Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it

While not surprising, given all we've learned this semester, the comparison between how the United Methodist Church handled/handles issues of racism and how the church handled/handles issues of sexuality are striking.  We've discussed issues of slavery/race already, but we haven't discussed the debate regarding sexuality as much.

Richey outlines the the inception and continued debate over issues of human sexuality from 1968 - 2000.  He notes that the UMC, as progressive and forward thinking as the church seemed to be about some things, also housed a more conservative contingent.  This perhaps isn't surprising either, as some of the rhetoric coming out of the temperance movement appeared pretty conservative too, but in contrast to the progressive energy from parts of the denomination, it stands in contrast.  Richey goes on to say that the UMC was resistant to the socio-cultural environment post World War II, particularly related to sexuality.  After hearing the current debates on this issue, it makes sense that the UMC has always resisted properly addressing this issue.  His description of how the language of "incompatible with Christian teaching" ended up in the Principles, and the BOD, fascinates and horrifies.

As Richey outlines the debate on whether or not the sexuality of a clergy person matters, I was struck by the reaction of the COB in 1984.  Even then, there was resistance to claiming any authoritative response to issues of sexuality; by saying each conference can do its own thing, there was seemingly no leadership on how the UMC should actually address the issue.  This book stops in 2000, but as we've seen every quadrennium since, this issue gets more and more polarizing.  The COB was asked in 2016 to take a stand on this issue by identifying a path for the UMC to address this issue so we can move on, one way or another.

Given the history of the UMC and how we have dealt with this issue for the last 40 years, I wonder what it will look like to have the COB, based on the Commission, take a stand and give us a direction in which to go.

I also wonder how Wesley would have seen this issue, how he would have handled it.  I used to think that he would be all about inclusion, making disciples, and all of that, but after learning in this class all of the nuanced limitations placed on leadership, I'm not so sure he would advocate for the ordination of not straight humans.  That said, he wouldn't have been okay with ordaining women either, so it's probably good that his preferences aren't the only guide marks in our denomination/theology.

War, Peace, & the UMC

In American Methodism:  A Compact History, Richey discusses the multitude of major issues the UMC faced upon its creation, let alone the US.  The biggest issue, of course, was race.  However, I do find it important to also to bring up the other hot topic, namely the Vietnam War.  Three of the first five resolutions dealt with war and peace in the first edition of The Book of Resolutions of The United Methodist Church:  1968; the first being called "U.S. Policy in Vietnam." Considering the UMC's initial social principles regarding military service and composition of the first BOR, I wonder how important the Vietnam War actually was to the merger that created the UMC.  How would the development of our Social Principles, even into the 21st century, be different if war and peace weren't such a prevalent issue in 1968?

What in tarnation...

Until the university severed its ties with the denomination in 1914, Vanderbilt Divinity School was under the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. In 1958, James Lawson- raised in the African Methodist Episcopal Zion tradition- is attending Vanderbilt Divinity School and using Wesley's example of nonviolent response to mobs opposed to his teaching (Dickerson, 313). How, 140 years after Wesley condemns the enslavement and dehumanization of black people in his Thoughts Upon Slavery, are entire universities being founded by a Methodist tradition that existed simply because of its preference for continuing slavery? How, 184 years after the same condemnation, is Lawson being expelled from an institution founded on Methodism? What breakdowns allowed theologies originating from one tradition stray so far from one another (MECS and AMEZ)? What were MECS members saying of Wesley’s words on the matter?

Unification, and what it meant for the Laity

The Unification of the United Methodist Church is something so far removed from my lifetime that it always feels more distant than it actually is. It always felt as a child growing up in a rural enviroment that the United Methodist Church had always been there, and it wasn't until I was older that I realized it wasn't until 1968. But how could this be the case?

I have to wonder how much the liturgy changed for the laity. Though there was a brand new hymnal as I was growing up(the one we still use today), there still was only one hymnal prior to our current one, which I still find used in Sunday School classes even today. But even so, I heard very little about any problems with becoming a single church: from the liturgy, to the identity of the UMC, to any number of issues that would come from merging an organization. It was as if time only started for the church in 1968, rather than the church having anything to fall back on prior to that.

A Bouquet of Live Wires

Richey's Compact History ends in the year 2000, a time quite removed from the political and cultural forces shaping our current state in the UMC.  However, the issues haven't changed much:  Richey, in chapters 11 and 12, touches on racism, homosexuality, abortion, elder care, divorce, female leadership, and the Church's relationship to war.  With the possible exception of elder care, each of these is still An Issue in conference conversations, especially in last year's scorching General Conference.  Most of these are things that we increasingly don't want to touch in any one-to-one setting, preferring to leave them alone or contain them to the pulpit or denominational gathering.

Knowing that the most important things are rarely ever solved and thus of course keep returning but that our current trend of either ignoring them in hopes of politeness or grabbing hold of them with such force that we harm ourselves and others is unsustainable, how do we as United Methodist leaders take these conversations to the lay level?  (How do we especially as Vandy students learn to have these conversations in ways that honor all the viewpoints brought to the table?)  And in what ways can we partner with other denominations and faith traditions struggling through the same pains (e.g. Unitarian Universalism and their recent conversations about racism in leadership, the Church of the Brethren and their conversations about sexuality, the PC[USA] and its engagement in divestment and moves toward denunciations of war)?  We must, after all, be careful to avoid "agitating conferences with resolutions and proposals" since "such advocacy had the effect of focusing United Methodism on itself" (202) and we should not be our own target audience.

Methodist Interaction

As a child, I had no clue that there was any kind of Methodist other than a United Methodist. Reading through Warner's article brought up a few related questions--how aware were the different sects of Methodism of each other at the laity level? How much did the denominations tend to overlap geographically versus how much did they kind of claim their own territories? Were the denominations that were more open to the ordination of women centered in any certain area?

