Monday, March 22 [1736] While I was persuading Mr Welch not to concern himself in this disturbance, I heard Mrs Hawkins cry out: Murder! and walked away. Returning out of the woods, I was informed by Mr Welch that poor blockhead Mrs Welch had joined with Mrs Hawkins and the Devil in their slanders of me. I would not believe it till half the town told me the same, and exclaimed against her ingratitude.

From: Methodism founder Charles Wesley's secret code diary cracked by priest -Times Online

Who would have known that something as innocent as Charles Wesley's diary could generate 'tabloid' type headlines. Yet, that is what I find as I do a search for Wesley's diary. It took Professor Kenneth Newport nine years to transcribe the 1000 page manuscript. The code, it seems, was based on John Byrom's, an 18th Century poet, who published New Universal Shorthand in 1940. This was about 4 years after Wesley used it (or an adaptation of it) for his journal.

It makes sense that Charles would code his diary using something. After all, sexual allegations are not good for someone trying to reform the church. Some of the allegation sound a little far fetched to me however. According to the DailyMail.co.uk:

A 270-year-old diary, written in code, has been cracked for the first time to reveal a secret history of the Methodist church, it emerged today. Link: Mail Online 

That's the news coming from a UK site. The Rev Professor Kenneth Newport, Liverpool Hope University’s pro vice-chancellor for research and academic development was the one who 'cracked' the code. The article goes on to discuss some of his findings. None were particularly surprising really. Charles was horrified at the thought of leaving the Church of England. Charles didn't approve of John's marriage and there was a suspicion of lay preaching. All of this makes sense. Still, once published, this work will give more insight into some of the struggles of the Wesley brothers. Both with the movement called Methodism and with each other.

Rev. Newport also says he uncovered sermons and 9,000 hymns and poems. This could be the biggest contribution to Wesley studies, although, knowing some of the inner thoughts of Charles during the Methodist movement will be quite insightful too. According to Newport, Charles didn't always agree with John (after all, they were brothers!). This may give us a different 'flavor' of the Methodist movement and some of the struggles involved.

One of Wesley's later sermons was "On God's Vineyard" which was written in 1779. This sermon reads like a reflection of how God has worked through Wesley's life and some observations Wesley made. One such observation was about the new birth.

Wesley was a man who wasn't satisfied with 'outward' religion. Wesley believed that in order to be a "real" Christian, one needed to be changed inwardly. He writes:

"They know, the new birth implies as great a change in the soul, in him that is “born of the Spirit,” as was wrought in his body when he was born of a woman: Not an outward change only, as from drunkenness to sobriety, from robbery or theft to honesty; (this is the poor, dry, miserable conceit of those that know nothing of real religion;) but an inward change from all unholy, to all holy tempers, — from pride to humility, from passionateness to meekness, from peevishness and discontent to patience and resignation; in a word, from an earthly, sensual, devilish mind, to the mind that was in Christ Jesus."

Wesley compares the new birth to spiritual birth and at the same time contrasts it with merely an outward change (i.e. drunkenness to sobriety). Wesley's point is that the "great change" is also a real change, not content with outward behavior only but a real transformation of one's inner life (or world). Going from "pride to humility," "passionateness to meekness" and "from peevishness and discontent to patience and resignation" is no small feat. It is such a great change that Wesley describes it as being changed from a "devilish mind" to the "mind that was in Christ."

Yet, on the authority of God’s Word, and our own Church, I must repeat the question, “Hast thou received the Holy Ghost?” If thou hast not, thou art not yet a Christian. (From Sermon 3: Awake Thou Sleeper)

As I read through John Wesley's sermons I am amazed at how often he defined a Christian as one who has received the Holy Spirit. He was not ashamed of his view and this view would get him in hot water from time to time.

In some of his sermons he went as far as to say that even though you might act like a Christian, look like a Christian, or even smell like a Christian, if you had not received the Holy Spirit then you were not.

He didn't care if you had been attending a church your whole life, or if you fed the hungry and clothed the naked, or even if you were clergy. He even said that he was an "almost Christian" for years.

How many of us and our memebers would Wesley consider 'Almost Christians'? As I reflect on Wesley's definition, it causes me to wonder if perhaps the greatest need for the Methodist church today is for us to preach conversion to the church members (including the clergy).

Wesley's fear wasn't that Methodism would cease to exist, but that it would have the form of religion and lack the power. Our fear of Methodism is that we cease to exist. Perhaps it is time for us to concentrate more on the power of religion (the Holy Spirit empowering the life of love), rather than the form.

