After my previous visit to a Methodist service, I decided that the guest preacher there might make a difference whether I had a real understanding of what was typical. So I came back for a second visit on the first week of the new minister's service. I won't repeat the notes on the sanctuary since it hadn't changed.
Liturgy/Worship and Methodist particulars
The second visit to this church gave me a clearer picture of what is normal at a Methodist service. Again, the passing of the peace began the service, and the Doxology continued in the same mid-service place as before. The minister did wear robes and a stole, so it may be that traditional vestments are still included by Methodists at times. (And again, I don't see this as being too large a matter, all things considered.)
This time -- despite it being a communion service -- there was no creed at all. Recall that in my last visit the Apostle's Creed was labeled as an "Affirmation of Faith", bypassing the acknowledgement of its place in church history and the church universal that would be accomplished with its standard title. It seems that the Methodists do not hold it important to confess one or another of the historic Christian creeds, and skipping the creed entirely seems acceptable among Methodists. Again, there was only one Bible reading, and again it was from the Old Testament. So it seems that having only one Bible reading is nothing unusual at Methodist services, and again it is nothing unusual to skip reading from the New Testament entirely. I found myself wondering how many weeks they might go between times the New Testament was read and preached. I also wondered if the minister always picked Bible passages to suit his own thoughts, or whether there was any regular "read through the Bible / preach through the Bible" expectation like the lectionary.
This time the service included communion. With communion there was time taken for confession and
forgiveness -- and it was structured that way in the hymnal so that confession was part of the communion service. It seems
that the Methodists consider confession and absolution to be a
particular feature of a communion service, rather than a standard part
of any service. The communion portion of the service was described as "service of word and table" in the bulletin, where my own church would have called the entire service "the service of word and sacrament" (referring to the whole service, not just the Lord's Supper). If that title is any indication, then Methodists do not view communion as a sacrament. I'm not sure whether Methodists have a category for "sacraments". I'm also not sure whether they were serving wine or grape juice for communion. I could see that they were using a loaf of leavened bread.
There were some things that I had not recognized as regular features during my previous visit, but a second visit showed that these were standard things. One is that the congregation applauded the choir during the service. Another was an altar call at the end of the service. (I didn't notice anyone going forward either time. While we're on the topic, the one issuing the call didn't sound as though he seriously expected anyone to come forward.)
The Prayers
This service contained a little more prayer than the previous one,
though the minister still didn't present individual prayer requests
during the service.
The Sermon
The sermon this week was about how Christians should step forward in faith. The sermon text was God's call to Abram. Much to my relief, the whole self-congratulation theme of the previous sermon at this church was not part of this week's sermon. The "distance from other Christians" comment in the sermon was this time a mention of Calvinists: "I'm not a Calvinist, I don't believe that God has every moment of our lives scripted." It was fairly tame as far as the tone: it wasn't done in a disparaging way. Again, the main theme was about what we do; the main assurance of God's love was a promise of his presence when we move forward in faith.
One thing in the sermon took me by surprise, which came up when the new minister asked people to define in their minds what Christianity is. He probably offered a half-dozen or more options rhetorically, and closed by saying it was all of those and so much more. But I don't think the words "grace" or "forgiveness" came up at any point during his list. (I was thinking along in my mind as he asked about how to define Christianity, and my thoughts at the moment were "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit". That is the foundation for where we start, and the present reality in which we live. And again the outreach we bring for the world and the future is "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit". At any rate that was the basic train of thought while listening to the rhetorical questions roll by.)
The Congregation
People seemed warmer this week, friendlier. I'm not sure if it's because a few people recognized me from before, or whether the congregation was in better spirits now that their new minister had arrived. Though, speaking of the new minister's first week, normally I'd expect a pastor's installation to be the matter of a special service, attended by whoever supervises pastors in the area, also attended by the pastors of the neighboring churches, and honored with a welcoming potluck. Here the minister introduced his family, himself and his credentials during the regular worship service, and I found no mention of a special service for the installation. I wasn't sure whether the congregation had any say in the selection of the minister, considering that his credentials were presented at his first service as if that might not have been known to them in advance.