Dickerson's Outline of the AME Lineage

The Dickerson article outlines how African-American Methodism affected the modern civil rights movement. He mentions that the theology and ethos for slave liberation are "embedded" within this Methodist movement, citing Frederick Douglass and W.E.B. Du Bois as leaders of a nascent civil rights movement that led to the one we are all familiar with headed up by Martin Luther King, Jr. They adopted a "Wesleyan social holiness" that informed their social justice work to end societal discrimination by demanding a re-creation of God's kingdom of salvation on earth. Dickerson brings up civil rights leaders whom I had not previously identified, including our familiar Richard Allen, Henry M. Turner, and A. Philip Randolph, who worked tirelessly through both governmental and grassroots movements to promote non-violence, which in turn affected the tactics of the 1960s movements. Archibald J. Carey, Jr. also took these tactics but moreover worked within the government itself, which I found surprising for the era before the 60s. In particular, I loved reading about Rosa Parks simply because we have the same hometown - and I had no idea she worked to investigate rape victims. In general, the article does a very good job of establishing the connection between the AME civil rights leaders' work that led to and helped catalyze the 1960s civil rights movements, and it clarified the nature of the pacifism rise within the movement due to these leaders' academic interactions.

An American Woman Missionary in Korea: Mary Scranton

Women in Wesleyan and Methodist movements during the 19-20th century seemed to actively participate in many areas. They especially took part in the feminist movement for the women, who were oppressed and marginalized, and for their civil/ecclesiastic rights. 

Warner highlights mission works of Methodist women. According to him, “[some women missionaries] made significant contribution to the education and medical care of indigenous women.” When I was reading this part, this stream in America reminded of the early history of Korean church. 

There was a woman missionary in Korea whose works were very similar with those in America at that time. Her name is Mary Fletcher Scranton, and she came to Korea in 1885 as the first Methodist woman missionary.  Her major works in Korea were also education and medical care for Korean women. At that period in Korea, there was no hospital for women to be cared, so she founded the first women-only hospital in 1886. Moreover, she also established the first women-only educational institution in 1886 named Ewha Hakdang. This now became as one of the top 10 best universities and the best women’s university in Korea: Ewha Womans University. She was the first person who started feminist movement in Korea and tried to safeguard women’s rights. 

Therefore, I thought that Mary Scranton’s works might have been affected by the movement in America, or she, as a missionary, might have brought the movement to Korea.

Warner Article - People's History

First, an anecdote that some may find interesting:

Reading Warner's article on American Methodist women reminded me of a book my sister sent me about the history of some of our family ancestors, which contains several references to Methodism in the 1700s and 1800s. One excerpt is from my great-great-great-great-great-grandmother Mary Grimes Montgomery, who writes of a conversion experience in a Methodist class meeting in Ohio in 1803 with a pastor and two other women. Her testimony is quite similar to others we have read in class, with references to camp-meetings, seeking "a greater work of grace" night and day, and that she eventually "experienced the blessing of perfect love." Her obituary is also full of references to how she raised her children as "professors of Christian faith" and that she was a "strong advocate of the religion of Jesus Christ." Many of her grandchildren and children were Methodist preachers so her advocacy clearly held an important place in that family. 

In relation to Warner's article, this made me think of the incredibly important place that women have held in Methodist history. We have read from several sources that women outnumbered men in congregations and that women held vital roles in the religious life of a family, etc. Many of the women who did the important work towards women's ordination and inclusion are listed in the article, but so many more exist who did work that is unremembered now, acting for all intents and purposes as ministers and as pastors but without any of the recognition or place in our history books. It's understandable that we must focus on these larger-than-life figures when we study history- by necessity of the fact that we have such few written records for anyone other than those key figures. I'm interested, however, by the concept of a people's history, or history from below, which focuses on common people rather than leaders, and what this might look like in a Methodist context.

Here's a link to the above-mentioned book on Google books: 

https://books.google.com/books?id=8Gs6AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA32#v=onepage&q&f=false

Woman's Church

In Laceye Warner's article, she states that in the face of strong opposition to the ordination of women in the Methodist Church, Frances Willard suggests that women should ordain themselves if the opposition persisted (thus proposing the creation of a "woman's church").  However, Warner notes that this proposition never materialized. In facing opposition for their own ordination and racial discrimination, Richard Allen effectively created the African-American Methodist Church. In light of this, why did Willard's proposal fail to materialize among women? Why was Allen successful in creating a separate church and Willard wasn't? Did Willard lack the strategic planning to implement such an undertaking, or where there other underlying factors that prevented women supporting Willard's proposal?

Church Architecture

I find church architecture to be fascinating, especially as a form of theological expression. The layout, ornamentation, and general architectural style of a church all say something about the church's theology. I'm glad the textbook addressed the rise of neo-Gothic architecture for the Methodist church (158-161). West End UMC, where I attend, was built during that revival and it helps to explain why the church looks the way it does. It grandeur has been a point of pride for the congregation from the 1930s on. In our recent capital campaign, the beauty of the sanctuary was linked with creating spiritual experiences with people (much like Conover articulated, 161).

Prior to the neo-Gothic movement, what architectural style did Methodists typically follow? What were their thoughts on ornamentation (stained glass windows, etc.)? Did Wesley have anything to say about church buildings, or would that have been too much of try to start a new denomination?

What People Think We Do/What We Really Do

As one might also accuse Methodists of today, it seems that there is a large gap between what the church officially says that it does and what it actually does (we should make one of those memes as a diagram). As described in the Women in Seminary and in the Pulpit excerpt, women were getting seminary degrees, preaching, founding and leading churches (Richey, 118). Meanwhile, they were sending petitions to bishops asking to be officially recognized for the things they were already doing, which were denied. Methodists took on the loving mission work of stripping indigenous people of their heritage and land- officially- but also aided Union troops in massacring them (Richey, 121). Upon finally reaching a place where some Methodist denominations were ordaining black clergy, the same ones were also recognizing petitions to segregate local churches (Richey, 121-122). I’m wondering if this incoherency comes from mere ridiculousness (i.e. racism, sexism) entirely, or if is due in part to the sheer number of denominations that existed- AME, AMEZ, UBC, EA, MPC, MECS- am I missing any? When we look back at a “Methodist” history, what do we actually claim as Methodist? Who decides?