Ben Witherington has posted an article explaining a bit about General Conference (which is meeting as I write this). He discusses some of the issues that will be addressed. Perhaps the most important issue is the proposal to create a central conference in the US. This proposal says that US concerns would be addressed in the US central conference. Is this important? yes. Why? Actually there are several reasons. Ben Witherington discusses, in my opinion, the most important one noting that the central conferences currently provide a balancing to the American church. He writes:

For another thing, they provide something of a theological and ethical balance to the American church which is too subject to the major cultural shifts in North America, often at the expense of the Gospel and the Bible's teachings. We not only need the two-thirds worlds voices at General Conference, we need their wisdom and votes as well. In an age when our church, and indeed most major denominations, are becoming more culturally inclusive and global in character, it sends the wrong signal entirely to not allow the Central Conferences to continue to participate fully and vote quadrennially with the rest of our church.

If this goes through, I believe the face of American Methodism will drastically change. Many of the 'hot issues' of the American church are seen as unbiblical overseas. Without the overseas conferences, it is difficult knowing what will happen here in the U. S. The proposal discusses that "U. S. Concerns" will be dealt with in the U. S. central conference. I've always believed scripture and Christianity are globally focused. It seems to me that by moving in this direction we could allow our expression of Christianity to be more culturally defined than what it already is.

Just read the first chapter of Tony Jones' new book, The New Christians. I don't have the book. The chapter I read was free on the internet. I requested a copy from Tony to review on Missional Methodist Movement website, but as of now, I haven't received it. I mention that because I want to be fair and also I have no idea where he is heading after the first chapter.

I thought Tony had a lot of good insights into the current issues with the church, religion and spirituality. I find myself leaning more toward missional and/or the emergent side of things, so I will probably agree with much of what Tony has in his book. However, there is one area that I think needs to be explored more in the emergent and missional movements. That are is the area of holiness.

It has taken me about 20 years to come to terms with holiness. I am a UMC pastor and the father of our denomination is John Wesley who had a lot to say about holiness. For a long time I ignored what he had to say and I don't think I am alone in that. I ignored it because holiness always seemed like it was based on rules and regulations and I certainly didn't want to follow the path that other holiness movement folks did.

Tony Jone, while discussing some of the problems facing churches writes:

The evidence is in: millions of individuals ‘‘inviting Jesus Christ into their hearts as their personal Lord and Savior’’ at megachurches and Billy Graham crusades has done little to stem the moral dissolution of America. And ironically,it’s the very individualism engendered by evangelicalism that has resulted inthis predicament. The primary emphasis of evangelicalism is the conversion of the individual, but that emphasis has also handicapped evangelicals in their attempts to tackle systemic issues like racism and poverty and thus has left themopen to manipulation by political forces.

Tony's point is well taken. The church is very individualistic (which I hate, but struggle to break away from). It also has seemed to be pretty inept in the way of social change. But, is that because of the emphasis on individual conversion?

Later he writes:

The church that doesn’tchallenge its members to face the core ethical issues that confront themevery day at work is the church that has abdicated its responsibility. Many churches, particularly evangelical ones, make this mistake, and here’s why:too many evangelical churches have emphasized the vertical, just-me-and-Jesus relationship to the exclusion of the horizontal relationships with other human beings and with all of creation.In fact, a major study in the 1990s showed that the individualism inherent in American evangelicalism is directly responsible for evangelicals’ inability to diagnose and solve systemic social issues like racism and abortion. In other words, the formula for evangelical growth—namely,individual conversion—also precludes many evangelical churches from affecting the very changes that rally its members. So when I asked about the chickens,it was a theological non sequitur to the middle managers; as long as their relationship with Jesus was all right, everything else would take care of itself.

You will have to read the chapter to see why he asks about the chickens.

I agree with Tony on the problem, but I don't think it is because of the focus on conversion. I believe the issue is we have separated justification from regeneration...which John Wesley wouldn't do. Basically if your sins were forgiven, God's power also came in and created, in you, a new creation. Wesley's expectation from those who were forgiven from their sins were they would also be saved from the power of their sins.

Holiness, for Wesley, was the standard way of life for a Christian, however, while we have kept the focus on forgiveness, we have neglected holiness. It is holiness that is missing today and holiness would transform the Church. We already have an example of what a focus on conversion and holiness brings....just look at the Wesleyan revivals under the Wesleys. They literally transformed life in England. Not just the spiritual life, but also the social life. [edit: If we receive the mind of Christ as Wesley contends, then it makes sense that our agendas would reflect the will of God. This results in the outward focus of, as N. T. Wright says, "putting things back to rights." ]

I was planning on writing some more about holiness (which I still plan on doing), but I thought it was interesting that Jone's doesn't seem even to bring it up...instead he seems to imply that we can address these social issues in some other way. Again, I lean toward the emergent/missional way. I believe emergent/missional is the best way to live out the life of the Gospel in our current culture, so I interested to read what else Jones has to say.

Our Annual Conference (annual meeting of United Methodists for a conference) begins tomorrow. I usually have a sense of tension when I go. I do want to be a part of what is happening and even want to be a part of change and transformation, yet, as I read through the reports and go through the meetings I just get frustrated.

