I am Global Methodist clergy, and I approve this message.
Not because I agree with every point or conclusion, but because this is exactly the conversation that needs to be had, and it is being had at exactly the right level.
Methodists need this kind of criticism. It forces us to clarify who we are, what we are about, what we have inherited, and what we are called to recover.
At the same time, this raises the real question: if there is no meaningful distinction between orthodox Anglicanism and orthodox Methodism, then there is little reason to have both an ACNA and a GMC.
I plan on restacking this for my own audience. Bravo.
@Kendall Meek, thank you so much for your thoughtful reply and kind words. I’ve been a fan but slow reader of your Substack, especially your series on ecclesiology back in April. Really fantastic stuff. I don’t know who the GMC has thinking about ecclesiology, but they ought to put you in charge.
I think you are right with a caveat: there is no real distinction between Original Methodism and orthodox Anglicanism.
I noted in the article that I have many friends in the GMC, but the ones I know pushing for the GMC to return to a more traditional, dare I say ‘Original,’ Methodism are fighting against a strong current in the other direction (what I identified as Bapticostalism, but that’s admittedly being a bit reductionist). I pray for them; I pray for you.
Until the GMC answers the question, ‘Who are we?’, I do not see a path to unity with us in ACNA. We have our own issues we are working through (hence my clarion call at the end). Unity with the much larger GMC simply isn’t tenable… unless it were truly Original Methodists returning home. Lord, may that day be a reality.
Sid, your article outlines one reason why I, as a GMC Elder, am seeking to have my ordination "regularized" in the ACNA. Wesleyans have much to offer the ACNA and Anglicanism in general. I hope the day will come when the traditions can be reunited for the sake of the Gospel.
Sid, as a lay Methodist, I appreciate your writing style. You write in a way that a non seminary trained person can read and follow.
At the risk of being impertinent I have to take issue with your framing of the "illicit" ordination of Coke by Wesley. Coke was named a General Superintendent and not a Bishop. The Bishop title was conferred when the MEC formed.
Our church disaffiliated from the UMC and we operate today as an independent church. Our intent is to remain a Wesleyan -Methodist body and avoid the drift towards the "non-dom" Baptist approach that is common in the southern US.
As time progresses, I become more intrigued by the common theology of the orthodox Methodist Churches and the Anglican Church.
Again, thanks for your post and God Bless You for keeping the orthodox faith alive.
Edward, thank you for your comment and your compliment. I greatly appreciate it. Glory to God.
I certainly do not expect everyone will come to the same conclusion as me on ecclesiology. I expect disagreement and pushback, especially on the Coke matter. John and Charles disagreed after all, and I admittedly am presenting a view more consistent with Charles than John.
I will offer one further point about the 'General Superintendent' matter for consideration. John was certainly upset that the Christmas Conference changed the title from GS to Bishop; he says so in a letter to Coke, I believe. However, I think the conference's decision was an admission of the reality—this was in effect a schism, and Coke and Asbury would be functioning as bishops in all but name, any way you slice it. To be a bit more favorable to John, we can avoid the schism language and call it a new nation with a new jurisdiction, but I mention in the article how I do not see it as consistent with John's mandate as a presbyter to create an ecclesiastical authority in a new jurisdiction on his own authority. Methodism has a tricky history with the office of bishop, and her inability to properly receive the office is, I believe, clear in the inconsistency that accompanies the attempts to adopt it in the many Wesleyan/Methodist churches.
Anyway, I am glad to hear of your church and pray you all are successful in your ministry for the Gospel. I hope a desire to join a faithful connection will stir among you. May you be blessed as you bless others.
Sid, thank you for your thoughtful reply The type of exchange is exactly why I enjoy Substack. Generally speaking, writers here are willing to engage in a give and take that breaks to power of the echo chamber that pervades much of social media.
Your comment about the Bishop/General Superintendent titles is one of the nuances that many of us, including me, overlook. I struggle with assigning any human a position that implies that he or she speaks for God. I understand that isn't the intent, but I have seen Bishops who begin to "believe their own press" and think they are larger than life. They lose touch with the congregants and the state of the world as they move into the world of lofty ideals and fellow travelers. Our church chose to remain independent due to a distrust of denominational power structures.
Schisms happen and my prayer is that those lead to more people hearing the Good News. Keep the Faith! God Bless You
I am Global Methodist clergy, and I approve this message.
