Breaking down Methodism...

[jmcrae]

I think the poor and disenfranchised would be better off reading Nietzsche, Locke, Kant, Hume, and perhaps some Adam Smith

Did the gospel make them any less poor or disenfranchised?

In that the Gospel requires us to help each other, yes, it is better for them to live in a Christian country than otherwise.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Did the gospel make them any less poor or disenfranchised?

Actually, it did. A lot of health, education, and legal reform took place because of Wesley’s work with the poor and his belief that the Gospel and Church was for everyone, not just the privileged. He also was the impetus behind the abolitionists movement in Britain.

Woodrow Wilson delivered this speech at Wesleyan University in 1915. Here is the end of it:

No doubt he played no small part in saving England from the madness which fell upon France ere the century ended. The English poor bore no such intolerable burdens as the poor of France had to endure. There was no such insensate preservation of old abuses in England as maddened the unhappy country across the Channel. But society was in sharp transition in England; one industrial age was giving place to another, and the poor particularly were sadly at a loss to find their places in the new. Work was hard to get, and the new work of pent-up towns was harder to understand and to do than the old familiar work in the field or in the village shops. There were sharper contrasts now than before between rich and poor, and the rich were no longer always settled neighbors in some countryside, but often upstart merchants in the towns, innovating manufacturers who seemed bent upon making society over to suit their own interests. It might have gone hard with order and government in a nation so upset, transformed, distracted, had not the hopeful lessons of religion been taught broadcast and the people made to feel that once more pity and salvation had sought them out.

There is a deep fascination in this mystery of what one man may do to change the face of his age. John Wesley, we have had reason to say, planned no reform, premeditated no revivification of society; his was simply the work of an efficient conviction. How far he was himself a product of the century which he revived it were a futile piece of metaphysic to inquire. That even his convictions were born of his age may go without saying: they are born in us also by a study of his age, and no century listens to a voice out of another–least of all out of a century yet to come. What is important for us is the method and cause of John Wesley’s success. His method was as simple as the object he had in view. He wanted to get at men, and he went directly to them, not so much like a priest as like a fellow man standing in a like need with themselves. And the cause of his success? Genius, no doubt, and the gifts of a leader of men, but also something less singular, though perhaps not less individual–a clear conviction of revealed truth and of its power to save. Neither men nor society can be saved by opinions; nothing has power to prevail but the conviction which commands, not the mind merely, but the will and the whole spirit as well. It is this, and this only, that makes one spirit the master of others, and no man need fear to use his conviction in any age. It will not fail of its power. Its magic has no sorcery of words, no trick of personal magnetism. It concentrates personality as if into a single element of sheer force, and transforms conduct into a life.

John Wesley’s place in history is the place of the evangelist who is also a master of affairs. The evangelization of the world will always be the road to fame and power, but only to those who take it seeking, not these things, but the kingdom of God; and if the evangelist be what John Wesley was, a man poised in spirit, deeply conversant with the natures of his fellow-men, studious of the truth, sober to think, prompt and yet not rash to act, apt to speak without excitement and yet with a keen power of conviction, he can do for another age what John Wesley did for the eighteenth century. His age was singular in its need, as he was singular in his gifts and power.

The eighteenth century cried out for deliverance and light, and God had prepared this man to show again the might and the blessing of his salvation.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Actually, it did. A lot of health, education, and legal reform took place because of Wesley’s work with the poor and his belief that the Gospel and Church was for everyone, not just the privileged. He also was the impetus behind the abolitionists movement in Britain.

Woodrow Wilson delivered this speech at Wesleyan University in 1915. Here is the end of it:

That’s not what I was saying. First let me say I view John Wesley as one of the truly great religious men in history. He’s one of the few (save a few others like St. Francis) who really walked the walk. So I certainly don’t mean to disparage the man or his ideology.

Obviously indoctrinating a society in ideas like charity, forgiveness, mercy, and so on will benefit the poor. However, that’s a top down argument (in other words the poor are benefited by others reading the gospel and living out its doctrines, and not so much living out those doctrines themselves).

Certainly anyone would be well advised to live a sufficiently disciplined life (and avoid addictive or criminal behavior). However, there’s a difference between giving someone solace in their condition (teaching them to humbly accept whatever deck of cards they were dealt, because the next life will be so wonderful) and giving them a will to power or teaching them logic and reason. The latter will give them far more impetus to take ownership of themselves, girdle up their loins (to borrow from Paul), and attack life with vigor and unrelenting effort.

Getting caught up in the mind numbing dogma of religiosity has rarely led an average man to accomplish anything noteworthy. Those who did get caught up in religiosity but who did leave their imprint on this world – would have probably been great individuals no matter what endeavor they picked up.

 

[yankee_doodle]

In that the Gospel requires us to help each other, yes, it is better for them to live in a Christian country than otherwise.