Back at my home service again
The sermon was about not getting caught up in sins (self-righteousness, arrogance, harshness, etc) when we see someone else sin, following Paul's comments on correcting others with gentleness and respect, but instead how we should not become weary in doing good. The most Lutheran part of the sermon was the frank admission that sin is
something that applies to us, temptation likewise, and so needs to be
addressed. (I wonder whether the pastors think to themselves, "restore with gentleness and respect" about the sermons they preach when they address common temptations.) This sermon had some good tips for godly living, and about not getting caught up in the temptation to point fingers. In general there was a little too much assumption that "let us do good to all people" works out to "volunteering at the church or donating to the church". The sermon didn't have the focus I'd have expected from a Lutheran view of that passage, about Christ restoring us with gentleness and respect, how we thank him and praise him for that gentleness and respect, and how we pass along his grace to others with that same gentleness and respect. So with the almost exclusive focus on avoiding sin and doing good works (and the disappointing view of good works as equivalent to church activities), it was not a particularly Lutheran sermon, I suppose.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Methodists do refer to communion as a sacrament. From the UMC website one can encounter the following in their Articles of Faith:
"Article XVI—Of the Sacraments
Sacraments ordained of Christ are not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they are certain signs of grace, and God's good will toward us, by which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm, our faith in him.
There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord.
Those five commonly called sacraments, that is to say, confirmation, penance, orders, matrimony, and extreme unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel; being such as have partly grown out of the corrupt following of the apostles, and partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not the like nature of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, because they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.
The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about; but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect or operation; but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves condemnation, as St. Paul saith."
There seems to be another version with updated language but it still uses the word sacrament. I also noticed the following Article which is specifically about the differences between church services:
"Article XXII—Of the Rites and Ceremonies of Churches
It is not necessary that rites and ceremonies should in all places be the same, or exactly alike; for they have been always different, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's Word. Whosoever, through his private judgment, willingly and purposely doth openly break the rites and ceremonies of the church to which he belongs, which are not repugnant to the Word of God, and are ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly, that others may fear to do the like, as one that offendeth against the common order of the church, and woundeth the consciences of weak brethren.
Every particular church may ordain, change, or abolish rites and ceremonies, so that all things may be done to edification."
So there are some things that are mysteries to me. If the Methodist church recognizes enough of the historical church to recognize sacraments, how is it that the sacraments might be celebrated without a creed? And if you know enough about the lectionary ... then do some Methodists observe the lectionary?
These aren't "trick" questions in the slightest; just things I haven't figured out, & wondered if you knew.
Take care & God bless
Anne / WF
So there are some things that are mysteries to me. If the Methodist church recognizes enough of the historical church to recognize sacraments, how is it that the sacraments might be celebrated without a creed? And if you know enough about the lectionary ... then do some Methodists observe the lectionary?
These aren't "trick" questions in the slightest; just things I haven't figured out, & wondered if you knew.
Take care & God bless
Anne / WF
Just to index where I am coming from, I grew up in the Church of the Nazarene, and currently attend the Free Methodist Church (which is almost identical in its theology). However, at verious times I have regularly attended Baptist, Lutheran (ELCA), and Orthodox services, and I also have significant exposure to Catholicism---of course, as a Protestant I couldn't take communion in the last 2 churches.
My theological opinions are largely Wesleyan but I may be an outlier in some respects, e.g. in my view there is biblical support for also regarding "confirmation, penance, orders, matrimony, and extreme unction" as sacraments, contrary to Wesley's article XVI which I quoted above. But this is not the place to compile a list of disagreements; I just wanted to indicate that I may be an atypical specimen.
For various historical reasons, Wesleyans are neither liturgical (like Lutherans), nor anti-liturgical (like Baptists). I think most Wesleyan churches don't follow the lectionary, but some do including the church I grew up in. We recited one of the Creeds, but only at baptisms, which were normally held in someone's swimming pool. The Church of the Nazarene normally practices believer baptism, but allows infant baptism on request of the parents. Like most evangelical churches I have visited, Christians from other denominations are allowed to take communion, and the cup is grape juice instead of wine.
In the Free Methodist church I'm attending now, there is a special fixed liturgy for communion which comes after the sermon, but we only do it once a month. It is the first ritual printed in this document. (However, no liturgy besides the words of insitution was ever used in my previous Free Methodist church in Maryland.) I think once a month is usual in evangelical churches, although Wesley himself argued for frequent communion (and I would prefer to have it every week). We sometimes start the communion service by reading the Apostle's Creed, but I've noticed that this doesn't always happen.