This year, I'm sure, my frustration level will be even higher. This year we have to vote for delegates to go to General and Jurisdictional conference. So, if there are any pastors or lay people who have a power complex, this is where it can come into play. I've been getting emails and letters telling me who I should support for these important events.

It reminds me of the scene out of the Fellowship of the Rings when they were trying to decide who was going to take the ring to Mordor to destroy it. As the ring (of power) was in the center of the circle, all those around started fighting over who should be the bearer of the ring. Now, it hasn't gotten that bad, but there has been positioning and such. I've asked to be a part of various 'teams' to get the 'right' people 'voted in.' I really don't like it.

Perhaps my frustration and disconect with all of this is my belief that transformation will not happen from the 'powers that be' but rather from the individuals within the local churches. Yes, I want to be a part of change on the conference level...but who is the conference? Isn't it more important to work for change at the local church level where people are living, working, loving and dying?

Hopefully I can have a good attitude through it all. Hopefully I can see God's hand working even through this process of religious politics. Hopefully men and women who are fully following God, reading Scripture, praying and listening to God will be voted to go represent our conference. Hopefully, at General conference God will move and we will all be changed.

<a href="http://technorati.com/claim/ky6sqerstd" rel="me">Technorati Profile</a>

I keep forgetting that in a church there are various types of individuals. There are some, who seeing the church as they would any other organization, will take part in its programs, its committees and other activities even though, they don't understand the deeper issues of being sent or that Jesus calls them. There are others who come out of a sense of history because it is what they have always done. They don't always understand why they are there or what part they play.

Perhaps the trick is to find those people who have been touched and transformed by Jesus and who still have their hearts open and receptive to what he is wanting to to through them and understand that. If you can get those folks together it would be powerful.

Of course, the other side of this is to discover ways to draw all in the church to a deeper relationship with Jesus so they will begin to understand their part in the kingdom of God.

I am being more and more convinced that the best route for the UMC would be to do two things: 1) Get rid of membership. 2) Stop asking for church statistics.

I write these things because I believe if we stopped doing those two things, we would have to revisit what it means to be a church. If we stopped doing those two things, I believe panic would ensue because it would signify that things "are different." Then, we would have to catch our breath, step back, and figure out what God is wanting us to be about.

Subversive Influence » Rick Warren and the PDL Cathedral of Comparisons

Ah...I read the quote referred to about a week ago in Christianity Today and thought Warren's metaphor using the computer was a bit uninformed. I just put it off as someone in one discipline trying to use a metaphor from another discipline that he really doesn't understand.

For one, not all computers use Intel. In fact, fewer and fewer do. Also, Windows is not the only Operating System and I sure wouldn't want to say I was the "windows system for the 21st century" like Warren did. I would hope we would have a bit higher standards especially after Microsoft finally realizes (or admits) Windows is really broken.

Maynard is right on target comparing the traditional model church with Microsoft and the ermegent church with Open Source though. In fact, I've felt for a few years that the Open Source model could perhaps help us in the church figure some issues out.

Open Source is about distributive computing and creating. Open Source development needs people who know what's going on and people who can actually do the work.

The traditional model doesn't work that way. Basically, you have one entity (could be a pastor or "The Staff (tm)" who calls the shots. They tell "The Others (tm)" what to do. As long as "The Staff (tm)" know what their doing and "The Others" follow along everything is alright. It bcomes a top-down organization which worked in the past, but, isn't really geared for the present or the future.

The problem, I see, in the top-down model is, "The Others (tm)" never really get to experience ministry first hand. Sure, they are followers, but they really aren't experiencing the full move of God in their lives. While they may do what the leaders tell them to do, the experience is top-down (Although I should compare top-down to Top-down)

I've often wonder how we can have UM churches that have people who have been a part of it for years and decades, yet, they are unequiped to really do ministry. Sure, they might paint a building or two over the years, or give money, or work with kids at VBS, but really, do their day to day lives reflect a ministry or missional mindset.

There are some and, thank God for them, who have been able to rise above and discover God's call on their lives. They are not Purpose-Driven (tm), but rather Spirit led. God moves in their lives. They know what they're about.

Perhaps I'm just ranting and I'm sure I've gotten off topic. The bottom line is this: I believe we, as the church, have stopped equiping and empowering Christians to make a difference in the world in which they live. Instead we have created followers of programs.

If there isn't a DVD or book, or training involved, we don't know what to do. We have forgotten how to listen for God's Spirit moving in our lives. We study our Bibles, but do we allow God to speak through them?

There are some connections between Open Source software development vs. Traditional (read Microsoft) software development and the Emergent Church vs. Traditional Church. Perhaps I can flesh that out some more. The thing to remember is Microsoft is finding out the old software model doesn't work. We, in the church, are discovering the old model doesn't work. Yet, just as it is very difficult for Microsoft to change, so it is for us.