I have to disagree about the postmdern ‘no truth’ comment. There have been many disagreements over interpretation and embodiment well before this postmodern age.

History is not set in stone. While an event may have a specifics that happen in within a set timeframe, how those events are interpreted can vary wildly.

I mention this merely because I love what Jay Bakker has to say about the Holy Spirit on the issue of homosexuality. What he says can also be used in this case as well.

“Because if we serve a real God and the Holy Spirit is real…if…if you think its a sin then don’t you believe the Holy Spirit will convict the person?”

And speaking of his parents, he had this to say about following another human being.

“…The point is how do we handle it when people make mistakes. you know, I mean we can’t follow human beings. I think that’s the problem people made with my parents. You know I thought it was about Jesus and what Jesus did; not about what we do and I thought that, you know, we’re gonna make mistakes but thank God we have Jesus.”

So John Wesley may have had some good ideas, but in setting up some sort of system of beliefs is going to create as Rob Bell calls it, “a brick wall” that can’t be examined.

And going back to the idea of post-modern thiking in regards to examination of of some sort of theology.

If we can’t go back and examine, then your disagreement of women ‘preaching’ would still be in place. In some circles of theology, slavery would still be in place as well if it was never examined.

So why do christians setup some sort of ’statement of beliefs’? Will that not change throughout time? And if it does, it generally doesn’t change willingly, why create something that will build up tension until changed in the first place?

Do we need to ‘prove’ we are christians with a piece of paper becasue are actions aren’t? I think that is the problem. We need to justify why we aren’t following the teachings of Jesus by somehow ‘proving’ we are exempt from actually doing anything besides dumping money into a plate and showing up on Sunday.

Sure, that isn’t everyone, but that is what the vast majority of church attenders are doing becasue it is what is encouraged by the leaders of the church.

What are the essentials? Love. Nothing more or nothing less. We each have a unique way of following Christ in fulfilling selfless love, anything else starts to add the trappings of man and bogs it down into a religion.

-mike

The problem is, who gets to decide whether you’re missing the mark. The church (universal) never split because we agreed about everything. In a postmodern context, where there is “no truth” it becomes even more difficult for individuals to agree on what is the best interpretation and embodiment of Christianity.

Incendently, Methodism have never claimed to be THE correct or even best way of doing things. It’s interesting that Wesley considered himself very ecumenical. And I agree that he was. In fact he studied the Orthodox church, the Pietists, the Catholic, etc. A well known quote of his is “if your heart is as my heart, then take my hand”

He also taught that as long as individuals agree on the essential teachings of the faith that the little differences are irrelevant.

Unfortunately, what you consider essential, I might consider irrelevant, or vice versa. For example, some people believe that it is absolute that women can not ‘preach’ and would take that fight to the grave. I on the other hand think that they are full of crap and am not concerned about it. So, we’re back to who decides the essentials. Wesley sure never spelled them out. So, again, we’re stuck.

It does make a difference. I’m sure that if I threw enough topics out there, I’d find one where you would consider essential and another Christian would not. Homosexuality, the trinity, literal heaven and hell, freewill vs. predestination.

To the question often asked, can’t we all just get along, the answer, regrettably, is…No. In fact, that’s the very reason we don’t.

Isn’t that just a simple divide and conquer strategy?

I mean the whole idea of the church at large, as a global body is really thrown into question here by a couple of things even if we just look at Wesley.

First, if there is some sort of disagreement, then who is to say who is right? Without getting into semantics over the so called theological arguments, I think we can see how, throughout the course of history, differences have divided us.

So is it too much to think we can’t all be as one, even with some differences?

Is it too much to think there is a better way, a way that is so simple, that sheds all of the human trappings of theology and says we each have a unique wat of following after Christ?

-mike

Joe Says:
July 8, 2008 at 3:51 pm e

True, Wesley was greatly influenced by Pietiests (both Moravians & Salzburgers), especially the Moravians. However, his break with them was not political but theological. He very much liked their community, but he thought that they had some flaws in their thinking regarding assurance.Whereas Calvinists and Moravians believe the imputation of righteousness of Christ is Holiness & Sanctification, Wesley believed it was merely justification & forgiveness. Wesley felt that the Moravians confused conversion with perfection (entire sanctification).

Essentially, Wesley thought they (the Moravians) had the ordo salutis out of order.

An excellent reference for Wesley is Kenneth Collins’ book, the theology of John Wesley: Holy Love and the Shape of Grace. Or The Scripture Way of Salvation: the Heart of John Wesley’s Theology, also by Collins.

By the way, I’m now reading and enjoying Jesus for President.

Enjoy!

-mike

Does the modern day Moravian church still look at it in such a way? Or maybe a better way to put it, do you know of any places in the US that works in such a way?

That’s not exactly “subversive” but it’s definitely coming in through a side door.