It’s too speculative to imagine how western society would have formed without Christianity. Certainly the church was terribly theocratic at least up until the reformation (at which point they were joined by Protestant splinter groups in asserting their dogma on Europe). Nevertheless, it wound up eventually producing people like John Wesley, who did do some pretty great things (and took stances on behalf of disparaged and terribly oppressed minority groups like Native Americans & against slavery in the colonies).

Of course that doesn’t make religion anymore true. It might give it more appeal, but at the end of the day, as compelling as it may be, it’s nothing more than a collection of myths given to us by our ancestors. I’m not sure if society would be better off understanding the world and universe for what it truly is. I understand many people desire wonder and mystery. I for one don’t understand how the vastness of our universe, and understanding its physics, biology, chemistry, and so on isn’t enough wonder for us … but that’s just my opinion I guess (and obviously mine is a minority viewpoint in this country).

 

[jmcrae]

It’s too speculative to imagine how western society would have formed without Christianity. Certainly the church was terribly theocratic at least up until the reformation (at which point they were joined by Protestant splinter groups in asserting their dogma on Europe). Nevertheless, it wound up eventually producing people like John Wesley, who did do some pretty great things (and took stances on behalf of disparaged and terribly oppressed minority groups like Native Americans & against slavery in the colonies).

The Catholic Church has been producing Saints right from day one.

Of course that doesn’t make religion anymore true. It might give it more appeal, but at the end of the day, as compelling as it may be, it’s nothing more than a collection of myths given to us by our ancestors.

They gave us their actual experiences of God, and recorded them using memorable story-telling. “Myth” just means it’s an extraordinary account in story form - it doesn’t mean it didn’t actually happen.

I’m not sure if society would be better off understanding the world and universe for what it truly is.

They’d all be Catholic, if they did.

I understand many people desire wonder and mystery. I for one don’t understand how the vastness of our universe, and understanding its physics, biology, chemistry, and so on isn’t enough wonder for us … but that’s just my opinion I guess (and obviously mine is a minority viewpoint in this country).

If the whole thing just created itself by accident, that would be extraordinary indeed. I find it far more sensible and down-to-earth to believe in God.

 

[Zundrah]

Yeah, guess there’s a two-week waiting period before a signature is allowed.

Hey, thanks for playing around with me. It was great fun! Hope to do it again, soon!

I have silly threads open all the time, go to my profile and find my threads and just randomly post on them. I will ALWAYS respond.

 

[yankee_doodle]

The Catholic Church has been producing Saints right from day one.

In my experience the miracles of saints usually fail upon individual critical examination; and I have looked at a few (though by no means all) miracles.

They gave us their actual experiences of God, and recorded them using memorable story-telling. “Myth” just means it’s an extraordinary account in story form - it doesn’t mean it didn’t actually happen.

you mean like the stigmata? I’m sorry if I just don’t believe stuff like that.

If the whole thing just created itself by accident, that would be extraordinary indeed. I find it far more sensible and down-to-earth to believe in God.

actually non-theists wouldn’t say “by accident” (at least not usually).

 

[jmcrae]

In my experience the miracles of saints usually fail upon individual critical examination; and I have looked at a few (though by no means all) miracles.

You should report your findings to the Vatican, if you have scientific proof that something they have recognized as a miracle actually wasn’t. They actually employ quite a few atheist scientists to assist with their investigations, and those guys would certainly be interested to know if they had missed something.

you mean like the stigmata? I’m sorry if I just don’t believe stuff like that.

Actually, I was referring to the Resurrection.

actually non-theists wouldn’t say “by accident” (at least not usually).

So, now we have inanimate random forces operating on purpose? That’s even more incredible.

 

[spockrates]

I have silly threads open all the time, go to my profile and find my threads and just randomly post on them. I will ALWAYS respond.

I can see that when it comes to being silly, you are really quite serious about it!

 

[spockrates]

Zun:

Tough question for you: What would you say is the silliest discussion thread you’ve ever started?

 

[Zundrah]

I can see that when it comes to being silly, you are really quite serious about it!

You got that right! Ooooh yeah.

Zun:

Tough question for you:

No such thing.

What would you say is the silliest discussion thread you’ve ever started?

Hmm, it may have been… the thread about… err… Breaking Down Methodism.

No seriously, it was probably my very old thread called “Thou cannot haz”. Go and look for it on my thread list. It was basically all about everyone talking in LOL language! Didn’t make any sense I could never understand what was being said! I remember just saying stuff like, “I can haz cheezburgah!?” …and people said stuff like, “Thou cannot haz, tiz fwiday, u go eatz fhish.”

 

[spockrates]

You got that right! Ooooh yeah.

No such thing.

Hmm, it may have been… the thread about… err… Breaking Down Methodism.

No seriously, it was probably my very old thread called “Thou cannot haz”. Go and look for it on my thread list. It was basically all about everyone talking in LOL language! Didn’t make any sense I could never understand what was being said! I remember just saying stuff like, “I can haz cheezburgah!?” …and people said stuff like, “Thou cannot haz, tiz fwiday, u go eatz fhish.”

