Will Willimon: Churches can love their denominational heritage and also grow
In the ancient church, a young monk would approach an elder and ask, 'Abba may I have a word.' Tom Arthur, in his first year out of seminary, seeks advice from elders in these letters. The letter to which Will Willimon replies is here.
Dear Tom Arthur,
It’s good to get a letter like this. In a world full of flaccid Anglicans, mean-spirited Neo-Calvinists, and aging progressive Christians, Wesley needs all the friends he can get. I'm pleased that you discovered Wesley. He is quite a wonder -- one of the greatest gifts that God has given us. Growing the church is a rich Wesleyan heritage. Of course I'm prejudiced, but you have vowed to be as well!
It would be interesting to know just what you think about when you say "our Wesleyan heritage." You don't have much to say about that in your letter. In my experience, we Wesleyans can have vastly different ideas of just what the riches of our heritage are.
However, I share your concern about the tendency to jettison Wesley in our efforts in new church starts. First I want to say that a church is not Wesleyan just because it's in decline. Wesley gave us no theological rationale for a congregation that is closed to new life and that is not making new disciples. From what I've seen, much of the planting-new-churches movement began with a decidedly anti-denominational bias. We were told to take our denominational labels off our churches, as if our family were an embarrassment. I find it a strange anomaly that you say you are serving a church that was birthed to be a "purpose-driven congregation." Rick Warren, to the extent that he is theological, has a neo-Calvinist bent. Why would we Methodists want to start a congregation to embody that?
The good news is that many of our new congregations are discovering the riches of being unashamedly Wesleyan, Arminian, and thoughtfully, generously orthodox and evangelical. Here in North Alabama, our church growth consultant, Jim Griffin, has told us "Put your Methodist label on your church, upfront. You have a great 'brand recognition' and a high approval rating from the unchurched." Jim speaks not just from a marketing perspective but also because the world needs the unique Wesleyan "conjunctive theology" (Ken Collins) now more than ever -- evangelical and catholic, liturgical and free church, personal holiness and social holiness, grace for all combined with full sanctification.
We have learned some important lessons as we plant churches. We now insist that our new churches critique their Sunday worship to be sure it has enough substance to keep the saints fired up, that they unashamedly articulate our Wesleyan ethos, and that they affirm that they are started by a connectional system with a sent ministry. Their willingness to do this suggests again what a wonder Wesleyan theology is.
Your concerns are well justified. I hope this response cheers you. Remember, we Wesleyans believe in conversion and sanctification. It's not too late to convert those purpose-driven-folks into more faithful doctrine and life. Get started on that project next Sunday!
Will Willimon is a United Methodist bishop serving in Birmingham, Alabama.
Correction?
Good thoughts. I assume the bishop means Jim Griffith, not Griffin (?).
Few comments: First, Jason
Few comments:
First, Jason Byasee's comment on Tom's original letter to Willimon was helpful. We need a robust Wesleyan presence that really is Wesleyan.
I think Tom's position of having not grown up UMC is a blessing to his ministry setting. Why not speak to the unchurched as to what drew him to the UMC?
Second, I seem to be missing what the problem is. Church planting, part of the church growth stream, is all about CONTEXT. As Willimon notes, in some places "United Methodist" on the church sign will draw people. In other places, it will be meaningless. In some others, it will be negative. How big the UMC label fits into the church's marketing (even something as simple as the sign outside the building) is contextual and requires discernment.
However, I see no problem with mixing "Purpose Driven" with "Wesleyan." Why dispute the value of Rick Warren's five purposes of the church? It's not exhaustive theology; it's simplicity, making the complex simple. I suspect the real problem many Mainlines have with "Purpose Driven" is the inclusion of evangelism. To which I would say, "Get over it or get off the bus." Willimon makes the connections between evangelism and Wesleyan beautifully.
On a practical note, maybe Tom should look at Adam Hamilton. Hamilton is oriented to non-Christians but always draws in a Wesleyan emphasis...which is maybe why he's so evangelistic!
response from a layperson in Tom's congregation
While appreciative of these letters and dialogue, parts of Bishop Willimon's letter have elicited strong negative reactions in myself and others that have worked hard to start and maintain the church being discussed. In particular, I bristled at our community's apparent need for conversion "into more faithful doctrine and life." I would suggest that statements such as these will not be effective in increasing appreciation of Wesleyan theology or the UMC.
