Decision #5

Decision #5

Reconsidering Clergy Issues

FOCUS

Establishing a standard of gifts,

graces and fruit for faithful ministry,
for both laity and clergy

What do we have clergy?  Answer:  “Not to form any new sect; but to reform the nation, particularly the Church, and to spread scriptural holiness over the land.”  (from an early 18^th century Methodist Conference)

The problem:   “the dramatic drop in the number of UM elders under the age of 35 in the last 20 years.”  (Dr. Outler)  [75]

Solutions Suggested

1. Return to the practice of utilizing ordained Local Elders and ordained Local Deacons.
   
2. To develop different models of training and preparation for becoming ordained Deacons and Elders, directed at Methodist laypeople who are already in a career and feel called by the Holy Spirit to the ministry.  [76-77]

Again, focus upon maintaining our “core values” must be maintained and unqualified people must not be received into ministry just to fill a pulpit.” [77]

MEM:  The unspoken conclusion here is that we are ordaining unqualified people into ministry. Also, the assumption here is that we cannot find enough qualified persons with high moral standards to be Elders. Curiously, we seem to have too many elder candidates in the Virginia Conference.  The reason?  The loss of Elder  appointments due to continue decline of the local churches.  We have lost social equity or social traction in the culture.  Some of the reasons for this we have no control over.  Sticking to our “core values” and our mission for Christ, the transformation of the world, will help us ride through the storm. 

Another question: If we can't insure that our elders are “qualified and have high character” how are we going to insure that the persons we select by other means to lead congregations will be truly fit for such service?  A study was done by the General Conference regarding alternative appointment options.  Many models were suggested by I heard very little talk about that study in recently. 

MEM: A number of other clergy issues in the denomination are noted on page 78.  With all due respect, most of the issues mentioned here are not at all new in our history.  The issues are ongoing.  The speed of change have been moving quickly enough in response to the changing context has changed the playing field to be sure but the issues are not new.  I would agree that very little in being done practically to address these issues.  The current corporate focus on “metrics” represents more “command and control” but a focus on the leading of the Holy Spirit. 

Decision #5

To create a model of ministry that addresses our current historical situation by reclaiming an old ministry model and contertemporizing it for a new world.  This model would include reorienting the concepts of laity, clergy and ministry; allowing for fewer Traveling elders; re-instituting the positions of ordained Local Elders and Local Deacons; and developing a viable system to prepare laypeople as Traveling Elders.

Decision #6

Decision #6

Readdressing Systemic Issues

Focus

A comprehensive ministry mind-set

of holiness and unity

determines how the Church functions practically. 

While leadership is important the authors suggest that leadership “is not the issue.”  There are several other equally important, if not more important, issues. The approach must be a comprehensive one. One-dimensional strategic thinking is always futile. In fact, it is a contradictory concept. “ [63]

Question Raised [63]

What is the apostolic mission as a Church?

“Is 'making disciple of Jesus Christ' really our mission, or is it a crucial byproduct of an ever higher mission?  (MEM: No answer is offered here to this question. The overall mission is the “Transformation of the World, a task that can not be accomplish without the witness, wisdom and leading of the Holy Spirit.  Disciples are made to fulfill this mission.)

So what solution to the authors offer?

They suggest we are a “clergy-dominated Church” and the style of leadership is “command and control.”  The second most prevalent form of leadership is to “manipulate issues, people, and results form behind the scenes to make sure all the right decisions are made before the committee meets.”  [64]

These styles of leadership exclude clergy in the pulpits and laity in the pews from the decision-making process.  The Barna Groups research reveals that “a substantial number of lay leaders in the mainstream denominations have been leaving and either going nowhere or going to newer denominations like Fellowship Bible and Vineyard or to independent churches.”  [63]

MEM:  This is quite true.  However, there is a deeply declining pool of potential leaders who are not identifying with any church.  A study done by the Evangelical Presbyterian Church indicated that their growth at the time was coming from other churches.  They were “making disciples” of exceedingly few  non-Christians.  The percentage of folks active in any faith has declined steeply since 2000.  In America most of these folks claim to believe in God and in Jesus. However, this does not result in their actually attending a church.  20% of the total population are officially “nones”  (no denomination) and over 30% of folks under 35 are “nones.”  Nearly 50%  believe “religion” is more of a problem than a solution to today's cultural problems.  Still most of these folks are seeking answers regarding the “meaning of life” and looking for significant relationships with others.  Most profess belief in some concept of “God” and most admire Jesus and believe in his teachings.

