Raison d'être, encore
But the case is widely
different between England and North America. Here there are Bishops who have a
legal jurisdiction: In America there are none, neither any parish Ministers. So
that for some hundred miles together, there
is none, either to baptize, or to administer the Lord’s supper. Here,
therefore, my scruples are at an end; and I conceive myself at full liberty, as
I violate no order, and invade no man’s right, by appointing and sending
laborers into the harvest.
I have accordingly
appointed Dr. Coke and Mr. Francis Asbury to be joint Superintendents over our
brethren in North America; as also Richard What not and Thomas Vasey to act as elders among them, by baptizing and
administering the Lord’s supper. And I have prepared a Liturgy, little differing
from that of the Church of England, (I think, the best constituted national
Church in the world,) which I advise all the Traveling Preachers to use on the Lord’s
day, in all the congregations, reading the Litany only on Wednesdays and
Fridays, and praying extempore on all other days. I also advise the Elders to administer the supper of the Lord on every
Lord’s day.
—John
Wesley, “Letter To Dr. Coke, Mr. Asbury, And Our Brethren In North America,” BRISTOL,
September 10,1784.
As
I have written previously, official Methodist
doctrinal standards—both then and now—make it clear that constant communion is
a DUTY, something that HAS to be done. The Wesley brothers were very clear
about this. John Wesley saw constant communion as so important that he once
wrote, “I found much of the power of God in preaching, but far more at the
Lord's table” (John Wesley’s “Journal”, entry November 13, 1763).
But
modern United Methodists, as a whole
have not followed this particular doctrinal standard. Either the practice
of constant communion is “not really necessary, for we can always remember
Christ by other means” or “too Roman Catholic for us Protestant folk.” Despite
the fact that the UMC document, “This Holy Mystery” was the official stance of
the denomination since 2004, its implementation has been blocked.
It
has come to the point that one cannot practice constant communion unless the
local congregation permits it, or an annual conference or even district
conference votes to accept and implement the official and authoritative UMC
position. And even if all these hurdles are passed, if a pastor—even if he or
she is ordained—does not believe in the official and authoritative UMC stance,
they can safely disobey without sanctions of any sort. On the other hand, clergy who do want constant communion are
forbidden from doing so, threatened and bullied into conforming with the
majority’s anticlericalism.
The
main reason these people who do not believe that constant communion is a duty
but a mere “option” is their belief that the secret of the 18th century
Methodists’ success—the “method” of the Methodists—is found in lay preaching,
class and band meetings and not in ritualistic liturgy and the sacraments.
Because of this thinking, most people nowadays think that the main job of an
ordained elder is to equip and train the laity to preach and lead small groups.
Hence, the elder is more a manager than an shepherd.
But
actually, the entire purpose of being an ordained or commissioned elder is to
administer the Sacraments, especially the Eucharist at least weekly because
John Wesley (the founder of Methodism himself) did not think that lay
preaching, class and band meetings in themselves can sustain Methodism and this
is the entire reason why John Wesley went against Anglican polity in this
instance, because he believed that the Methodists in America will not survive
spiritually without the Sacraments.
THE USE OF LAY PREACHERS
AND SMALL GROUPS IN METHODISM
As
mentioned earlier, nowadays, most people think that the “method” of the
Methodists is found in lay preaching, class and band meetings and not in
ritualistic liturgy and the sacraments, and that the main job of an ordained
elder is to equip and train the laity to preach and lead small groups. The main
argument in favour of this thinking is their analogy with the historical
development of Methodism by the Wesleys themselves.
For
example, both John and Charles Wesley were founding members of a small group
that came to be known as the Holy Club. Later on, it was in a small group
gathering at Aldersgate Street where John Wesley had his “heart-warming
experience”. And, as we read in our Book Of Discipline (2012, ¶ 104, pp. 75-76),
In the latter end of the
year 1739 eight or ten persons came to Mr. Wesley, in London, who appeared to
be deeply convinced of sin, and earnestly groaning for redemption. They
desired, as did two or three more the next day, that he would spend some time
with them in prayer, and advise them how to flee from the wrath to come, which
they saw continually hanging over their heads. That he might have more time for
this great work, he appointed a day when they might all come together, which
from thenceforward they did every week, namely, on Thursday in the evening. ...
