Something that I have said almost dogmatically the last several years is that, “everyone has a tradition, the question is do they recognize it or not.” Part of this is because I grew up in a theological landscape where there was usually an outright denial of any tradition, while simultaneously being controlled by traditions. But because they were not acknowledged, it was more dangerous because the driving force was invisible.
Acknowledging our backgrounds and traditions is important because it provides clarity to ourselves and to others where we are coming from, what presuppositions we are making, and how we process or understand information. As I have undertaken my theological journey over the last several years I have done an equal amount of reading, talking to others and praying. Seeking out where do I fit in the large tent of orthodoxy that is found in the Church universal that affirms the Apostle’s Creed etc…
I find myself through the Lord’s leading in the Free Methodist Church. A denomination that has a shared heritage in the Methodist and Holiness movements. I have grown to love my Free Methodist identity. While we are a Kingdom people, acknowledging we are but one facet in the greater body, we have distinctives that make us unique. And yet, I have also felt a certain pull and draw. While I am in, and love the FMC, it is for the most part a denomination that is generic contemporary evangelical (with growing charismatic leanings) in its expression of worship and theology. Yes, we do have our distinctives outlines in the Free Methodist Way, but on the ground most things look and operate like most other churches.
While we certainly must pursue unity and working together, this at times does come at the expense of important distinctives. I know pastors and lay-people, that while affirming the FMC’s position on the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, are in practice and casual discussion almost Zwinglian and memorialist in their actual understanding. This likewise carries over to understandings and practice of baptism as well. While certainly not primary Gospel issues, it is certainly distinctive that is at a loss in many places.
I am Methodist in my theology, and am thankful for that. John Wesley is an exemplar of embodying a holistic approach to classical theology that is grounded in Scripture, alive in the Spirit and pastorally useable to shepherd God’s people. In my Wesleyan Theology class at seminary, the book Responsible Grace, by Maddox is an excellent primer that lays out Wesley’s theology in a somewhat systematic way. Wesley was a unique blend of traditional Western Christian theology, with a strong undercurrent of the eastern Church fathers and Eastern Orthodoxy that can be seen in what we now call Methodist theology.
But that has led my to ask a further question. What made John Wesley who he was? I think more often than not, we put the cart before the horse. We examine the outgrowth of Wesley’s ministry in the Methodist movement, and the theological heritage spawned that has certainly changed the world (for the better in my estimation). And yet, is that enough?
I have more recently come to the conclusion that to properly understand the work that the Lord did through John (and his brother Charles), we must come to a deeper understanding of the Anglican heritage that formed and shaped him, and that he remained a member of his entire life.
Yes, we are all compelled and encouraged by John’s Aldersgate experience where he felt his heart strangely warmed. His Fetter Lane experience where he was empowered for the Methodist revival. We love to talk about the excitement of how God used him to transform England, and the rest of the world through his preaching. But that is just the fruit on the tree. We cannot forget to look at the trunk so to speak.
This is why I now consider myself an Anglo-Methodist…if that’s even a thing.
I am Methodist in my theology. I understand the proper application of the quadrilateral, am greatly informed by Wesley’s sermons & hymnody (John & Charles), and know that Christ is calling us to entire sanctification, where we are made perfect in love. Yet, this Methodist understanding is not a house unto itself. It is built on something older that we often don’t think of. Methodism in its own right as a movement is an outgrowth of Anglicanism. The precepts of Wesley’s understanding were wholly Anglican. With a few exceptions and modifications, the foundational articles of religion for Methodism were that of the Anglican Church.
The English expression of Christianity always had a unique flavor to it as it had been disconnected from Rome for some period of time before being brought back in following the fall of the Roman Empire. This is why during the reformation, while the situation that led to it’s separation was the monarchies desire to annul a marriage, the theological differences had already made the path to separation from Rome more likely to happen in the Isles. There is so much that can be said, but that would be outside the scope of this article. There are many articles, videos and books that cover the Anglican background and tradition that was the foundation of John Wesley’s life.
Another key aspect of this process has been the involvement of the Book of Common Prayer (BCP). First introduced to me on my trip to Israel by some trip-mates who were ACNA, the BCP has become an integral and core part of my personal spiritual devotion, and is the form of worship at the church I am pastor of.
The language of the BCP, its prayers and liturgies have been the second largest influence on the English language after the King James Bible. The BCP was the centerpiece of spiritual discipline for Wesley aside from the Bible. In John’s sermons, the quotations of the Psalms are not from the 1611 KJV, but from the Coverdale Psalter, an older English translation of part of the Bible that is found in the 1662 BCP. At Fetter Lane, when the Holy Spirit fell in a special way, it was the Te Deum Laudums, a historical canticle of the Church that is found in the BCP that the group of those gathered sang in unison as response to the work done in that moment.
As Methodism made its way to America, John produced a volume titled, “The Sunday Service of the Methodists”, which was for all intents and purposes a slightly modified BCP made for the Methodist movement. Even to this day, the traditional service order found in the United Methodist, Free Methodist, and other hymnals and service books is a BCP prayer or Eucharist service with a few changes.
So for myself, while Methodism is the core of my theology, and understanding of the Christian faith, I have found it to be augmented and modified with an overtone of the tradition that formed its founder. The discipline, flow and beauty of the Daily Office is in various ways shaping my personal devotion. Participating weekly in celebration of the Lord’s Supper utilizing elements that Wesley himself would have been familiar with and utilized has been encouraging and brought life to my walk with Christ, and Lord willing for my congregation. In a constantly updating and changing world, the stability has been grounding and restful.
So what does all of this mean for us today? Well first, we are not just standing by ourselves. Our heritage is found within the Anglican tradition. It formed and shaped the Wesley brothers, and we would be remiss to not acknowledge, or at least understand where we have come from. For all my brothers and sisters that are connected to the Wesley’s, my ask is simple. Come to understand and appreciate the religious foundations that underpinned the Methodist revival. This doesn’t mean you have to use the BCP, ascribe to the 39 Article of Religion, or practice liturgical worship. But it means we should have a functional understanding of the framework of spiritual discipline and life that Wesley lived in. As we continue to pray and seek God to work afresh in the Methodist movement, part of what we must rediscover is where John himself started and work from there into whatever He has for the next generation.