The suggestion here is to move to a more “egalitarian style” of leadership.  By this the authors mean a “true partnership between and among laity and clergy.” [p. 65]

Turning the Pyramid Upside Down

The current style of leadership places the denomination at the top and the congregation at the bottom.  The suggestion here is to flip that pyramid so the congregation is at the top and the denomination is a the bottom.  The pastor would be elevated to a status just below the congregation.  [See graphics on page 66]

“If Methodism goes down (or continues to slump), it will not be from any flaws in our heritage, but because ideological and power struggles over stakes in church politics (local and denominational) which simply are not worth the consequences they bring.”  Dr. Outler   [66]

MEM:  I believe there is a serious problem with “command and control” issues in the denomination. They discourage the most creative leaders in the local congregations.  The local congregations are the foundation upon which the whole denomination is constructed.  The crumbling of that foundation will bring down the whole house.  Feeding the Methodist machine dominates our attention and consumes our resources.  The “machine” has a function but  “The Methodist message is more important than the Methodist machine.  The machine is build only to serve the proclamation of the message about the Kingdom of God.”  [67]

Decision #6:

To reform ourselves by learning, teaching and practicing a style of leadership and organizational mind-set and operation that fully uses the gifts and graces of both laity and clergy, and to reverse the roles and relationship of the local church and laity to the denominational support structure. This also means having the love and courage to address other systemic issues crippling The United Methodist Church.

Decision #7

Decision #7

Reinstituting Guidelines for Discipline

Focus

The biblical mandate for

rules, accountability, and order

 John Wesley (50)

Better forty members should be lost than our discipline lost.  They are no Methodists that will bear no restraints.

Be exact in every point of discipline. Keep the rules and they will keep you.

Discipling involves:

(1)  Obedience to the commandments of Lord Jesus Christ;

(2)  Obedience to the Holy Spirit, who lives in us;

(3)  Obedience to our spiritual leaders, who are training us in “holiness of heart and life”;

(4)  Obedience to the rules of the Church  (52)

Accountability Defined  

“Accountability is not a judgement, nor judgmentalist.  Accountability is an attitude of love of God and care about self and other people we love and trust.  Accountability is the commitment to self and other loved ones to encourage, teach, build up, and sometimes to correct each other in order to be Kingdom people doing Kingdom Living.  Accountability with this attitude and in this context is love assuring salvation.”  [p. 53]  [This is not a quote from Wesley but a quote form the book, Kingdom People, p. 405, by James B. Scott and Molly Davis Scott.]

Accommodation and appeasement do not work . . . . [54]

So how do we in the twenty-first century return to the strict discipline of The United Methodist Church?  It can be done – there is a way to make it happen.  [55]

Decision #7:

To rebuild a system of clear and strict discipline, and therefore accountability, around a host of practices that will give us assurance of salvation and take us on to sanctification, holiness, and perfect love, to the restoration of the image Christ in us.

MEM COMMENTS

The authors offer no means to restore the discipline referred to here.  In a radically individualized culture restoring any consensus on what this means especially when employed in a practical sense to will be very difficult.  Currently, we have a radically polarized culture and radically polarized church. 

We are split along political lines that are only marginally related to the theological issues.  Many folks either or not aware of this fact or in denial.  History does not give us much evidence that these differences can be resolved without conflict.  The attitudes related on one's understand of the “right way of life” are deep and fundamental to each person.  The witness of the Civil Way and the fight for civil rights for blacks and other minorities still going on should be enough evidence to proof this point.

Again, I return to the importance of “right relationship.”  Discipline and accountability come only when people feel they are in a loving, deep, and trustful relationship with others.  The lack of community and basic trust are major issues to be addressed before we can really talk about the matter of 'rules.'

