in a strong Wesleyan theology, prevent us from being just a charity organization or a political rally that uses the Church and scripture to validate our own biases and preferences. They are a means God will use to form us as more passionate and dedicated followers of Jesus. In part 5, I’ll look at Kisker’s thoughts on where this conversation might lead in the United Methodist Church today.

Mainline or Methodist (Part 2)

In chapter 2, Dr. Scott Kisker describes the vision to which John Wesley and early Methodists committed their lives. He suggests that Wesley and Methodism’s theology and methodology only make sense in light of this larger vision. Kisker describes that vision as follows,

This vision is the possibility of present salvation from the tyranny of sin – from the dominion of the devil. It is a vision of life lived under the authority of God, who brings “liberty to the captives” (Is 61:1). It is St. Peter’s vision of a “royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people” (1 Pet 2:9), living in accord with God’s will, as a visible testimony to resurrection power. The “beauty of holiness” (1 Chr 16:29) had seduced Wesley long before his Aldersgate experience. That pursuit became his calling.

In spite of his own efforts, Wesley could never attain the salvation or holiness he so desired. It wasn’t until his encounter with God at Aldersgate that he recognized, “holiness, saintliness, victory over sin, resurrection, the kingdom of God is a gift. We can do nothing to deserve it. We cannot achieve it…[but] we can and must receive it by faith.” Wesley experienced the “new birth,” or being “born again,” at Aldersgate and yet he knew that birth was just the beginning. Kisker writes, “The new birth was not the fullest possible expression of holiness in this life. It was a birth. It was not the goal of Christianity, it was the doorway to it, and there was a lot of house left to explore.”

The often neglected Methodist doctrine of perfection is the goal of the Christian life. Again, Kisker helpfully and briefly explains this, “Perfection, completeness, is the greatest manifestation of the love of God filling us that is possible in this life.” Overall, Kisker explains, t was Wesley’s vision of holiness that stood behind the mission of Methodism. In fact, the very reason given for raising up Methodist preachers in the first place as, “to reform the nation, particularly the Church; and to spread scriptural holiness over the land.”

How long has it been since you’ve heard this vision within United Methodism? When was the last time you taught about the “new birth” in plain language? How are we called to pick us this original vision in our churches today?

Kisker suggests that Methodists in America lost sight of this vision and the structures (small groups, band and class meetings) that sought to allow men and women to experience the “new birth” and scriptural holiness. In fact, he goes on to describe the general lack of expectation he sees in UM congregations around the nation,

As I go around and attend United Methodist churches, what strikes me is the way in which most of them (not all) are limited by what passes for possible in this world. United Methodists do not expect God’s Spirit to intervene in powerful ways – to win the battle for us. As a result, we are resigned to the way things are. The logic of limited possibilities has seduced us. Perhaps this is because we are so comfortable with the way things are.”

However, Kisker suggests that if we catch John Wesley’s vision, the language of salvation and the practices of Methodism will once again make sense and lead us to radically embracing God’s vision for salvation and holiness in our world today.

Mainline or Methodist (Part 1)

For Christmas I received a copy of Dr. Scott Kisker’s book, Mainline or Methodist: Recovering our Evangelistic Mission. After a quick read through, I saw that it was worth a second, more thorough read. I also decided it would be a worthwhile way to start the new year here on the blog. Rather than giving a long review of the book as a whole, I thought I’d work through each chapter and share some of the ideas that really made me think.

First, Kisker acknowledges the systematic “sickness” of United Methodism, even though he refuses to make the numerical decline since 1960 his primary concern. In Kisker’s argument, United Methodism’s problems started long before the decline beginning in the 60s. He suggests, “the decline of Methodism began decades before the denomination experienced any numerical losses.”

For us in so-called mainline Methodism, our “mainline” identity is killing us and we must surgically remove it if we are ever to regain our health. When we became “mainline,” we stopped actually being Methodist in all but name. Real Methodism declined because we replaced those peculiarities that made us Methodist with a bland, acceptable, almost civil religion, barely distinguishable from other traditions also known as “mainline.”

“Mainline” means little to nothing. Kisker uses the example of both Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush belonging to the UMC as evidence that, “United Methodism has become simply a reflection of the middle and upper middle class world around it,” instead of the amazing movement of God captured when the Wesley brothers were, “an embarrassment to the Anglican communion and mainline society.”

This is easily seen in the 19-20th century practice of Methodists hoping to influence society,

We even began to assume we deserved to determine the shape of American society, not through conversion, a process of repentance and new birth, but through the political process and our own lobby, located in a fine white building across the street from the U.S. Capitol.

Kisker then describes the movement we see in John Wesley’s life from respectable member of the Academy and elite Anglicanism to tireless evangelist to the common people. This is epitomized by Wesley’s field preaching, taking the gospel outside of his comfort zone into the industrial working class quarters of society. Wesley previously shared an aversion to this new model for sharing the gospel,

“I left London and in the evening expounded to a small company at Basingstoke, Saturday, 31. In the evening I reached Bristol and met Mr. Whitefield there. I could scarcely reconcile myself at first to this strange way of preaching in the fields, of which he set me an example on Sunday; I had been all my life (till very lately) so tenacious of every point relating to decency and order that I should have thought the saving of souls almost a sin if it had not been done in a church.”

Four days later, John Wesley began sharing the message of Christ in the same way,

At four in the afternoon, I submitted to be more vile and proclaimed in the highways the glad tidings of salvation, speaking from a little eminence in a ground adjoining to the city, to about three thousand people.

Instead of following Wesley’s lead, Kisker suggests we may well resemble more the Anglicans Wesley hoped to revive than our own Methodist founder,

We are educated well beyond the majority in our society. We pay our clergy, as distinctly mainline, beyond the majority in our society. If we are to recover Methodism, freed from its addiction to the American mainstream, it will require the kind of conversion Wesley experienced that day in Bristol…For such a recovery, we must humble ourselves before almighty God, trust in the sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and expect a blessing through a miraculous anointing by the Holy Spirit.

Over the next few posts, I’ll look at Kisker’s suggestions about the way forward.