John Wesley’s The Character of a Methodist was written to give understanding of the principles and practice of the people called Methodists and the distinguishing marks of this sect. Though Wesley accomplishes his goal of describing the distinguishing characteristics of Methodists, he also appears to be writing to reject the name “Methodists.” He is ultimately claiming instead that the characteristics of a Methodist are distinguishing them by nothing other than the common principles of Christianity. If Methodists were really just following the common principles of Christianity, I ask then, why did Wesley so vehemently reject the term “Methodist” or even care what he was called?
In this text, Wesley describes his lack of ambition to be the head of Methodism, or any sect, saying, “I should rejoice if the very name [Methodist] might never be mentioned more, but be buried in eternal oblivion.” He really did not like being called a Methodist. Wesley also mentions that “Methodist” is a term of derision. Though Wesley describes a brief account of the origination of the term “Methodist,” (that did not appear to be inherently negative) how did the term become to be perceived in such a negative manner?
Wesley ultimately concludes this text by claiming that Methodists, or even other sects, should not labor to distinguish themselves from each other. Instead, real Christians should distinguish themselves from unbelievers or “all those whose minds or lives are not according to the Gospel of Christ.” Wesley did not want Christians to be distinguished from each other at all. It seems he really has less of a problem with the name Methodist, but the fact that the people called Methodists were given a name or distinction at all from other Christians. All of this considered in the context of his time, what other factors should be considered as to why Wesley rejected labels and being called a Methodist?
No comments:
Post a Comment