Decision #8

DECISION #8

Reclaiming Our Scriptural and Theological Base

Focus

Recovering the importance of what we believe and teach as United Methodists

Scriptures:  John 7:16;  1 Timothy 4:16; 2 Timothy 3:10-4:4

John Wesley

Our main doctrines, which include all the rest are three, that of Repentance, Faith and of Holiness.

Our fundamental doctrine of the people called Methodists is, Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the true faith; the faith which works by love; which by means of the love of God and our neighbor produces inward and outward holiness.

The authors note the absence of doctrinal consensus in the UM Church today and ask if this is a major contributor to the Church destabilization. [40] 

MEM: We do not have consensus within our denomination nor do we find consensus on these matters across denominational lines.  Of course this is a factor in our destabilization.  If we count independent non-denominational churches as “denominations” you discover we have something like 7,000 different Christian groups in America.  Reaching some consensus within Methodism would at the very least help us to identify our “target audience.”

Critical Questions:  (1)  WHAT shall we TEACH?;  (2) HOW shall we TEACH?; (3) WHAT shall we DO to regulate our doctrine, discipline, and practice? 

What would we have to agree on to have doctrinal consensus? [41]

1.  Scripture

2.  History and Tradition of the Church

3.  Wesleyan roots

4.  Wesleyan essentials

We would do well to teach or reteach the essentials to our people so that they might have a framework to know what to believe and what not to believe.  It is specially important to teach this framework now due to all the synchronistic teaching that is abundant in our culture and misleading to our people. Let us move past this unfortunate era in which we hear people say “I love being a Methodist because you can believe anything you want.”  [44]

The authors suggest there are a “multitude of procedures we could utilize to teach and retrench the members the value and necessity of a sound biblical, theological framework using these four elements.  They offer one suggestion:  Require new member candidates to answer questions regarding the four elements of Scripture, History and Tradition of the Church, Wesleyan roots, and Wesleyan essential.

They go on to say . . . “We have consistently found in our teaching of both the clergy and laity that presenting the four basis elements initiates a new excitement energy, appreciation, and power  . . . . We should neither be ignorant of our biblical and doctrinal roots, nor should we ignore them.  We should understand their essentiality to producing disciples, and we should not be timid about demanding our congregants to understand them.”   [44-45]

Decision #8

To preach, teach, and hold clergy and laity accountable to the biblical, theological, Wesleyan roots and essentials as reflected in the Standard Sermons of John Wesley, The Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament, the Articles of Religion, the General Rules, and the Confessions of Faith of the Evangelical United Brethren. 

MEM COMMENTS

 Certainly we need to reach consensus on what we believe to be the essentials. However, a number of issues emerge in the study of Wesley.  Scholars who have spent much of their  life studying Wesley find contradictory statements  in his writings.  I believe we can mine from the writings listed about some basic essentials but the process might be far more difficult that the authors envision. Those who want to blow up the bus, a phrase the authors use, are fighting over what they deem to be essential and many of them leaving or calling for a denominational  split.  Other denominations have already split over such issues.

We are deeply polarized at every level of this culture and this polarization exists in our pews as well.  We are polarized over the issue of homosexuality and abortion to mention only two major wedge issues in our day.  Some suggest that homosexuals should be denied basic civil rights and deem this understanding to be biblical and essential.  Other Christians suggest just the opposite.  We have no remaining fragments of the much more authoritarian culture that existed in Wesley's day and they had plenty of trouble maintaining order then.  The revolution then was in many ways anti-religious as the realities of the Enlightenment began to dawn.  This post-enlightenment era offers hope for creating meaningful religious experience today but given the radical individualism of the culture how this will turn out is far from certain. 

We are polarized as well over very basic economic issues.  We don't even agree on the term “social justice.”  How can we talk about “God” when we can't agree on how we should treat persons who are “different” from the majority? 