You ask "how is it that the sacraments might be celebrated without a creed?" No one should take communion without believing the Creed, but surely one can believe it without reciting it every single time. It may be desirable to always have it, to make sure everyone is on the same page, but the Bible does not command this specifically. In the Western church, the Creed was not recited during Mass until the 11th century. So how can it be mandatory?
I believe that the bishop (probably with some consultation of the church involved) appoints the pastor.
I attended a Methodist service yesterday, and heard little or nothing about forgiveness, or the need for it. This may have been atypical. I attended a Methodist church on Easter, and did hear about grace and forgiveness, and the need therefor.
Hi Aron
I don't mean to ask, "Is the creed mandatory?" but "Where does the Methodist Church stand on things like creed and liturgy and lectionary?" I know some churches are even anti-creed; I got the overall impression that Methodists were lukewarm (if that) from the two services I attended.
You've got a diverse enough background that you should have heard the arguments from different sides for all kinds of things. That could make for an interesting perspective.
Take care & God bless
Anne / WF
Hi Martin
That "bishop appoints the pastor" explains a lot about why the pastor wanted to introduce himself to the congregation on the first Sunday.
I wondered why Methodists came across as so hesitant to talk about forgiveness, and relatively less likely to talk about Jesus than Lutherans. I remembered reading some "Wesley brothers anthology" type book years ago, and remembering that even in their day that kind of issue came up, so I think the tendency does track back to the foundation there. I wonder how much the "perfection" thing makes them hesitate to talk about forgiveness ... and how much the focus on perfection takes away from focus on Jesus. But having visited only 2 services, these are not questions to which I have answers.
I'd be glad to hear the impressions you have formed.
Take care & God bless
Anne / WF
My impression is that Wesleyans don't talk about the historic creeds very much, but that when we do we approve of them.
The doctrine of "entire sanctification" or "Christian perfection" is one which I struggled to understand as someone growing up in the Church of the Nazarene. Basically it means that at a certain point you have the ability to refrain from all voluntary and known transgressions (though with the possibility of relapse). It is not viewed as the completion of spiritual growth and maturity, but as a stage near the beginning.
The pastor of my church didn't emphasize this doctrine at all, but the denomination as a whole does, and makes it sound like every serious Christian should expect to be entirely sanctified shortly after their conversion (unlike John Wesley who thought it was very rare!)
I tried to seek out this experience, which supposedly is a second work of grace corresponding to the post-conversion reception of the Holy Spirit, as seen in certain passages in Acts. I found something at the age of 13, but it was painfully obvious that it wasn't anything like sinlessness. I no longer believe in entire sanctification. I now feel like I understand these passages in Acts, and my own experience, better by analogy to the sacrament of Confirmation as practiced in liturgical churches.
On the other hand, I don't think that an emphasis on striving towards spiritual perfection necessarily takes away the focus from Jesus, or forgiveness. We run the race set out for us by "fixing our eyes on Jesus". If we really look at who Jesus is, we can't help but notice grace and forgiveness.
Hi Aron
I've never really understood why people would teach "entire sanctification" / "Christian perfection" -- either on Biblical grounds or again on practical grounds. (Yes, I read a sermon about it ... by Wesley, even. My memory of that reading is that the arguments did not seem sound to me. While we're on the subject I think he may have mentioned Romans 7 and explained why he discounted it for that purpose.)
But if we define perfection down to (as you put it) "the ability to refrain from all voluntary and known transgressions" ... I wouldn't call that perfection or sinlessness (which you mentioned as well), but I can see how it would be tantalizingly close to attainable. Actual perfection would be "the total disinterest in anything sinful" so that the "ability to refrain" wouldn't even be an issue since there was no temptation. Or (maybe better) "an entire commitment to love of God and neighbor." The sins we have the most trouble with -- or in my experience the ones I have the most trouble with -- are the ones that get past me long before we get to "voluntary" and assessing a decision. It's a passing thought or attitude that is born more of habit than will, that is the hard thing for me to get rid of.
I agree that if perfection is pursued as "fixing our eyes on Jesus" then it doesn't take the focus off of Jesus. But I've never heard it presented that way; the focus tends to be on us and whether we're there yet. Which is to say, it's counter-productive because it takes our eyes off of Jesus.
Take care & God bless
Anne / WF
Post a Comment