Just the Middle Class?

In Richey's American Methodism: A Compact History, he describes the founding of the Oxford League as "a youth organization 'modeled' on Wesley's Holy Club."  As one would imagine, part of this club included studying the Bible an building moral character.  The most interesting piece of the goals for the Oxford League I found says "to train middle-class teenagers in the works of 'mercy and help.'"  Now if the UMC looked back to the MEC's youth organizations like the Oxford League and Epworth League, would they look anything like our UMYF programs?

What jumps out at me is the intent to focus on the middle-class teens.  I also do not know the overall demographics of Methodist teens in the nineteenth or twenty-first centuries, so maybe having a focused mission on the middle-class was or could be a good call.  So my question is, why did John Vincent and other leaders of these youth organizations focus only on the middle class?

And finally, if the UMC employed youth organizations also modeled on Wesley's Holy Club and/or the Oxford/Epworth Leagues, how would it affect Church membership, participation, and missions after these teens enter college and eventually the workforce?  Would this help bridge the gap the UMC is facing today in the loss of many young adults in the Church?  How did the MEC's youth organizations affect the life of the Church as their teens became young adults?

Methodist Eccumenical Communion

One of the things I had hoped to take away from this class was a better understanding of how the parallel "Methodist" movements came about. Yet American Methodism seems to gloss over some of the splits and reconciliations that happen throughout the time period we were assigned this week. In particular, I'm curious as to what specifically caused the Church of the Nazarene to form, and what brought the United Brethren into talks with the Methodist Episcopal Church?

Brain, Meet Heart

In chapter 7 of Palmer's Way of Holiness just after the acceptance of grace narrative, Palmer feels called to evangelistic mission.  In deciding whether she can "profess this blessing" even to crowds of thousands, she says that her prior mindset had been that "Satan had suggested that she would ever be vacillating in her experience; one day professing the blessing, and another not; that she was so constitutionally prone to reason, it would require an extraordinary miracle to sustain her amid the array of unpropitious circumstances, which, like a mighty phalanx, crowded before the vision of her mind".  Two things about this particular passage:  one, that we continue the Wesleyan (and, really, Lutheran) plot device of uncertainty regarding assurance; and two, that there is a fight between faith and reason that I don't know we've seen as yet.

One:  the vacillation Palmer mentions is part and parcel of every good Wesleyan narrative, but here it seems to be both more external (Satan as speaking character) and completely awful.  Was there a greater need for certainty by Palmer's time that doubt wasn't something people were comfortable wrestling with as Wesley did?  And was there a sense that Wesley (or any of his published followers) had ever gotten to a place where they stopped wrestling?

Two:  asking for a miracle is a rather gutsy thing to do, to be sure, but Palmer seems aghast at the fact that she is "constitutionally prone to reason."  Was the folksy aspect of Methodism the thing that made reason a hindrance to faith or was the general tone of American religion at this point?  And what do miracles have to do with reason?  She goes on later to say that yes, a miracle would indeed be needed and God was standing by to provide one; was there not a sense that the standing by part was the miracle or were only concrete actions slotted into the miracle category?  (Did "miracle" have pretty much the same parameters then as now?)

sisters are doin' it for themselves

It's a pretty reasonable human thing to try to ascribe meaning to traumatic things that happen, particularly, things that happen to us.  Phoebe Palmer experienced a significant amount of trauma in her life, losing all of her children.  So given that, it makes much sense that she would seek understanding of that by studying scripture, by trying to create a structure around something like living holy.  She makes a point of separating out tradition from scripture, indicating that scripture has more authority than whatever traditions came from it, all of which, could be a response to the trauma she's experienced.

I wonder what impact her trauma had on the women who heard her exhortation in terms of offering strength or comfort to those with similar experiences, one that wasn't uncommon at that time.  It seems that her contribution might have been to make scripture more accessible to women at that time, particularly given that women didn't have formal roles in other denominations, really.  I wonder what it would have meant to a woman struggling with her own trauma to hear Phoebe Palmer speak or read her words.  

Initially, I struggle to understand what made her different, worthy of study, other than the fact that she was a female, but I think it's that she reached, or had the potential to reach, far more hearts than did her male counterparts.  And if the mission was to save souls and bring people to Christ, it seems possible that she did that as effectively, if not more so, than others.

Methodist Perfectionism: Theologically Light Huh?

Holifield’s Methodist Perfectionism paints a picture of American Methodism as being theologically light movement. A movement concerned with reaching lay people rather than producing theological treatises, and in fact Holifield depicts how Methodism only formed its theological stance in opposition to Calvinist & Universalist thought.

Now I know Christianity had a close relation to all things educational, and these institutions are birthed from that relationship. But this transformation still makes me wonder how Methodism went from a theologically light denomination towards producing theologians, and founding schools, and being tied to institutions such as Duke, Emory, Vanderbilt, Yale, and Boston University? Is the Methodist approach towards slavery the answer for this? If we see anti-slavery theologians as trying to prove the Bible doesn’t mean what it says, is this the foundation for our theological-educational-criticism shift?

Holifield speaks towards the Methodist emphasis on depravity, and I don’t know about you, but depravity & prevenient grace seem pretty theological to me. So if we are understanding American Methodists as being theological lacking, but still see the conversations built around theological language; does this speak more towards the theological literacy of the period or our theological illiteracy? 

This gets pretty rambly.