For more on the theological issues related to our understand of God, read “In Face of Mystery” written by Gordon D. Kaufman.  Regarding the concept of “God” he writes “Within each tradition of commonly accepted symbols, rituals, and meanings, there is, of course, much disagreement and argument.  Within our own western and Christian traditions the questions of who or what God is, what can be known of God, and how God is related to us and our lives, are all subject to dispute:  God is by no means a clear-cut well-known reality.  Indeed, the symbol “God” (as I suggested) point to the great mystery of life, the deepest and most profound issues about which we do not know what to say.  (p. 29, In Face of Mystery -  A Constructive Theology; Gordan D. Kaufman; (1993, the President and Fellows of Harvard College)

Now let me offer an example of how difficult it is for United Methodists to reach consensus on a very basic and essential issue of faith.  It is clear that we still have some very basic differences in understanding among our members regarding believers baptism versus infant baptism imported into our denomination with the merger of the Evangelical United Brethren and the former Methodists Church in 1968.  It took us 18 years to come up with a position statement on the the Sacrament on Holy Baptism.  Still, differences as acknowledged in the introduction to  Appendix to By Water and the Spirit: Making Connections for Identity and Ministry by Gayle Carlton Felton. 

Please take the time to read this article posted at:  

http://www.gbod.org/lead-your-church/by-water-the-spirit-baptism-study/resource/appendix-making-connections-for-identity-and-ministry

For our official statement on Baptism go to:

http://www.gbod.org/lead-your-church/by-water-the-spirit-baptism-study

A serious study of our “roots” would uncover more fundamental differences in our understand of our roots and our basic beliefs and practices.  The point I am making here is this.  We  may in fact, be able to reach “unity in essentials” but the road will be long and hard and we have so little time. 

Historically, the Church has always had trouble reaching consensus.  Paul and Peter did not agree. The delegates who gathered at  the first councils to determine our cannon and basic beliefs did not agree.  The Roman Church did not agree with the Scott-Irish Celtic Christians understanding of some very basis faith issues and choose to crush their thinking at the Council of Whitby.  Celtic Christians continued to hold on to their own understanding of the faith in the face of this authoritarian assault on their views. 

In recent years, I have witnessed Sunday School classes split and ultimately dissolve over controversial issues driven more by political concerns than doctrinal.  None of this even addresses the issue of how to create meaningful inter-faith dialogues  and unity across inter-faith lines. The little city of Roanoke has 104 different ethnic groups living here.  How can we relate to folks of other faith backgrounds in a way that is faithful to the witness and teachings of Jesus?  I would suggest that we will have to begin  with issues of economic, and racial bigotry as we seek to find a way to bring secure true social justice for folks of all backgrounds.  Perhaps we can find unity at this level of inter-action. 

I agree with the basic concept presented by the authors.   However, I believe the authors have failed to address the reality of just how hard it will be to reach consensus on “essentials” in our understanding of the Christian faith especially when applied to social issues. 

Decision #9

Restoring Methodist

Decision #9

Recognizing the Reality
of the United Methodist Church

Focus

To example previous Methodist decisions
and to reconnect with Wesleyan roots
and the source of Christianity's power.

The frightening conclusion offered here is that unless something changes quickly with the passing of the Greatest Generation and the Builders (those born before 1946) the Church will not have the support it needs to continue the work we are doing now.  (26)

The loss, death and aging of members is dramatically reducing membership roles.  The loss of the youth is a major problem as yet unsolved.  In 2006, a story revealed that 90% of baptized youth stop attending church when they reach adulthood.  Currently, only 6% of church youth attend church when they reach adulthood.  When you add in unchurched youth,  you discover that only 4% of all youth attend church once they leave high school.  The percentage for the Builder Generation is 68%. 

The book notes that the problem of a lack of a passionate faith began a long time ago.  They offer quotes from 1938 to support this conclusion. [See quotes on page 27-30!   In part they read: 

We have a great Church, but have we lost some of the world-seizing impulse, some of the evil-challenging audacity, some of the God-embracing faith, some of the epoch-creating passion of early Methodism?  (Dr. W. T. Watkins, Professor of Church History, Emory University. 1938)

A general recognition of the gravity of the hour, and a humbling of ourselves before God, would help us all.  (W. E. Sangster, 1938)

Sangster suggests that the four essential characteristics of Methodism which Wesley proclaimed had already been lost in 1938:  fellowship, assurance, holiness, and personal evangelism.  (27)  These 4 essential characteristics are defined more clearly on pages 28-29.