STOP! You’re making me hungry! Haven’t had breakfast, yet (and, yes, I would eat cheese burgers for breakfast if Burger King would serve them)! Should I confess that desire?

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:...torage/burger_king_guy_accepting_confes-1.jpg

 

[Zundrah]

STOP! You’re making me hungry! Haven’t had breakfast, yet (and, yes, I would eat cheese burgers for breakfast if Burger King would serve them)! Should I confess that desire?

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:...torage/burger_king_guy_accepting_confes-1.jpg

…you little sinner!

 

[spockrates]

…you little sinner!

http://www.fastcompany.com/files/imagecache/listing_image/files/klingonbk.jpg

But the -]devil/-] (ah, I mean, Burger King) made me do it!

 

[Zundrah]

http://www.fastcompany.com/files/imagecache/listing_image/files/klingonbk.jpg

But the -]devil/-] (ah, I mean, Burger King) made me do it!

Right, that’s it! Get on your knees! That will be 50 Hail Mary’s and 200 Our Fathers! :tsktsk:

 

[spockrates]

Right, that’s it! Get on your knees! That will be 50 Hail Mary’s and 200 Our Fathers! :tsktsk:

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. I had a Whopper of a time getting all those prayers done! It wasn’t remembering the words that was so hard, it was trying to remember how many I had done and how many were left to do! I think I prayed far more than the prescribed penance. Do I get bonus points for that?

 

[jmcrae]

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. I had a Whopper of a time getting all those prayers done! It wasn’t remembering the words that was so hard, it was trying to remember how many I had done and how many were left to do! I think I prayed far more than the prescribed penance. Do I get bonus points for that?

I think you get extra candy in your heavenly candy dish for that.

 

[spockrates]

I think you get extra candy in your heavenly candy dish for that.

Mmmm candy!

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

I think the poor and disenfranchised would be better off reading Nietzsche, Locke, Kant, Hume, and perhaps some Adam Smith

Did the gospel make them any less poor or disenfranchised?

The purpose of the Gospel is to bring to them the eternal message of Jesus Christ, his life, his redemption of mankind, and his resurrection. Be we poor or rich, that message brings eternal life.

Lock, Kant, Hume, Montesquieu and Rousseau are all great minds whose thought has brought about revolutions in human thinking and in human society. They have not, however, done much for the hereafter.

 

[peary]

Originally Posted by O.S. Luke
That would be an incorrect statement. Methodists and Lutherans tend to embrace the Eastern understanding of Real Presence as a mystery that cannot be explained, and stay away from the metaphysical language that transunbstantiation is so dependent upon. “This Holy Mystery” is the official teaching on the Eucharist of the United Methodist Church, as “By Water and the Spirit” is the official teaching on baptism. THM states:

In Anglican and Methodist theology, a sacrament is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace. In the Eucharist, the outward and visible sign is that of bread and wine, while the inward and spiritual grace is that of the Body and Blood of Christ. This is quite different than either the Eastern Orthodox or Catholic understanding of the Eucharist which is in totality the VERY physical Body, the VERY physical Blood, the VERY immortal Soul, and the VERY Divinity of Christ Himself. An “inward and spiritual grace” is NOT the Church’s understanding from Her earliest days, although the Church would say that the Eucharist *does *reflect inward and spiritual grace because of this reality. It is much more than that, and it seems that you do not understand what the Church was attempting to describe in terms of transubstantiation. And every single Methodist that I have talked to over the years (and there have been many, and the ministers will not commit except to say either/or) rejects that. It does not matter about WHAT metaphysical language is used - the Orthodox believe the same as the Catholic Church with regard to the Eucharist. The Orthodox are satisfied to just respond that the reality of the Eucharist is a ‘mystery.’ The Catholic Church believes the same. Regardless of the language used, it is still a ‘mystery.’

Partially incorrect. Wesley’s “criteria” for those to come to the Table were the same as the Anglican Church’s - only the repentant baptized. The exact quote of Wesley regarding regular communion was, “[People] should lose no opportunity to receive the sacrament.” Wesley himself celebrated/participated in the Eucharist more than once a week.

The understanding today of "the repentent baptized is quite different than what was understood. In Wesley’s time, it didn’t include Catholics.

John Wesley was an Anglican priest who died an Anglican priest in good standing (there was no Episcopal Church - Wesley left America in 1737). His brother Charles also died an Anglican priest in good standing. Both are recognized in the sanctoral cycle and calendar of the Anglican Church.

Then why isn’t the Methodist church joined with the Anglican church as one? Why, then, is it a separate entity and denomination? If it is recognized as the Anglican church, then why does the Anglican church deny its joining as Anglican?

You have evidently never read John Wesley’s sermons on sanctification, piety, and salvation - because that would be the cart before the horse! Wesley firmly embraced and espoused sanctification as the disposition of the mind and heart from which all good works came.

I evidently have, and I come to different conclusions than you do.

You may be a very good Catholic, Peary, but you are very misinformed about Methodism.
**
I think not.**