The Current Thriving of Fringe Methodism
In a 1745 essay titled “Advice to the People Called Methodists,” John Wesley observed, “Perhaps not one in a hundred of those who use the term Methodist have any ideas of what it means.” In his time, the ambiguous usage of the term was from those outside of the young movement. Today, in contrast, the corresponding ninety-nine percent of those who use the term in ways almost entirely void of its original meaning may ironically do so toward themselves in a generally meaningless self-identification. For example, when introducing the method of the early Methodists to classes in Methodist churches, I have repeatedly had people who have been members of Methodist churches for decades respond along the lines of, “I have never heard this before…I always thought the ‘method’ part of our name referred to how the bulletin tells us what’s coming next in the worship service.”
Churches with the word Methodist in their names always have been (and I hope always will be) my denominational home. Nevertheless, this generally predictable absence of early Methodism’s method from the understanding and practice of the large majority of those within today’s Methodist churches does not fill me with tremendous hope for noticeably different church life on the other side of the impending denominational split. What has filled me with hope––both within and beyond denominationally Methodist churches––is how a Methodism significantly reflective of the early meaning and method has been thriving for decades.
There is an important dynamic here which has been in place since our beginnings: Methodism and the life of any denomination (whether or not that denomination has the word “Methodist” in its name) can be related to each other, but are not the same thing. Wesley was prompted to write his essay in 1745 because of the difficulties his Methodists faced as they remained involved in, but on the fringes of, the Church of England. Likewise, many today live in ways reflective of early Methodism, either on the fringes of Methodist denominations or beyond them.
Methodism thrives wherever the following aspects of early Methodism continue to provide an applicable framework for people’s lives:
(1) The Theological Component: Maturity by Grace through Faith. While some theologies relegate genuine change and maturity to something to be hoped for beyond death, the theology central to early Methodism was a grace-dependent, grace-empowered, and grace-laden theology that naturally points people to maturity primarily characterized by love of God and love of our neighbors. If the effects of salvation by grace through faith were to leave us in immaturity, no method for the majority of a Christian’s life would be necessary.
Our lifestyles inevitably conform to our actual theology. Therefore, theology has to be compatible with the components of an individual’s or group’s methodology, or pieces of the method will be found to be hollow, then will be underemphasized, and then disappear. Just as I have repeatedly heard Methodists say they thought our method had more to do with our bulletins than our lifestyles, I have also often heard Methodist pastors who either did not know Wesley’s theology or, if they did, clearly did not like it and therefore chose to preach other theologies. In such circumstances, it is predictable that the practical and relational components that initially complemented the theological component will fall away over time. First, they receive less emphasis (such as when Methodists stopped requiring participation in class meetings) and then are forgotten (such as when Methodists have never heard of such a thing as class meetings). Conversely, if a theology of a gracious God is matched with a method of individual and corporate cooperation with God’s grace, living a method that leads to Christian maturity becomes a natural expectation rather than an optional add-on.
(2) The Practical Component: A Rule of Life/ The General Rules. People outside of the Methodist movement of Wesley’s day used the term “Methodist” without understanding what it meant, but the high degree of commitment and mutual accountability in the early Methodist groups meant their participants would have known the lifestyle they were committed to by calling themselves Methodists. These commitments were made clear in Wesley’s General Rules: Do no harm, do good, and practice the means of grace (in Wesley’s original language, “attend upon all the ordinances of God”), which each had relatively extensive lists of specific applications. It was inherent in early Methodism not only to know these commitments but to be held accountable for them because of the relational component.
(3) The Relational Component: “How is it With Your Soul?” Groups. There is no method in Methodism except with a high level of commitment to meeting regularly with others. Within these meetings, we are to be attentive to the ways God’s grace is at work in the lives of those who are seeking to live cooperatively with God’s grace through the practical guidance of a mutually-agreed-upon rule of life. While I have never known any version of today’s denominational Methodism to be without various kinds of groups (Bible studies, Sunday school, etc.), I have never known of Methodist congregations that made the kinds of groups in which attentiveness to God’s grace in one another’s lives is the precise purpose to the degree of the early Methodists (though there have been pockets of attempts made). In early Methodism, if someone was not regularly answering “How is it with your soul?” to other members of a class meeting, the central piece of the method would not have been in place. Thus the person could still have been a faithful Christian, but not a Methodist. In today’s Methodist denominations, one can be a Methodist for decades––having neither been asked the question nor responded to it––and it is even less likely that he or she would have done so as the regular practice in a high-commitment group.
Today, those who identify with Methodist denominations can live by these three components, as can those who identify with other traditions. Indeed, when searches for today’s applications of the method of the early Methodists include looking toward Methodism’s fringes (both within and outside of Methodist denominations), it is not only present and noticeable but persistent and thriving. For example, it seems both ironic and noteworthy that it was largely from teachers associated with other denominations that I came to value, practice, and communicate Methodism as described above: Dallas Willard was ordained as a Southern Baptist and was the first to plant in me a deep appreciation for John Wesley’s theology, particularly regarding the centrality of God’s grace. Ruth Haley Barton has never been part of any Methodist denomination, but her teaching and practice are very reflective of the profoundly Wesleyan approach of her Methodist teacher (M. Robert Mulholland, Jr.). Her emphasis on group spiritual direction is a direct descendant of Wesleyan class and band meetings. James Bryan Smith is a Methodist pastor and professor whose teaching career has been in a Quaker university, whose name is generally not referenced in conversations related to Methodist denominational issues, but who is among the most influential and effective teachers of Methodism of the type outlined above. Willard, Barton, Mulholland, and Smith all made significant contributions to ministries that emphasize a grace-based theology of growth, practical guidance in the means of grace, and groups focused on mutual accompaniment of those seeking to live this way together. I am therefore characterizing their theology and practice as substantively Methodist, whether or not they have ever self-identified with the term, while also pointing to the plainly evident fact that the theology and practice of many in our Methodist denominations bear greater resemblance to the ninety-nine percent of meaningless usage Wesley described.
I will forever be grateful for my roots in a Methodist denomination and for the thriving Methodism I have discovered closer to the fringes than in the mainstream of our institutions. I hope always to be part of a church that self-identifies as Methodist, as I and many others inside and outside of our denominations continue to be thoroughly committed to living by Wesley’s own description of the term:
If you walk by this rule, continually endeavouring to know, and love, and resemble, and obey the great God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, as the God of love, of pardoning mercy; if from this principle of loving, obedient faith, you carefully abstain from all evil, and labour, as you have opportunity, to do good to all men, friends and enemies; if, lastly, you unite together to encourage and help each other in thus working out your salvation, and for that end watch over one another in love––you are they whom I mean by Methodists.
Daniel Ethan Harris is a PhD candidate in Spiritual Formation at B. H. Carroll Theological Institute.