A few months ago the great Methodist scholar Dr. David Watson (my Greek teacher in seminary), gave this talk at the "Mere Methodism" Conference on Biblical interpretation. It is called "Shadowboxing with Modernity." As he says in a description of this talk, "The talk had to do with how we Methodists (and other Christians) should deal with the challenges posed by the intellectual currents of our present age. I zero in specifically on the interpretation of Scripture."
This video is inviting Christians - especially Methodists and Episcopalians - to wrestle with that question and (I hope) see the value of the traditional requirement of baptism to receive the Eucharist.
Rickman on alignment between Methodists and Anglicans
One of the recurring themes of this blog (and of my life) has been striving for greater unity among all Christians, and most especially among Methodists and Anglicans. I don't know if there are any two denominational traditions as close as to one another as these.
As a United Methodist pastor for many years, I loved to point out (and make good use of) those parts of our liturgy and heritage that were also found in the Anglican Prayerbook and traditions (as many older posts on this blog will attest). As an Anglican priest today I still hold a Wesleyan/Methodist soteriology and understanding of how grace unfolds in our lives, which I share in common with many other Anglicans (chief among them John and Charles Wesley, and more contemporary figures like Winnfield Bevins).
So, quite naturally, I've been interested in the nascent conversations between the new Global Methodist Church and the Anglican Church in North America. As Providence would have it, Bishop Clark Lowenfield who ordained me to the priesthood has been one leader in these conversations.
On the GMC side, one cheerleader for this conversation is Jeffrey Rickman over at his "PlainSpoken" podcast and YouTube Channel. In this video he discusses the recently-elected archbishop of the Anglican Church in North America Steve Wood (the Archbishop is the "lead" bishop, who presides at Province-level meetings, functioning in some ways like the President of the Council of Bishops in the UMC).
From everything I've seen, I'm excited about Archbishop Steve's leadership and what it means for the Province going forward.
I believe in bishops. I've had both really good and really bad experiences of Episcopal oversight, but experience is not what drives my belief system: the Bible interpreted through the historic church is. That is why I believe in bishops.
I know that this is an active topic of discussion among Methodists - and the Global Methodist Church in particular will decide later this year about whether to accept bishops at all and, if so, what sort of bishop it will be.
In this video I explain some of the reasons (there are others) why I think bishops are essential for the flourishing and especially for the unity of the whole church, and the congregations within it.
Since leaving the United Methodist Church (UMC) last year I'm no longer attached to any Methodist or Wesleyan denomination. Yet I still consider myself a Methodist/Wesleyan pastor in the way of John Wesley himself. He was the founder of the Methodist movement, but never part of a Methodist denomination. As a matter of fact, John Wesley remained a lifelong member (and priest) in the Anglican church and said explicitly that he hoped Methodists would remain an organized spiritual movement inside the Anglican church.
For Wesley, being "Methodist" was about a theological and spiritual approach to pursuing holiness, not about being part of a denomination in the modern sense. The sad reality is that it is perfectly possible to be have the word "Methodist" on the sign in front of a church, but have no living connection to the spirituality and aims of the early Methodist movement.
Following Wesley's hopes, I've recently been received into the Anglican Church in North America and have been ordained in the Diocese of the Western Gulf Coast. Here is a video in which I go into detail about why and how I made that decision.
Of course, it comes down to what we mean by "Purgatory". But I do recommend this discussion; rather than simply repeating slogans of the past, they really do explore important questions about our relationship with God and how Bible-believing Christians might approach them. I certainly do not accept the Medieval idea of Purgatory as Christian believers "doing time" and being punished for sins after death before we can enter into Heaven, but there is a sense in which we believe we will be further "purged" at the end of this life so that our hearts will be able to receive the Glory our Father has for us.
Mr. Jonah Saller's "Mere Catholicity" YouTube channel is worth checking out. He is a very thoughtful Anglican layman who is well-read. In this video he lays out an approach to the Real Presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper that both takes on board the Lutheran (and Roman Catholic & Eastern Orthodox) concern that the Spirit actually does do something objectively to the elements themselves, to "make them be for us the body and blood of Christ". Yet he also wants to take on board the concern of the Protestant Reformers that we can only receive Christ's presence in the Supper if we have faith. "Make them be for us the body and blood of Christ."
I broadly agree that an understanding that is both Biblical and informed by universal tradition should include both of these concerns.
One YouTuber I've recently run across and really profited from/enjoyed is Jonah Saller at the Mere Catholicity channel. I believe that Mr. Saller is an Anglican layman and has lots of really thoughtful videos advocating for a "reformed catholicity". Here he discusses the view held by many (but not all) Anglicans called "Branch theory" - the idea that the original undivided and catholic church founded by Christ has divided into (at least) three branches that can all claim to be legitimately "catholic" continuations of that original "trunk" with the same validity of ordinations and sacraments: the Eastern Orthodox, the Roman Catholic, and the Anglican branches. While some Anglicans use "Branch Theory" to "de-church" other Protestant churches, Mr. Saller - in this an other videos - takes a more generous (and, I would argue, a more realistic) approach: other Protestant churches are clearly real parts of Christ's church that really experience the saving grace of Jesus Christ; but there are gifts of catholicity (such as Apostolic bishops) that God intends for them to have, which they currently lack.
5 Proofs of the Real Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in Communion
Here is another video from the Rev. Dr. Jordan Cooper, of the Lutheran tradition. Though the Anglicans and Methodists share in common a view of Christ's Real Presence in Communion that is not 100% identical with the Lutheran view, they are in fact pretty close (close enough that some Lutheran bodies are now in "full communion" agreements with both Methodist and Anglican churches).