This was the rise of the
United Society, first in Europe, and then in America. Such a society is no
other than “a company of men having the form and seeking the power of
godliness, united in order to pray together, to receive the word of
exhortation, and to watch over one another in love, that they may help each
other to work out their salvation.”
That it may the more
easily be discerned whether they are indeed working out their own salvation,
each society is divided into smaller companies, called classes, according to their respective places of abode. There are
about twelve persons in a class, one of whom is styled the leader.
These
class meetings is seen as the
granddaddy of all small groups, and is claimed by G12 enthusiasts as the
ancestor of care groups, with the discipler
being the modern adaptation of the class leader. This is what most people
now associate with the “method” of the Methodists. And just as John Wesley
appointed and trained the early class leaders, it is argued that the role of
the pastor (i.e., the elder) to do the same and recruit disciples and turn them
into “disciplers” who will create their own small groups.
... the Class Meeting
became central to what it meant to be a Methodist. ...
Both Wesley in England
and Asbury in America considered Class Meeting attendance mandatory. Admittance
to the larger Society Meeting required a ticket from a Class Leader, validating
one’s faithful participation in a Class Meeting.
“Class Meetings were
required, because they were believed to be particularly helpful in people’s
growth in the Christian life, at any stage,” explains [the Rev. Kevin] Watson[,
a United Methodist elder and Assistant Professor of Wesleyan and Methodist
Studies at Candler School of Theology]. ...
As it was in the days of
Wesley and Asbury, Class Meeting-style groups, ... , still make and shape
disciples by connecting people to one another, helping them grow in their
discipleship, and encouraging them to mentor each other spiritually.
(“How’s your spiritual
life? The Class Meeting for today,” A UMC.org Feature by Joe Iovino, August 17,
2015 )
Another
perceived “method” of the early Methodists was lay preaching, and that it is
the job of an ordained elder is to equip and train the laity to preach and lead
small groups. Again, most modern proponents of a lay-centred Methodism point to
the analogy of John Wesley sending out lay preachers and lay circuit riders to
preach all over Britain and the American colonies as the secret to the success
of the First Great Awakening in the British Isles and the Colonies.
The Methodist lay
preachers were the means by which Methodism spread so rapidly not only over
Great Britain, but also over the United States and throughout the
English-speaking world. They were the advance guard of Methodism; cottage
meetings and open-air meetings, supplied by lay preachers, prepared the way for
chapels, which were the permanent garrisons of the districts occupied.
And
so, by this combination of the avant
garde of lay preachers, with the class meetings the militia by which
Methodist footholds were garrisoned, modern Methodists are convinced that it is
this strategy that defined the “method” of Methodism. And since this is the
“method”, it is argued that the main purpose of the ordained minister, i.e.,
the elder, to train lay preachers and organize class meetings, i.e., small
groups. But, as will be seen shortly, this was but a part of the overall method of the Methodists, and most definitely
not the totality of the “method”.
HAVING THE FORM AND
SEEKING THE POWER OF GODLINESS
This was the rise of the
United Society, first in Europe, and then in America. Such a society is no
other than “a company of men having the form
and seeking the power of godliness,
united in order to pray together, to receive the word of exhortation, and to watch
over one another in love, that they may help each other to work out their
salvation.”
(Book Of Discipline
2012, ¶ 104, pp. 75-76)
Even
though nowadays, most people think that the "method" of the
Methodists is found merely in lay preaching, class and band meetings and not in
what they unfairly deride as “ritualistic” liturgy and the “optional” sacraments,
and that the main job of an ordained elder is merely to equip and train the
laity to preach and lead small groups, actually, the entire purpose of being an
ordained or commissioned elder is to administer the Sacraments, especially the
Eucharist at least weekly because John Wesley did not think that lay preaching,
class and band meetings in themselves can sustain Methodism.