 The call here is not for a new model of church but for RESTORATION of historic Methodism.  (30)

Non-Working Strategies

(1) Visionary Bishops:  The authors note the call for “visionary” bishops in the 1960s who could lead our denomination into the future.  Many outstanding leaders were elected. None-the-less,  the UM Church continued to decline. (30-31)  Of course, we do want visionary bishops but great bishops are not enough.

(2)  Incremental Change:  The conclusion here is that so-called “incremental change” will not work. Often we are trying to address current problems based upon the reality of 20 years earlier.   Radical change is the only viable solution.  (31)

Once again the solution suggested is “getting back to our Wesleyan roots.” (31) What this means exactly is not described. 

A question implied here is this:  Is our Church able to move fast enough to address the current reality? 

It seems clear that our insights and understanding are lagging far behind the reality of what actually is.

More over, our leaders produce solutions appropriate only to a “protected reality.”  We cannot look a the real picture it seems and so we are unable to develop strategies address our current reality.

“Our future lies in looking to our past and readapting and reasserting those principles and practices that made Methodist a great movement and denomination.”  (33)

Decision #9

To acknowledge that Methodism commenced a journey of unfortunate decisions in the late 1930s that culminated in the 1960s and has been reflected through immense loses in membership and worship attendance.  The United Methodist Church, in some major aspects, has gone the wrong way.  We must now acknowledge those wrong turns, reverse them,  and return to our foundational, biblical, theological and practical Wesleyan roots.

MEM COMMENTS

Is there nothing truly new to celebrate?  Is God only behind us?  The Church has always been an “Ancient – Future” institution.  Of course, we need to look all the way back to Jesus as we have always done.  John Wesley used small groups and a passionate and inspired laity to advance the cause of grace.  Adapted to our current situation, these strategies can be fruitful. 

We must ask over and over again the this question:  How can we touch the hearts of folks today?  How can we nurture the growth of passionate disciples of Jesus for the transformation of the world?  The ability of the institutional church to move quickly enough to address our current reality seems to be lacking.  A new, deeper, richer and more profound movement of the Holy Spirit is needed.  It will not be like the charismatic movement of old.  This Church will  have the wisdom to embrace a truly “inter-faith” world.  This Church will have the spiritual authority to address contemporary political and social realities.  It will speak truth to power to bring real, meaningful and lasting change in real world circumstances. 

We must do more than restore what once was.  We must ask God to show us the future he has for us.  We must follow God into His future.  The real “rooting” we need is to be rooted in the active compassionate, creative love of God.  The Apostle Paul put it this way . .  .

For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family[h] in heaven and on earth takes its name. I pray that, according to the riches of his glory, he may grant that you may be strengthened in your inner being with power through his Spirit, and that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith, as you are being rooted and grounded in love. I pray that you may have the power to comprehend, with all the saints, what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, so that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.  Now to him who by the power at work within us is able to accomplish abundantly far more than all we can ask or imagine, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen.

Ephesians 3:14-21 / RSVP

Decision #10

Restoring Methodism

Decisions For United Methodist Churches in America

James B. Scott and Molly Davis Scott

2006, Provident Publishing

Note:  You can read previous posts on the chapters of this book using the "Blog Archive"you find on the left side of this page !

Decision #10:

Recognizing the Reality of the American Church

Focus

To examine the theological movements of the twentieth century

and their relationship to the root of Christianity.

FAILING CHURCH METRIC  The authors offer a long list of of multiple church movements of the 20^th century that have come to an end.  This includes the church growth movement, the seeker movement, the charismatic movement, the church model movement, and the evangelical movement.  They list a “plethora of theological movements that influenced the church in some ways in the 20^th century” as well.   They all had their strengths and weaknesses but the bottom line here is the Church in America continued to declined substantially. Overall, renewal was not achieved.  (12-16)

A REPEAT OF HISTORY?  In Wesley's world, evangelicals experienced lots of conflicts with “culture and Crown.”  Divisive opinions that “did not strike at the root of Christianity” created splits within the ranks of the faithful.  This in turn led to numerous persecutions which weakened the Body of Christ.  (15)

THE CHURCH'S CURRENT REALITY The authors quote a number of persons detailing the current reality of dramatic decline throughout the 20^th century.  Warnings of decline in the Church were announced by Dr. Outler as far back as the early 1960s.  One person suggested that the Christian Church was on “life support!”   