What all these traditions do agree on (over against some Baptist and non-denomination traditions) is that, as Scripture clearly affirms, when we receive the consecrated elements of the Lord's Supper by faith, we truly receive the Body and Blood and Presence and Grace of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of our sins and renewal of our souls.
How this works is understood in different ways, I am comfortable leaving it under the heading of "holy mystery". I'm also comfortable with members within the same church holding (with humility) different understandings of how it works, so long as we strive not to contradict the teachings of Scripture.
So, while not a Lutheran myself, I would actually concur with the arguments that Cooper makes in this video to demonstrate that the Real Presence in the Eucharist is, on a careful read of the text, a thoroughly Biblical teaching, and ought to be believed. And that is to say nothing of this also being the undisputed teaching of the Ancient Church for many centuries after the age of the Apostles. Who are we - separated by language, culture, and centuries - to know better than the early Church who shared the same language and culture as the New Testament writers themselves?
Here is a great video from Lutheran pastor and theologian Rev. Dr. Jordan Cooper defending the Western view of the "filioque."
'What in the world is that?', you may be asking. In the Nicene Creed (which churches I pastor recite occasionally) we affirm that "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son..."
That phrase "and the Son" is, in Latin, "Filioque" and it was not included in the original form of the Creed that was approved by ecumenical councils representing the whole of the Early Church. It was added later by the Western Church to emphasize the divinity of the Son. What is being affirmed is that, from all eternity, the Holy Spirit is proceeding both from the Father and from the Son within the Life of the Holy Trinity forever.
Eastern Orthodox Churches and other Eastern Rites have tended to reject this understanding of the relationship of the Spirit and the Son within the life of the Holy Trinity, and have vociferously rejected the addition of this phrase to the Creed.
I believe that the "filioque" actually is good theology: it is consistent with the Biblical witness and makes sense of the nature of God, as Cooper explains in the video below. However, I also agree that an ecumenical creed, authorized by an Ecumenical Council and shared in common by the whole universal/catholic Church of Jesus, ought not be unilaterally changed by only one part of that church without an Ecumenical Council authorizing the change.
I'm glad to see that, beginning with the Lambeth Conference of 1978, churches of the Anglican Communion have begun to allow the original form of the Creed to be used - but without denying the truth that the "filioque" teaches. Thus the 2019 Book of Common Prayer allows the phrase "and the Son" to be omitted with the Nicene Creed is recited (see page 768). The brand new Methodist hymnal, Our Great Redeemer's Praise, follows the 2019 BCP and puts this phrase in [brackets] to indicate that it may be omitted. Perhaps this approach will become more widespread within the Western Church and may contribute to warmer relations with the Eastern Church as well.
Below is a great video from a Lutheran teacher, examining why the New Testament leads us to a sacramental understanding of baptism, in which we believe that God actually offers saving grace through and with the outward sign of water.
John Wesley is notoriously difficult on baptism. In some places, such as his Treatise on Baptism, he clearly affirms regeneration and justification are given through baptism; in other places, such as his Notes on the New Testament, he seems only willing to affirm a more modest and symbolic view (the Notes seem to me to be more theologically modest and generic as a general rule). In still other places, such as his Sermon "The New Birth" he seems to be skirting the line between a view that holds to baptismal regeneration (for infants) and a view that focuses more on a conversion experience as the point of regeneration (for youth and adults).
What Wesley is trying to hold together is a sacramental and an evangelical view of baptism. The Sacramental view holds that God really gives saving grace through baptism (as in Romans 6, Titus 3, 1 Peter 3, and John 3), and the evangelical view holds that we really receive God's saving grace through personal faith (as in Galatians 3 and Ephesians 2). Wesleyan theology - following the Articles or Religion of the Church of England - holds these together by insisting that, while the grace is always given in baptism, it is not fully received until we have faith, which might not (from our point of view) happen until a conversion experience years after our baptism.
The point is that baptism is an outward and objective declaration of God's promises to us, that we can return to again and again and reclaim throughout our lives - or each day as was Martin Luther's habit.
All of this will run counter to the view - common down here in the American "Bible belt" - that baptism is no more than a symbol of our own profession of faith in Jesus. The video below examines the major New Testament texts (he doesn't even get into the many Old Testament texts) that show why this "baptism as merely symbolic of our profession" view is not drawn from the Bible, but rather presupposed and then imposed upon it. He brings forward many of the same texts and arguments that I would use to make the case that Baptism not only symbolizes, but also effectually offers to us cleansing and renewing grace.
One of my favorite "classical commentaries" on the Bible is this Parallel Commentary on the New Testament. John Wesley, Matthew Henry, and Charles Spurgeon are among the most influential thinkers on the Evangelical Protestant tradition, and of course Wesley's Notes are official doctrine of The United Methodist Church and some other Wesleyan bodies.
Embracing a Sacramental view of Communion was pretty straight-forward once I started reading more of the Bible, but it took a bit longer to come around on Baptism.
Like so many others, I too have found solace in watching worship services and listening to sermons online. One of the churches I have watched the most is St. Andrews Anglican Cathedral in Sydney, Australia, which is known as a Bible-believing and evangelical congregation based in a beautiful gothic cathedral, built in the grand Medieval style.
This is the opening hymn from their Christmas Eve service, and I have to say, it actually moved me to tears. During the last verse (which I've not heard before, though we sing this hymn every year), there is a shot of a tiny little boy - he looks about 4 - who seems to be so focused and working his absolute hardest to do his little part help bring this musical message of the Gospel out to the world.
That is even more beautiful than the cathedral. May we all, young or old, follow suite in our own callings.