Soon
after his Aldersgate experience, John Wesley and his brother Charles were
involved in a controversy with several men who met with them in the Fetter Lane
small group who believed that the sacraments, especially Holy Communion, was
unnecessary:
In September, 1738, when
I returned from Germany, I exhorted all I could to follow after that great
salvation, which is through faith in the blood of Christ; waiting for it, “in
all the ordinances of God,” and in “doing good, as they had opportunity, to all
men.” And many found the beginning of that salvation, being justified freely,
having peace with God through Christ, rejoicing in hope of the glory of God,
and having his love shed abroad in their hearts.
But about September,
1739, while my brother and I were absent, certain men crept in among them
unawares, greatly troubling and subverting their souls; telling them, they were
in a delusion; that they had deceived themselves, and had no true faith at all.
“For,” said they, “none has anyjustifying faith, who has ever any doubt or
fear, which you know you have; or who has not a clean heart, which you know you
have not: Nor will you ever have it, till you leave off using the means of
grace; (so called;) till you leave off running to church and sacrament, and
praying, and singing, and reading either the Bible, or any other book; for you
cannot use these things without trusting in them. Therefore, till you leave
them off, you can never have true faith; you can never till then trust in the
blood of Christ.”
(Preface
to the REV. MR. JOHN WESLEY’S JOURNAL, London, Sept. 29, 1740.)
The
people who entered into Fetter Lane taught that one “may not use the ordinances
of God, the Lord’s Supper in particular, before he has such a faith as excludes
all doubt and fear, and implies a new, a clean heart,” in other words, one
should not receive Holy Communion until one has truly encountered God. In
opposition to this, John Wesley maintained that “may use the ordinances of God,
the Lord’s Supper in particular, before he has such a faith as excludes all
doubt and fear, and implies a new, a clean heart.” For John Wesley, the Lord’s
Supper was the ordained means to really encounter God, and not just merely to
confirm the encounter.
The
point was that John Wesley did not think that going to the small group that met
at Fetter Lane as sufficient in itself to effect an encounter with God, that
one still had to go to regular, “formal” church worship and receive God’s grace
through the “ritualistic” Sacrament of Holy Communion. In fact, John Wesley
believed that Holy Communion was a “converting ordinance”—i.e., and
EVANGELISTIC SACRAMENT:
Thur. [September] 20[,
1739]. — Mrs. C——, being in deep heaviness, had desired me to meet her this
afternoon. She had long earnestly desired to receive the holy communion, having
an unaccountably strong persuasion, that God would manifest himself to her
therein, and give rest to her soul. But her heaviness being now greatly
increased, Mr. D——e gave her that fatal advice, — Not to communicate till she
had living faith. This still added to her perplexity. Yet at length she
resolved to obey God rather than man. And “he was made known unto” her “in
breaking of bread.” In that moment she felt her load removed, she knew she was
accepted in the Beloved; and all the time I was expounding at Mr. B——’s, was
full of that peace which cannot be uttered. (John Wesley’s Journal)
... many have affirmed,
that the Lord’s Supper is not a converting, but a confirming ordinance. ... But
experience shows the gross falsehood of that assertion, .... Ye are the
witnesses. For many now present know,
the very beginning of your conversion to God (perhaps, in some, the first
deep conviction) was wrought at the
Lord’s Supper.
... the Lord’s Supper
was ordained by God, to be a means of conveying to men either preventing, or
justifying, or sanctifying grace, according to their several necessities.
(John Wesley, Journal, June 27-28, 1740.)
That
the Lord’s Supper is the means of justifying grace—in effect, SAVING GRACE—is
why John Wesley regarded Holy Communion as a means for a person to receive
Christ as Lord and Saviour, and every celebration and reception of the
Eucharist is in effect an altar call whereby a sinner may receive both
forgiveness and assurance of salvation. This CANNOT be effected by attendance
in a small group alone.
Those
who opposed John and Charles Wesley believed that a person who has not yet
“encountered God” should not have an in-depth study of the Scriptures or
doctrine, and should not partake of Holy Communion, and the Wesley brothers’
disagreement with this teaching is significant, especially so soon after John
Wesley’s Aldersgate experience, which itself taught him that it was not by his
own efforts (in his small group the Holy Club) that will save him, but God’s
grace alone (through the means of grace).