The tension between the writings on women in American Methodism and Jarena Lee's experience is particularly relevant today, in that both women and especially women of color are continually marginalized. In Methodism they fall from active and equal participant to "preacher's wife" (which especially felt pointed) to relief and war efforts as the role of "mother" to "their boys." Yet black women were again segregated into their own groups, often unnamed and unappreciated for their work. What's more is that the idea of "mothering" became synonymous with jobs that did go unappreciated and unnamed. By 1901 we see the list of female ministers rise to 97, which is... great. But Jarena Lee's account, wherein she outlines the many ways and times she sought to kill herself, struck me as not an unfamiliar battle (like in The Awakening) that women in particular suffer ("that I knew not what ailed me") an unknowable depression pertaining to their ultimate role or mission in life. Jarena, obviously, had much more to deal with in that regard than the average white woman. Perhaps, like with other great leaders, it may have been her propensity for creative and passionate moods that made her a dynamic and convincing leader. At any rate, I'm not sure that I'm saying anything specifically helpful here, but that there seems to me a line running through these accounts of women and how spectacularly un-helped they are throughout their journeys. That determination to go and do is in some ways summed up at the end of Jarena's account, where she mentions that her manuscript may have errors because she was self-taught (read: because of both race and gender) but that she knows she's a CHAMP because she's the first black Methodist preacher. Thank god for her self-awareness, otherwise the readings would have just been depressing.

New Methodism in America

In “Americanization of Methodism", I noticed that American Methodism was becoming increasingly institutionalized and structured. For instance, forming an educational system, publishing and distributing hymnbooks, memoirs, or catechisms, holding conferences regularly, and creating the episcopacy. In other words, unlike John Wesley’s intention, American Methodists seem to form Methodism as a new structured denomination. 

I wonder why American methodists formed more institutionalized and structured Methodism in America, which put some distance between Wesley and American methodists, even though Wesley opposed American independence. Were the changes inevitable results?

Jarena Lee and the malice of Satan

Throughout her writing, Jarena Lee frequently references the "malice of Satan" as the source of her spiritual struggles. She extensively describes this in her account of her journey of toward conversion and sanctification; however, she also mentions it when she received her call to preach (she first thought it might be Satan's voice calling her) and throughout her preaching ministry (at one point, she claims that the kingdom of Satan fell as she was preaching a sermon and in another instance, that Satan tempted her to give up her journey since she was probably not going to be permitted to preach anyway). For Lee, Satan was a real presence in her life seeking to tempt and destroy. How does Lee's perception of this correlate to other Methodist ministers during this time? Were other Methodist preachers as avidly concerned about spiritual warfare? Furthermore, to what extent does Lee's descriptive accounts of her experience of and sermons on resisting Satan influence her relative popularity as an itinerant preacher? This obviously resonated with her audiences for her to be permitted to preach in places that women had not previously preached before.

Jarena Lee's Preaching

In Jarena Lee's writing she devotes several pages to essentially arguing for her right, as a woman, to preach. This alone is telling in that she felt the need to do this, but I'm curious as to how this was received both in the AME church and elsewhere, as she seems to make a convincing argument to those who would have disagreed with right to preach. She appeals to theology/doctrine by saying that Christ died for both man and woman, and makes the argument that God is "straitened" or restricted if we claim that he only uses men to preach the gospel, and that nothing is impossible for God. She appeals to Scripture, citing examples where Mary preached of Christ's resurrection, and also warns that church by-laws could bring disrepute into the word of life after describing how Richard Allen initially refuses her right to preach based on lack of precedent. Finally, she cites examples of her effectiveness as a preacher and the people who had been converted as a result. I'm interested if she was seen as an outlier, or if her witness encouraged other women to preach in the AME Church and different denominations.

Doctrine of perfection in the US?

On reading through Jarena Lee's journals, I became curious to know how Wesley's idea of Christian perfection fared in the colonies and early post Revolution US. Jarena Lee's first introduction to sanctification through William Scott made no mention of perfection, and even the idea of sanctification was new to her. Did early American Methodists believe in and/or preach on perfection? Was it acknowledged and just not at the forefront of their thought, or did people disagree with Wesley on this issue? Jarena's story is full of very distinct moments and structured around those moments as the source of transformation--would perfection be difficult to hold onto as a more gradual occurrence when conversions/transformations were understood as moments in time?

Pietism & Political Abstention

The Methodists have (some of) their roots in various pietistic movements. If I'm keeping my denominational history straight I believe Pietistic movements generally had elements of political abstention. They were more concerned with the private (and perhaps familial) search for holiness and closeness with God. The movements tended to be isolationist in that they were not focused on reforming the world; rather, they focused on reforming the individual. As such, Pietists rarely sought political office or participated much in social reform outside of their community. If this is correct, does this tendency help to explain the shift Methodist made in the 19th century to "not being involved in politics" and separating themselves from divisive social concerns? Our readings seem to have pointed to this shift as largely a pragmatic one (you can't preach the gospel where you can't go), however, I'm wondering if this was an underlying disposition in Methodism based on its pietistic roots.

I felt my heart strangely vexed...

In Chapter 2 of American Methodism, it is noted that “Coke performed. Asbury governed” (32). There is harshness here, as in other places throughout chapters 2 and 3 that spoke to the realities of what was happening between white men in terms of power struggles and Methodist identity formation. Rhetoric surrounding inclusion of black members and white women, however, speaks through the tone of giving our historical figures the benefit of the doubt. For instance, “Methodists had difficulty in credentialing black leadership” (31), “If gender vexed early Methodism, so did race and language” (37), and the preacher’s wife who exercised ministry “in teaching, in visiting, in comforting the ill and bereaved, in witnessing, in heading missionary societies, in modeling family piety, in interpreting her husband (to women and other preacher, in supporting the ministry, in negotiating the frequent moves, in short, in functioning as a sub-minister” (54). Methodists did not have “difficulty” credentialing black leadership- they didn’t want to- and if they did, they were complicit in not getting what they wanted. I’m sorry, gender and race “vexed” white, male Methodists? What a burden. And if I’m reading that extensive list correctly, I’m seeing that the preacher’s wife was no “sub-minister” but a minister. This is something we seem to do quite frequently in historical writing, where it is totally acceptable to give realistic accounts of the bitterness that raged between white male leadership, but then to dilute the matter as soon as race and gender vex the conversation. In what ways does this type of historical writing linger on in our own conversations, sermons, and complicity within the institution? Are Methodists still having the same trouble in allowing “benefit of the doubt” and respectability politics; are we allowing it to carry us?