MEM: Secular critics.suggest that the Church has outlived is usefulness. I  do not agree with this assessment but unless we rediscover our unique mission in the current context we will remain unfruitful and largely irrelevant.  The Church will continue to see its influence marginalized. 

REASONS FOR THE DECLINE? The authors suggest that this decline is the result of the Church having “gone the wrong way.” (17)  They quote Outler who concludes that “their” (the liberal movements of the 20^th century) utopian visions, and ours have turned out to be tragically illusionary.”  Outler goes on to say that the problem here has been the failure to confront the “reality of the radical human flaw” of original sin along with placing far too much faith in technology.  Outler suggests that the human heart longs for “Wesley's Gospel of unmerited favor and the disciplines of love and joy.” (18) 

MEM:  John Calvin would be delighted to hear that the “liberals” were to blame for the downfall of the Church but I doubt he would be thrilled with all this talk of “unmerited favor” and “disciplines of love and joy.”  He would not be surprised at all by the multiple sins of a totally depraved humankind. 

SO WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?   The right way to go is to rediscover our  “Wesleyan, historical biblical foundation.”  (18)

Decision #10

To recognize that all of the theological and religious movements in the Church in the 20^th century have ended without bringing renewal to the United Methodist Church
 and to seek the restoration of our Christian and Methodist foundation. (19)

MEM:  This discussion does not take into account the radical shifts in culture we continue experience. Of course, parallels can be drawn to Wesley's time but the current context of our mission is very different. The current changes make the situation in Wesley's day seem like child's play.  The radical forces of change set free by the Enlightenment were just beginning to be felt in Wesley's day.   The culture was theocratic compared to the culture in America today.  One's “religion” was a defining and significant element in one's heritage.  With 20% of folks in America officially non-religious, and over 30% of our under 30 population declaring themselves to be “nones” this is a radically different context.  50% or more who are members of local churches change denominations when they move to a new area. Folks remain “spiritual” but increasingly they see no compelling reason to be active in a church.  Many are looking to a host of non-church sources to satisfy their spiritual needs. 

The rhetoric of compassion is found on the lips of politicians, CEOs of major corporations and others. Church goers and the non-religious agree that we should “love one another.”  Meanwhile, we endorse policies that are making the rich much richer and driving more and more middle class folks into poverty.  An estimated 100,000 girls are sold into slavery in America each year yet there is no great public out cry to do much about the situation.  Perhaps we have too little energy left over after fighting battles over the two most divisive issues in the country today, homosexuality and abortion.  The “global economy” values corporate profits over ethics and justice and protecting the environment.  The multiple sins of greed, pride, and lust for power and control are evident. While most folks lament the situation they feel powerless to change the situation.  At present the Church has vert little impact in correcting these abundant sins. Indeed, it seems we have co-opted Jesus in support of corporate sins. 

The solution to the decline of our denomination offered by the authors is getting back to Bible basics.   Of course, as always, our focus should be Bible basics with a focus upon the life and witness of Jesus. There is nothing new regarding this penultimate conclusion. The problem here is how to find consensus on exactly what these Bible basics are.  Within the Christian community today,  there is little consensus as to exactly what we mean by “Bible basics” and how to apply them to public policy.  It remains to be seen if we can reach consensus on how to interpret and apply the Bible to this contentious contemporary context.  It is not enough for a single denomination to reach consensus.  Those who dare to call themselves “Christian” must agree across denominational lines.  Without this, the unchurched and non-christians will be presented with a very confused picture of “The Body of Christ.”  Without denominational and inter-denominational consensus, we will not have the impact needed to transform the culture.  The Christian Church has faced this social situation many times before.  In those situations there was a dynamic movement of the Holy Spirit that raised up a band of folks who did transform the culture in ways that seemed impossible at the time.  Therefore, we must have faith knowing that God's purpose can and will be accomplished.

Why John Wesley?

Restoring Methodism

Decisions For United Methodist Churches in America

James B. Scott and Molly Davis Scott

2006, Provident Publishing

Note:  You can read previous posts on the chapters of this book using the "Blog Archive"you find on the left side of this page !