A
small group alone—whether it be a band or class meeting, a care or cell
group—is but the form of godliness without the power (the grace of God,
normally received through the means of grace, both preaching and the Sacraments).
And, as the apostle S. Paul told his protégé Timothy, “Having a form of
godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away” (2 Timothy 3:5).
IF METHODISM IS
“LAY-CENTRED”, WHY NEED ORDAINED ELDERS?
The
most important purpose of being an ordained or commissioned elder is to
administer the Sacraments, especially the Eucharist at least weekly. This the
entire reason why John Wesley went against Anglican polity in this instance,
because he believed that the Methodists in America will not survive spiritually
without the Sacraments, even if they had many lay preachers and class meetings.
While preaching is itself a means of grace that can be administered by lay
preachers, it is worth repeating what John Wesley discovered by experience, “I found much of the power of God in
preaching, but FAR MORE at the Lord's table” (John Wesley’s “Journal”,
entry November 13, 1763). Lay preaching in and of itself is insufficient for
the spiritual needs of the people called Methodists, especially then in 18th
century America.
In America there are none,
neither any parish Ministers. So that for some hundred miles together, there is none, either to baptize, or to
administer the Lord’s supper. Here, therefore, my scruples are at an end;
and I conceive myself at full liberty,
as I violate no order, and invade no man’s right, by appointing and sending laborers into the harvest.
If
all that is necessary of Methodism to survive in the new United States of
America are lay preachers and class meetings, WHY DID WESLEY FIND THE LACK OF
ORDAINED MINISTERS TO ADMINISTER THE SACRAMENTS SUCH A HUGE PROBLEM THAT HE HAD
TO ORDAIN ELDERS HIMSELF? So what if “there is none, either to baptize, or to
administer the Lord’s supper,” American Methodists have plenty of lay preachers
and class meetings, cannot American Methodism base their growth on these if
they were the sole “method” of Methodism? Not if the American Methodists want
not only the form but most especially the power of godliness.
It
must be realized that John Wesley went against Anglican polity in this
instance, when he ordained ministers to administer the Lord’s Supper: only a
consecrated bishop can do that, and John Wesley was no bishop. John Wesley was
loyal to the Church of England until his death, yet he found it so important that the American Methodists have ordained
ministers because WESLEY BELIEVED THAT THE METHODISTS IN AMERICA WILL NOT
SURVIVE SPIRITUALLY WITHOUT THE SACRAMENTS. And since Anglican bishops did not
want to ordain any ministers for America (the revolutionary enemy of England)
Wesley took it upon himself to ordain ministers even though he was no bishop
BECAUSE he believed that the Sacraments were necessary.
I have prepared a Liturgy, ... which I advise all the
Traveling Preachers to use on the Lord’s day, in all the congregations, reading the
Litany only on Wednesdays and Fridays, and praying extempore on all other days.
I also advise the Elders to administer
the supper of the Lord on every Lord’s day.
For
John Wesley, the “ritualistic” liturgy was mandatory use for lay preachers, as
was the weekly administration of the Eucharist by ordained elders. Lest any
think that the word “advise” means merely “to suggest” (making both liturgy and
weekly communion “optional”), in the 18th
century, the word “advise” was just a polite word for “command”. Wesley was ordering the lay preachers to use the
“ritualistic” liturgy he prepared and ordered
the elders to celebrate the “boring” Eucharist every week. THIS IS WHY WELSEY
CALLED WEEKLY COMMUNION A DUTY, NOT AN
OPTION!
THE WALKING DEAD: FORMAL
METHODISTS WITHOUT THE POWER
I AM not afraid that the
people called Methodists should ever cease to exist either in Europe or
America. But I am afraid, lest they should only exist as a dead sect, having
the form of religion without the power. And this undoubtedly will be the case,
unless they hold fast both the doctrine, spirit, and discipline with which they
first set out.