The Women Had It Right

In Chapter 3 of American Methodism, Richey discusses the role of women regarding societies and mission.  The women's societies seem to have been the essence of what mission is supposed to be.  They "showed what direct, hands-on missionary initiatives could accomplish in slum areas and among society's marginalized persons."  The Five Points Mission in New York City began with limited success, but female leadership ultimately made it the "much-visited model for urban mission" by the 1860s. I commend the Methodist women of the time for their concern for the marginalized.  Outside of the challenges of serving the people of the slums, did the Women's societies receive any push-back or face challenges in their efforts to serve the poor?

Richard Allen's legacy

Reading about Richard Allen answered many of my questions about the AME church and its beginnings, which seems particularly important to understand at this moment in history. The fact that he converted his master but still had to purchase his freedom is mirrored by the change in Methodism that occurred to push him away from that religious establishment. Moreover, the things that drew Allen to Methodism - "the fervor with which the gospel was advanced, openness to the poor and to the blacks that once had been the norm in Methodist societies, and the staunch abolitionism that had been a trademark of Wesleyan preachers" - began to dissolve, and this seems (taken in today's context) a parallel to some of our own problems. He does seem to be more Wesleyan than any of Wesley's followers - a proper radical again the ills of society, ready to make the jump when circumstances called. Are we nowadays taking the course of Allen, or the establishment? I love the idea that Dickerson proposes: "to rally around Richard Allen and his vision of Methodism." I am further interested now in how Allen's course ran, and how the AME church today compares with the UMC church. What would the parallels be in their current manifestations? How similar are we now to the ideas of the original Wesleyan followers - and does it technically matter if we stay true to those ideals, as transformation is a natural part of religion?

Asbury the Tyrant?

I remember a conversation with my father before I began this class: "remember: Asbury was a tyrant" he said. Certainly, Asbury seems concerned with power and structure, but I find little to back up this sentiment beyond that. The emphasis on structure does not necessarily mean he was exerting his influence for his own ends, and the way the Methodist church was being structured seems similar to how the UMC is today. So I was wondering: where does this image of Asbury as tyrant originate, does it have legs, and what benefits and deficits would this have on the fledgling Methodist church?

Reverend Doctors

Running through Candy Gunther Brown's article on healing is the idea that Wesley wanted his pastors to walk a fine line of being shepherds of the soul and physicians of the body.  After his death, the idea that pastors could ever dabble in the realm of doctors fell along with the idea that prayer and medicine could go hand-in-hand.  In light of recent events surrounding the idea of health, what position do we as faith leaders (not necessarily pastors but those who are aware of our theological history) step into the discussion and practice of bodily wellness?  Should we take such a step?  How can the faith community support the medical community--if it should?

Demographics of Preachers

Because Richard Allen is quoted as saying there was "no colored preacher in Philadelphia but myself," (Dickerson) I am curious about the changing landscape of preachers around this time. Did Allen really mean he was the only black preacher, or that he was the only black Methodist preacher? How common were black preachers by the time Jarena Lee was permitted to preach? Did more black women (and white women for that matter) join the fold of preachers immediately after Jarena Lee, or was she a unique case?

American Methodism in 1780s

Slavery was an critical issue for John Wesley, and he criticized slavery in many ways–sermons, letters, and writings, 'Thoughts upon slavery'. His concern on slavery originated from his visiting to America, Georgia and South Carolina. He witnessed immorality and inappropriateness of slavery. This idea was conveyed to Asbury. "American Methodism" quotes Asbury's saying regarding slavery: "I am strongly persuaded that if the Methodists will not yield on this point and emancipate their slaves, God will depart from them." Thus, it is obvious that both Wesley and American Methodists strongly opposed to slavery.

However, Allen, who experienced conversion through a sermon from a Methodist circuit rider when he was a slave, disappointed with American Methodism in 1780s, and he "founded African Methodism to recapture authentic Wesleyanism in America." In the article, "Richard Allen: A Quintessential Wesleyan," Dickerson mentions that "during the 1780s, Methodism changed…the fervor with which the gospel was advanced, openness to the poor and to blacks that once had been the norm in Methodist societies, and the staunch abolitionism that had been a trademark of Wesleyan preachers all started to wane." I think the 1784 Christmas Conference brought huge alteration into American Methodism.

I was wondering why Methodism in America suddenly changed, why American Methodists at that time diminished their zeal against slavery, and what happened at the Christmas Conference.

Prayer & Healing within Methodism: Who Ruined It?

An emphasis on prayer’s relationship in the midst of healing is near and dear to my Pentecostal-charismatic-non-denominational heart. I can specifically recall a bible study on the book of Acts within my home Methodist Church, and the subject of divine healing seemed to spook everybody (Teachers pursuing MDivs included). Candy Gunther Brown makes it very clear prayer and divine healing have been in the Methodist stream of consciousness. Even if John Wesley sought a pragmatic both-and, it seems we have strayed from that approach. Richey’s American Methodism paints the continuing struggle to recover Wesley as the theological tutor, but what has happened on the prayer and healing front? Is it our desire to want a singular answer rather than prayer & medicine working together? Or is it a taste aversion caused by the Oral Roberts of the world?