NOTES AND COMMENTARY
Milton E. Marks

Why John Wesley?

“It is not that Wesley himself changes us; it is that he continually points away from himself to the Trinity  -  God, the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit; to basic Christianity; to the early church.  Wesley is not the answer, but he takes us to the answers.  Those answers have not changed for centuries, but it I a matter of our updating and reapplying them for new generations. 

The Wesleyan doctrine (teaching) and disciple (rules and forms of ministry) create the vehicle to take us, individually and corporately, to the life and power that is promised in the faith.  They provide the way for us to acquire righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit, to advance the Kingdom of God, and to secure all that we truly need and desire in this life and in the life to come.”  (xiii-xiv)

MEM:  Of course Wesley points us to Jesus who is “the answer.“ The problem here is understanding what the authors mean by “updating and reapplying” the methods of teaching the faith to new generations in a post-enlightenment world increasingly skeptical of religion.  As the authors point out clearly in the first chapter of the book, none of the efforts in the last 40 to 50 years have helped stop the “substantial decline” in the impact the Church in general is having in this world.  Reports are that after leveling out of the decline in the late 80s and early 90s, a deeper decline has been experienced since 2000.   Yet, in some areas of the world, Christianity has experienced a surge of growth in numbers.  This is not the case in America or, for that matter, in most of the more technologically advanced countries. 

Foundation

The authors open this section with the burning question before us:  Can an old-denomination be born again?  They note that many leaders have suggested that the UM Church will have to die before it can be reborn.  Currently, we are, in fact, dying and these negative assessments might very well prove to be correct.  The authors suggest, however, that this need not be the case. Next, they the “foundation” for their book and it's conclusions. 

The Book's Purpose:  “To be a “talking paper” to focus on specific principals and insights  that will form a proper exploration and dialogue for us in the United Methodists Church.”  (4)

The Context:  Decline in all measures of institutional strength and the aging of the membership (4)

Primary Texts:  John 14:15-17; John 14:26; John 16:13

What Must We Do? 

“Our love and obedience to Christ and therefore to His Body requires us, particularly at this point in our history, to do everything in our power to correct past mistakes; to do everything we can to bring people into relationship with God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.   . . .. It is about being united with God, walking as Jesus walked, being taught and led by the Spirit, and serving Christ in the world.  It is about the Kingdom of God.” (5-6)

Four Questions (6)

1.  What are we doing now that we should CONTINUE doing?  (These are the Church's strengths.)

2.  What are we doing now that we should STOP doing?  (This is the Church's current reality.)

3.  What are we NOT doing now that we should START doing?  (This is the Church's essential and preferred reality.)

4.  What are we NOT doing now that we should NOT START doing.  (This guides the Church as to which choices to affirm and which to deny.)

The authors close this section by mentioning the importance of the vision and call “to radical assessment” articulated by Dr. Albert Outler of Perkins School of Theology.  (Dr. Outler died in 1989.)  They judge that Outler's vision and call “has gone virtually unheeded in the actions of the Church.” (7)

MEM COMMENTS

We must remember that the Church of Jesus Christ is always “Ancient – Future.” 

1.  We must understand clearly what Jesus what doing when we walked this earth.

Jesus' primary concern was not “personal salvation” as this term is understood by so many evangelicals today.   We are saved individually into community with others.  We are “saved to take our place in the mission of the corporate Body of Christ. Jesus was not into creating a new tribe of the spiritual elite.  Jesus was a living witness to the birth of a whole new way of living in the “New Creation.”  John Wesley understood this clearly so he addressed real world issues of justice and morality.  So must we. This is our God-given mission to respond to the darkness of sin we see around us. Only a God-powered Church can speak truth to power.  This is the “Ancient” dimension of our mission. 

2.  We must understand the culture in which we are called to witness and develop strategies that are appropriate and effective in today's cultural context.

This is the “future” part of the paradigm and the most problematic.  The speed of change in a high tech world makes it very hard for a “traditional” institution to keep up.  By this, I do not mean merely pursing the latest fad in the cultural. At the same time, we must learn to speak the language of the culture without compromising the Good News we have been given by Jesus.