In the year 1729 four
young students in Oxford agreed to spend their evenings together. They were all
zealous members of the Church of England, and had no peculiar opinions, but
were distinguished only by their constant attendance on the church and
sacrament. ... Methodism then seemed to die away; but it revived again in the
year 1738 [the year of Wesley’s “Aldersgate experience”]; especially after Mr.
Wesley (not being allowed to preach in the churches) began to preach in the
fields. One and another then coming to inquire what they must do to be saved,
he desired them to meet him all together; which they did, and increased
continually in number.
(John Wesley, “Thoughts
Upon Methodism,” LONDON, August 4, 1786)
Even
though nowadays, most people think that the “method” of the Methodists is found
in lay preaching, class and band meetings and not in the supposedly “ritualistic”
liturgy and the Sacraments, upon closer inspection both liturgy and sacrament
were THE original method of Methodism. Most
modern “Methodists” think no longer of lay PREACHERS but of lay LEADERS who
actually runs the “business” of the local church, deciding everything, while
the main job of an ordained elder is perceived to merely equip and train the
laity to ostensibly preach and lead
small groups, all the while the ordained elder is expected to do everything the
lay leadership wants done, like choir concerts or praise and worship bands, all
of while glorify the skills of the laity—the new celebrities and idols of
Protestant idolatry—and not God.
Meanwhile,
the entire purpose—the raison d’etre—of
being an ordained or commissioned elder of administering the Sacraments,
especially the Eucharist at least weekly is deemphasized at best, denigrated at
worst. Pastors are church workers, i.e., employees of lay employers who care
NOTHING about the means of grace and EVERYTHING about displaying their superb
musical skills and managerial acumen (especially how to minimise the role of
pastors in worship, as well as minimising their salaries). Constant, weekly Eucharist
is too “expensive”, why not instead use the latest gimmicks to increase
membership (and thereby increase “giving,” increase income)?
But
that is not the REAL Methodist way. First, John Wesley did not think that lay leadership
and small groups in themselves can sustain Methodism. But most importantly,
this is the entire reason why John Wesley went against Anglican polity in this
instance, because he believed that the Methodists in America will not survive
spiritually without the Sacraments.
The reason why Wesley
ordained elders was that so they may “to administer the supper of the Lord on
every Lord’s day,” meaning every Sunday. If ordained and commissioned elders do not
believe in this, but believe that preaching is their primary calling, then let
them resign as elders and become deacons or lay preachers instead. For when you
were commissioned or ordained elder, you promised to uphold the order, liturgy,
doctrine and discipline of the UMC.
By
promising to uphold the order of the UMC, you promised to implement—NOT VOTE
AGAINST NOR DISCOURAGE—the Resolutions of the General Conference, in particular
Resolution 8014, which encourages Holy Communion every Sunday, and the word “encourage” does NOT mean merely
“to suggest” as an option, but to PROD Methodists to avail of the DUTY of
constant communion. By rejecting this resolution, you are going against the
order of the UMC by discouraging what the UMC encourages, and voting against
the Episcopal order of the UMC.
By
promising to uphold the liturgy of the UMC, you promised to implement and
use—NOT VOTE AGAINST NOR DISCOURAGE THE USE OF—the United Methodist Hymnal and the United
Methodist Book Of Worship, both of which encourages Holy Communion every
Sunday. By rejecting either the UMH or the UMBOW, you are going against the
liturgy of the UMC by discouraging what the UMC encourages, and voting against
the liturgy of the UMC. And this goes
for lay preachers and worship committee chairpersons as well.
By
promising to uphold the doctrine of the UMC, you promised to agree with and
teach—NOT VOTE AGAINST NOR TEACH AGAINST—the Wesleyan-Arminian character of the
UMC’s theology and practice, wherein constant
communion is not an option but a spiritual duty (see John Wesley’s Sermon 101: The Duty of Constant Communion). By rejecting the spiritual necessity of
constant communion, you are going against the doctrinal standards of the UMC by
discouraging what the UMC encourages, and voting against the doctrine of the
UMC. Again, the word “encourage”
does NOT mean merely “to suggest” as an option, but to PROD Methodists to avail
of the DUTY of constant communion.