Methodism Reflects Culture

As Richey outlines the development of Methodist tradition in America, it appears the culture of America influenced the creation of the MEC (and its offshoots).  Debates over consolidated power and the hierarchy/governance of the Church seemed reflective of the secular debates within the Continental Congress.  Additionally, the compromises made at a governmental level mirrored those made within the developing church regarding slavery, in particular.  The conversations at various conferences about schism also seem to be influenced by the deeply divided elements of early American government.  Conversations about representation within conferences also has that same feel as the debate within the Continental Congress about bicameral legislative bodies. 

As Richey noted, the structure of the MEC was tested as it grew, much like America.  As the church determined how to handle the growing pains of expansion, the ways in which that happened not only reflected a Wesleyan theology, but also that of the emerging political environment. 

But at a more subtle level, there seem to be some other similarities and parallels. For example, Asbury’s work ethic.  I wonder how much that was affected by the American spirit v. Wesley.  Clearly, we’ll never really know since his writings were destroyed, although I’m reasonably sure the argument could be made for both.  Additionally, when they struck Wesley’s name from the Discipline in the 1790s, what impact did that have? It’s not clear how Wesley reacted to that, although given his ego, I imagine he didn’t love it.  But I raise the question because it feels like the (small-ish) separation from Wesley paralleled the separation from England a little.  

All of this begs the question: what would Methodism look like had America not declared independence, if there was no revolution?  What other influences would have marked our development if we stayed within the Anglican tradition?  What would our theology look like?  Would we still have the prophetic edge, a clear mark of early Methodism? 

Wesley's Authority

In Chapter 1 of American Methodism, Wesley is characterized quite frequently as demanding loyalty, discipline, and order. The way in which he organizes the Methodist society seems to be quite authoritative, with himself as the leader who has the final say about nearly everything. Rankin "demands acceptance of Wesley's authority," and Wesley instructs preachers to preach no doctrine other than what is found in his New Testament notes and his sermon volumes. I can see the beginnings of some of this desire for total authority in earlier writings of Wesley's, but I'm curious as to how and why this practice was developed to the state described in this chapter.

Bethel and the Supreme Court

Richard Allen mentions that Robert Birch, one of the elders appointed to Philadelphia, appealed to the Supreme Court when the pulpit at Bethel was denied him by the Bethel congregation. Assuming that he is referring to the U.S. Supreme Court, I find it intriguing that this matter would be brought before a governmental legal agency of this level. Was it common at this time for religious matters such as this to be brought before the Supreme Court? I know there were more issues surrounding this particular conflict (race being the primary issue), but at what point does the church yield it's authority to legislate such matters to the government?

Preaching in the Early Republic

In his memoir, Richard Allen talks a great deal about people preaching in other people's houses. Allen preaches like that a number of times as does several of the ministers he travels with. Based on his description it seemed like these house preaching sessions were different from preaching at a society meeting. It seems more like the preaching is done just for the family and maybe a neighbor or two who decides to come over.
I've always assumed preaching required a large audience and a more formal setting. Expounding on Scripture doesn't necessarily equate with preaching in the way I've understood preaching. How did Allen and his contemporaries understand preaching? Was it simply any exegesis of Scripture? Or were there additional criteria to separate it from exhortation and discussion of Scripture?

Gaining all we can: Relation to the Neighbor

Having grown up in the UMC, I have heard the mantra of "gain all you can, save all you can, give all you can" repeated ad nausea but rarely have I seen people go beyond the first step in their personal dealings. I was pleasantly surprised to find that in the sermon that this mantra originates, most of the "gain" portion focused on the negative ways to gain. Beginning with gain at the expense of bodily health, then mental health, and then finally focusing very heavily on gain on the back of the neighbor. Wesley focuses on the alcohol trade for condemnation, which was not surprising to me as temperance is something the Methodists used to focus very heavily on, but then moves on to some industries that I would not have expected.

He starts by focusing on Surgeons, Apothecaries, and Physicians, which is not an area I was expecting to be attacked. Though he definitely calls attention to an evil that these professions would be capable of, was this really a problem in his day?

Finally, he brings up the arts, stating "If these [arts] profit the souls of men, you are clear; your employment is good, and your gain innocent; but if they are either sinful in themselves, or natural inlets to sin of various kinds, then, it is to be feared, you have a sad account to make."(John Wesley, Sermon 50, I.6.) Would this be in the portrayal of themselves, and would no evil be allowed to be portrayed? If so, then wouldn't any morality play or other art form that brings morality into question, even if to condemn said practice, be suspect? Or does it require more from the client side of dealings, and what they take away from the encounter with the arts?

Breaking: Wesley stresses uniformity and no one is surprised...

Wesley’s appeal to methodical practice was so great as to earn the movement its name and is readily apparent in his works that we studied this week. In his Calm Address to our American Colonies in Sandoz, Wesley urges uniformity between the rule of the colonies and Great Britain: “Let us not bite and devour one another, lest we be consumed one of another! O let us follow after peace! Let us put away our sins; the real ground of all our calamities! Which never will or can be thoroughly removed, till we fear God and honour the king.” Wesley’s general prescription to “fear God and honour the king” comes from his basic argument that the colonists have the same rights as he, and because they work for him, they should work for the colonists. He is also extremely particular in controlling the narrative of Methodist doctrine in A Short History of Methodism, asserting that men are all by nature "dead in sin," and, consequently, "children of wrath,” they are "justified by faith alone,” and that faith produces inward and outward holiness. Beyond this, Wesley is comfortable saying who are (those who ascribe to the aforementioned doctrine) and who are not (predestinarians, antinomians) Methodist- even though they were only a movement, not a church… definitely not a church. Wesley’s call for uniformity reaches even into the pockets of movement members, directing how they should and should not spend their money in The Use of Money, where his gaining/saving/giving model provides questions to ask that should regulate spending habits.