Thank you Casey for your moderating comments. I especially appreciated your reminder about context.
Tom has appropriately recognized that our particular community does not flaunt or have great appreciation for the UMC label. However, Tom's efforts to reconcile his passion for Wesley and the UMC with our church culture are appreciated, as are his efforts at dialogue. I am eager to read further comments on these letters and to hear additional recommendations that consider Tom's original question.
Wow!
Dear Bishop Willimon,
Your response is fascinating! Where else could I get such a full-throttle enthusiastic embrace of all that is Wesleyan? You asked what I meant by “our Wesleyan heritage” and I meant exactly what you described as Ken Collins conjunctive theology: justification and sanctification (Christian perfection), personal holiness and social holiness, protestant theology and catholic spirituality. I especially mean Wesley’s sermons. I find in them a great wealth of spiritual depth and practice. I also appreciated your emphasis on connectionalism. I am still trying to figure that one out in my current context.
I’m not sure where you went with Calvinism. I can’t say that there are any “mean spirited neo-Calvinists” amongst my “flock.” There are very few if any who would describe themselves with any such theological label (Arminian, Calvinist, etc.). Perhaps I did not explain well enough what I mean by a “Purpose Driven Church.” Maybe I did not do so very well because I am still figuring it out. I think that it means a church based around Rick Warren’s Purpose Driven Church book and the “methods” that book suggests (five purposes, etc.). There is nothing in this book that is obviously Calvinist and if anything, it is very much a modern-day expression of Charles Finney’s appropriation of the Arminianist tendency toward revivalism (you may quibble with me saying Finney, a Presbyterian, had an Arminianst tendency).
Casey’s comments about context ring true to me. I wonder if there is a “brand” shift from the south to the north. I don’t know the answer to that. This church has been built on the premise that the UMC “brand” in the Lansing area is a liability rather than an asset. Once again, I’m still struggling to figure out whether that’s true or not. It certainly began so with me personally but ended up being a deep source of spiritual resources.
At the risk of sounding like I am quoting John Wesley to one of my bishops, I wonder if John Wesley’s Sermon, Catholic Spirit doesn’t offer something to this conversation:
“I dare not, therefore, presume to impose my mode of worship on any other. I believe it is truly primitive and apostolical: but my belief is no rule for another. I ask not, therefore, of him with whom I would unite in love, Are you of my church, of my congregation? Do you receive the same form of church government, and allow the same church officers, with me? Do you join in the same form of prayer wherein I worship God? I inquire not, Do you receive the supper of the Lord in the same posture and manner that I do? Nor whether, in the administration of baptism, you agree with me in admitting sureties for the baptized, in the manner of administering it; or the age of those to whom it should be administered. Nay, I ask not of you (as clear as I am in my own mind), whether you allow baptism and the Lord's supper at all. Let all these things stand by: we will talk of them, if need be, at a more convenient season, my only question at present is this, ‘Is thine heart right, as my heart is with thy heart?’”
Of course, the context here in Wesley’s sermon is broadly ecumenical and not a sermon directly aimed in-house within Methodism, but wouldn’t this give us some latitude amongst this question? I suppose it has and we’ve run quite far with it, perhaps too far.
On a final note, what churches are living out the kind of vision you put forth in this letter and are thriving? I’d like to visit them.
Thanks and peace,
Tom
labels
I appreciate all these reflections.
Along with my ministry partner, we are planting a UMC near downtown Chicago. We haven't tried to run from being United Methodist--we embrace it. But does that mean we have to label or brand ourselves as such? It's an interesting dilemma. For example, we believe that sanctification should be a key value for who we are, but we've also been pondering how to describe this to an audience that wouldn't necessarily know what this means?
Our hope is to be thoroughly Wesleyan, but we aren't necessarily going to slap the cross and flame on everything we do.
Post new comment