Not because I agree with every point or conclusion, but because this is exactly the conversation that needs to be had, and it is being had at exactly the right level.
Methodists need this kind of criticism. It forces us to clarify who we are, what we are about, what we have inherited, and what we are called to recover.
At the same time, this raises the real question: if there is no meaningful distinction between orthodox Anglicanism and orthodox Methodism, then there is little reason to have both an ACNA and a GMC.
I plan on restacking this for my own audience. Bravo.
@Kendall Meek, thank you so much for your thoughtful reply and kind words. I’ve been a fan but slow reader of your Substack, especially your series on ecclesiology back in April. Really fantastic stuff. I don’t know who the GMC has thinking about ecclesiology, but they ought to put you in charge.
I think you are right with a caveat: there is no real distinction between Original Methodism and orthodox Anglicanism.
I noted in the article that I have many friends in the GMC, but the ones I know pushing for the GMC to return to a more traditional, dare I say ‘Original,’ Methodism are fighting against a strong current in the other direction (what I identified as Bapticostalism, but that’s admittedly being a bit reductionist). I pray for them; I pray for you.
Until the GMC answers the question, ‘Who are we?’, I do not see a path to unity with us in ACNA. We have our own issues we are working through (hence my clarion call at the end). Unity with the much larger GMC simply isn’t tenable… unless it were truly Original Methodists returning home. Lord, may that day be a reality.
Sid, your article outlines one reason why I, as a GMC Elder, am seeking to have my ordination "regularized" in the ACNA. Wesleyans have much to offer the ACNA and Anglicanism in general. I hope the day will come when the traditions can be reunited for the sake of the Gospel.
Sid, don’t apologize for the Bapticostal comment. It is spot on, as was all of your helpful criticism. Please keep it coming. And amen to your prayer.
Sid, as a lay Methodist, I appreciate your writing style. You write in a way that a non seminary trained person can read and follow.
At the risk of being impertinent I have to take issue with your framing of the "illicit" ordination of Coke by Wesley. Coke was named a General Superintendent and not a Bishop. The Bishop title was conferred when the MEC formed.
Our church disaffiliated from the UMC and we operate today as an independent church. Our intent is to remain a Wesleyan -Methodist body and avoid the drift towards the "non-dom" Baptist approach that is common in the southern US.
As time progresses, I become more intrigued by the common theology of the orthodox Methodist Churches and the Anglican Church.
Again, thanks for your post and God Bless You for keeping the orthodox faith alive.
Edward, thank you for your comment and your compliment. I greatly appreciate it. Glory to God.
I certainly do not expect everyone will come to the same conclusion as me on ecclesiology. I expect disagreement and pushback, especially on the Coke matter. John and Charles disagreed after all, and I admittedly am presenting a view more consistent with Charles than John.
I will offer one further point about the 'General Superintendent' matter for consideration. John was certainly upset that the Christmas Conference changed the title from GS to Bishop; he says so in a letter to Coke, I believe. However, I think the conference's decision was an admission of the reality—this was in effect a schism, and Coke and Asbury would be functioning as bishops in all but name, any way you slice it. To be a bit more favorable to John, we can avoid the schism language and call it a new nation with a new jurisdiction, but I mention in the article how I do not see it as consistent with John's mandate as a presbyter to create an ecclesiastical authority in a new jurisdiction on his own authority. Methodism has a tricky history with the office of bishop, and her inability to properly receive the office is, I believe, clear in the inconsistency that accompanies the attempts to adopt it in the many Wesleyan/Methodist churches.
Anyway, I am glad to hear of your church and pray you all are successful in your ministry for the Gospel. I hope a desire to join a faithful connection will stir among you. May you be blessed as you bless others.
Sid, thank you for your thoughtful reply The type of exchange is exactly why I enjoy Substack. Generally speaking, writers here are willing to engage in a give and take that breaks to power of the echo chamber that pervades much of social media.
Your comment about the Bishop/General Superintendent titles is one of the nuances that many of us, including me, overlook. I struggle with assigning any human a position that implies that he or she speaks for God. I understand that isn't the intent, but I have seen Bishops who begin to "believe their own press" and think they are larger than life. They lose touch with the congregants and the state of the world as they move into the world of lofty ideals and fellow travelers. Our church chose to remain independent due to a distrust of denominational power structures.
Schisms happen and my prayer is that those lead to more people hearing the Good News. Keep the Faith! God Bless You