Other than using religion as a means of maintaining dutiful taxpayers/almsgivers, was it typical for church leaders to regulate finances of laypeople? More broadly, was it Wesley’s obsession with uniformity that actually pushed the movement to become its own faith tradition?

What are we gaining?

In John Wesley's sermon "Use of Money," he articulates the idea that you should gain all you can without harming others in order to give all you can.  Economically, capitalism was functioning both in England and the colonies (right?).  So in light of the social/economic context, how was this received by hearers of this sermon?  To worship God, not money, is clearly in line with biblical teachings, but the idea of gaining to give seems to be the new thing, the thing which would be up for debate.

A Short History of the Non-Denomination That Is Absolutely Still Church of England, Stop Asking

Belying the instruction to disregard descriptors in sermon titles, John Wesley's "Short History of Methodism" is actually quite short.  It is the third such attempt to tackle a definition or boundary line for this denomination-that-isn't-a-denomination and JW seems to have abandoned all hope of speaking of the Methodists as though they are no different at all.  (This is not to say that he speaks of them as though they are separate from the Mother Church, however.)

This brief narrative is presented as a "bare relations of a series of naked facts," which is of course neither bare nor naked.  Much is hidden--why JW left Georgia, how the scuffles between JW and Whitefield fell out, and how much the Methodist name meant beyond the university are just some of the things JW conveniently leaves out.  And facts are never naked, shown here in the self-justifying clothing of JW's emergence from every recounting of disagreement as though he is not only correct but much wronged by the other's false witness.

To actually ask a question, then:  how secure was JW as leader of the Methodists that he could claim to write a narrative of the movement-that-surely-isn't-a-denomination?  What push-back was there, if any, against the obvious bias?  And is this what we as United Methodists turn to when speaking of our history in a nutshell or are we pulling together many other sources to build a composite narrative?

JW: Not a Fan of Colonial Independence...

As we read John Wesley’s address to “our” American colonies I was struck by how little it sounded like good ole’ John Wesley. JW always writes in a very organized manner with a clear thesis, and supports his argument by alluding to countless scriptures One could expect the use of Romans 13.1 but it is never used. However Wesley wades into this political divorce without scriptural evidence. We are taught to see Wesley as interacting with the social issues of the day through his pragmatic theology, but here we see a biased Wesley not being informed by much else other than his English biased.

But in seeing a Wesley who didn’t support the idea of the colonies becoming independent, we can also understand a Wesley who never wanted his “Methodists” to become a separate independent Church either. We can probably also see why Wesley’s missions is Georgia never worked if he entered the colonies with this elitist mindset, and I would be interested to hear George Whitefield’s opinion on the American colonies to see is his colonial-view was why he succeeded stateside more than JW.

A Bit of Theology: Wesley's Rules on Money

John Wesley has been often criticized for his lack of a developed, systematic theological doctrine. However, in analyzing the works of Wesley, one can find theological arguments for certain things, at least.  In reading his fiftieth sermon, "The Use of Money," John Wesley presents three rules of Christian prudence:  "Having, First, gained all you can, and, secondly saved all you can, then 'give all you can.'"  In regards to the first two rules, Wesley does not seem to have any real theological basis for "gaining all you can" and "saving all you can," at least when considered exclusively. 

Wesley does, however, present a theological argument to "give all you can."  Wesley said, when the Possessor of heaven and earth brought you into being, and placed you in this world, he placed you here not as a proprietor, but a steward."He continues, "And he has told you, in the most clear and express terms, how you are to employ it for him, in such a manner, that it may be all an holy sacrifice, acceptable through Christ Jesus."  The act of "giving all you can" is sacrificial in nature and ultimately being a good steward for God and God's Kingdom.  Consequently, God "has promised to reward with an eternal weight of glory."  From a theological perspective, "giving all you can" is part of God's will for us, and also (at least in part) how we are able to receive eternal glory.

My question is then, with a pretty solid theological argument for the third rule of Christian prudence, is there any theological basis for the first two rule in and of themselves?  Or are they truly only able to work as God intended as a collective set of rules?  In another light, I ask who was intended to hear this sermon?  Is this a refutation of the prosperity gospel?  What motivated Wesley to write this specific sermon?

Questions about JW's "Predestination Calmly Considered"

In JW’s “Predestination Calmly Considered”, I think he disagrees with Calvin’s understanding of double predestination. To JW, the atonement is universal in scope. Christ’s death was sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world, not only an elect few. To him, human beings work together with God towards salvation. In other words, prevenient grace and human free will (to certain extent) are the two important factors in salvation. God has more glory saving human beings as a free agent, instead of saving human beings irresistibly.

I have two questions on this reading. The first one is JW mentioned in his article that there are two types of divine election: a divine appointment of some particular men to do some particular work (he explicitly mentions that this does not equals to eternal happiness), and a divine appointment of some men to eternal happiness. However, he didn’t really explain these two types in detail. So I was wondering what does he mean by these two types of election and what are the differences between these two types? My other question is that JW mentions that the gentiles are part of the great salvation, but many Jews fall short of it since they could not receive it through faith. I was wondering what’s JW’s perspective on God’s covenant to the Jews? And what is his general opinion on Judaism?

Will and Slavery

The three readings in concert with one another create an interesting connection between the two topics on liberty. We analyze liberty of the slave and liberty of the soul. It is interesting to see predestination in reference to slavery, as it is in a sense the same definition as which is given to a lack of will within predestination. Wesley sets up a system of predestination wherein God "in his unchangeable good pleasure, hath decreed to leave them in common misery." Similarly, Wesley notes that one of the precepts of slavery is "an obligation of perpetual service, which only the consent of the master can dissolve." The master in these cases has no obligation of kindness to the person in question. The situations in both cases lead to death, either an earthly or a spiritual death, but both in misery. It is interesting, then, to look at the treatise on Will during a time and which slavery persisted.   I am curious about the motivations of the author and if he ever considered using his argument in response to the problem of slavery, or if  he simultaneously supported it.  Was the doctrine of predestination used in favor of slavery? And was its opposition a call to end slavery? How far did Wesley go on his attack on slavery?  How urgently was the problem of slavery considered within Wesley's time?