By
promising to uphold the discipline of the UMC, you promised to agree with and
teach—NOT VOTE AGAINST NOR TEACH AGAINST—the Third General Rule, wherein constant communion is not an option but a
spiritual duty. By rejecting the
spiritual discipline of constant communion, you are going against the General
Rules of the UMC by discouraging what the UMC encourages, and voting against
the doctrine of the UMC.
If
you were commissioned or ordained an elder of the UMC, and you did not intend
to do what you promised, namely uphold UMC order, liturgy, doctrine and
discipline (all of which enjoins the duty of elders to celebrate the Eucharist
at least weekly), THEN YOU LIED TO THE HOLY SPIRIT who was present at your
commissioning, who was poured out to you when you were ordained. YOU HAVE
SINNED AGAINST THE HOLY SPIRIT! If you
elders—provisional and ordained—do not want to administer the Eucharist as
often as you should (that is, at least every Sunday), then you do not deserve
to be elders. If you really do not want to administer more than once a
month, at least let those whose passion for the Eucharist make them desire to
celebrate it every day become elders in your stead. But you would not give up your being elders merely for political
reasons, rather, YOUR POLITICAL AMBITIONS, which the REAL reason why you
sought ordination as elder!
As
for those pastors who desire to fulfil their duty, who genuinely love constant communion
and desire the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but are prevented by
arrogant laity who see Sunday worship merely as a variety show whereby they can
showcase their musical skills or show off their political power through
political campaigning—a.k.a., the “announcements”—remember that our Lord God is
just and knows your plight. Paraphrasing the words of S. Paul in his second
letter to Timothy, they did us great harm--the Lord will repay them according
to their deeds; beware of them, for they strongly opposed our message. DO NOT
COMPROMISE WITH THEM.
POSTSCRIPT: THE REAL
REASON FOR SUPPOSED “DISCIPLESHIP”
It nearly concerns us to
understand how the case stands with us at present. I fear, wherever riches have
increased, (exceeding few are the exceptions,) the essence of religion, the
mind that was in Christ, has decreased in the same proportion. Therefore do I
not see how it is possible, in the nature of things, for any revival of true
religion to continue long.
(John Wesley, “Thoughts
Upon Methodism,” LONDON, August 4, 1786)
What
should be seen is that although the laity are supposedly concerned for the
salvation of souls, the real reason why the laity want strong discipleship and
evangelistic programs is so that there will be more attendees in the local
church which means more money from offerings. Choirs want new choir gowns, the
youth want new band instruments, the congregation want air-conditioning in the
sanctuary—these are the real reasons why they want “new members,” so that there
will be more “givers”.
Oh,
I know that there are exceptions—for sure—or some may say that I am
exaggerating, but consider these things. First, almost always, all local church
councils talk about when they meet is money and how something will cost. THEY
ALMOST NEVER DISCUSS DOCTRINE! One reason why most councils vote against the
duty of constant communion (thus challenging the Episcopal polity of the UMC)
is because they think it will cost too much. Given a choice between the
Eucharist and saving money, the latter always wins the vote.
But
most importantly, pressure from the laity have made August a “stewardship
month” in the Manila Episcopal Area, with the emphasis to encourage giving more
money to the local church, all the while neglecting the lectionary pericope on
Christ being the bread of life. Fully expecting to hear a sermon regarding
Christ’s words, “Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal
life, whom I will raise up on the last day,” instead I was disappointed to hear
“testimonies” about giving more to God.
Has the LORD as great
delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD?
Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams.
For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and stubborness is as iniquity and
idolatry. (1 Samuel 15:22-23)
Oh,
that we obeyed Christ by remembering him THE WAY HE COMMANDED US to remember
him instead of vainly flattering him that we give him what is already his own!
That local churches would rather extort their congregations by having two
collections of offerings than celebrating Holy Communion shows that the lay
leadership value money more than grace, loving the collections of offerings
instead of the means of grace!
For the love of money is
a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have
wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs. (1 Timothy
6:10)