John Wesley's Vocabulary on Slaves

In Wesley's "Thoughts Upon Slavery," he refers to Africans as "heathens" without seeming to intend a negative tone, but also later criticizes those takings slaves for considering the Africans to be "brute beasts". He also asks if such treatment of people can be justified even under "heathen honesty". Did "heathen" have a different connotation in Wesley's day, or is this evidence that he considers himself superior to Africans?
How unique was it to take a stance against slavery as incompatible with justice and mercy in Wesley's context? I wonder this, because today it seems that it is almost the more popular stance to be against Trump--and plenty of people are writing their views against him--but that does not prevent his policies from being in place and harmful to others. Was this the same with slavery, or was it the popular opinion to justify slavery?

Who's Fight is This?

Edwards goes to great length to define and clarify prominent terms used in the Arian/Arminian debate. What is the purpose behind such detailed clarification? Was there wide-spread confusion surrounding these terms or was Edwards merely using it as groundwork for his argument? Furthermore, as I was reading Edward's and Wesley's arguments for and against Arminianism, I questioned who was actually reading these documents during this time? How readily available were these documents to the average lay person? How prominent was this Arian/Arminianism discussion among laity? Were they avidly arguing about free will and predestination as these clergy members did?

John Wesley and Social Issues

     As we have been learned about the history of Wesley and his theology, Wesley's focus was primarily on his personal faith (original sin, faith, justification, assurance, salvation, sanctification, and so forth) and on how to reach Christian perfection.
     However, in his article, "Thought Upon Slavery," Wesley's focus was not on his personal faith, but he strongly criticizes about the social issue, Slavery. For me, it looked like his theological concern has extended from his personal issues to social and national issues. In other words, it seems that Wesley strived not only to reform himself but also to reform the nation.
     In this regard, is it possible to understand this Wesley's concern as another way of sanctification, more specifically social sanctification? Are there any other social issues that Wesley was interested in? If so, did Wesley influence the Methodist church to emphasize social justice?

Arguments For and Against Predestination

In “Predestination Calmly Considered” Wesley focuses on Scripture in his arguments, citing example after example to support his points.  Interestingly, several times Wesley seems to say that he might not even fully understand how a certain idea is true, but he believes it because it is spoken clearly in Scripture. Despite this admission, Wesley does make quite a detailed effort to support his doctrine with reason. Another important factor of Wesley’s work is that he appeals to the character of God. He does this first by declaring that God’s sovereignty cannot ever supersede God’s justice (which he believes must follow when one accepts predestination), and later describing how God’s love is another chief characteristic. In general, Wesley seems to be coming from a pastoral position.

To me, Wesley stood in stark contrast to Edwards who does not cite any Scripture, but rather uses some sort of system in making his argument, beginning by defining the words and ideas he will use, and then basing his arguments on these definitions and following them out to their (logical?) conclusions. I had trouble following or agreeing with a few of his points, but in general it seems to be a quite different approach to the issue than Wesley. Edwards generally seems to be coming from a philosophical or academic perspective, rather than Wesley’s pastoral role. 

So my question is, what led these two writers to use such different styles to make their arguments, and how were they received based on this? I also found it amusing that Wesley, after writing so passionately and in-depth on the dangers and evil of predestination, ends with an appeal to unity, with “our agreement is greater than our difference.”

Hear ye! Hear ye!

As I read through this weeks texts, I started wondering about distribution and the process of printing. Could Wesley (and Edwards) just take their manuscripts to a printer and say "print x number of copies of this"? Were there publishers involved/ was anyone helping to edit any of these texts? (As a modern reader, it seems like they could have used a editor to help with some of their never ending sentences...)

After it was printed, how were the pamphlets distributed? Given the developing (and growing) society structure of the Methodists, did they have a formal distribution method of their own materials in the late 1700s? Was there something like the Christian Science reading rooms? As part of the standardization of their theology, it seems reasonable that Wesley would want to make sure all of the Methodist societies had a copy of "Predestination Calmly Considered" (and not "Freedom of the Will").

Conversely, "Thoughts on Slavery" seems like something Wesley would have wanted to be shared with more than just the Methodists. How were pamphlets advertised to the general public? When people argued back and forth via pamphlet, how would people know when a new rebuttal had been published?

Global Christianity

In reading Wesley’s “Scriptural Christianity,” it is clear that his brand of Christianity is meant to be globally applied and communally lived. Wesley’s prescription for communal living manifests as an economic system where all possessions are given back to the community and divided evenly among all. Note that it is not just everyone’s excesses that are made communal, but everything: “Neither said any of them that aught of the things which he possessed was his own but they had all things common." Scriptural Christianity, Wesley concludes is also more than economic communality, but also applies to the metaphysical: “Which is the country, the inhabitants whereof are all thus filled with the Holy Ghost? --are all of one heart and of one soul?” Here, Wesley has mentioned the Christian ‘country’- though he also denies its existence- which we must reconcile with his stance that Christ was "crucified to the world, and the world crucified to him" and that those who spread this message are "men who thus turned the world upside down." Wesley switches back and forth between calling for a Christian world and a Christian country multiple times, seemingly maintaining that even with global Christianity realized, borders will still remain: “Nation shall not lift up sword against nation; neither shall they learn war any more […] no country or city divided against itself.” He also appeals to authorities of the state, calling them to lead according to scripture. My question is how Wesley, under the unjust conditions that he himself attests to in colonization, envisions a global Christianity that still aligns with conceptions of city, state, and country during his time? If we are called to live with all things in common, how does Wesley see this taking shape globally?