Soul Searching

A Fight Between Kingdoms

I love alien invasion movies. You know, the ones where super-advanced extraterrestrials attack from outer space, defeat our trained militaries, and just when they think they have humanity on the ropes, civilians beat their plowshares into spears, so to speak, band together and overthrow the invaders? Okay, maybe there aren't a lot of movies just like that, but if there were I'm sure I would love them. In fact, after I'm done with this article I may just consider writing a script… But, I digress. Back to the point. The reason this plot would appeal to me is because I believe the church could learn a lesson or two from it. How so? Hang with me, and I'll explain.

So we don't have little green men running around as enemies, but every time I walk down my city's sidewalks I remember that we surely are in the middle of a battle – a fight between kingdoms; the Kingdom of God, and the kingdom of darkness. We know who is going to win: God. We know his method for winning: the Church. But what we don't know is how many souls can be wrestled out of darkness and into the light in the process (and how many of those souls can live lives of fullness as Christ intends). This is the question that keeps me up at night – especially when I see evidence that the Kingdom of God is losing ground in places like Detroit, where there are 300,000 fewer churchgoers than there were 25 years ago. Or Jakarta, Indonesia, where the city will grow by 8 million over two decades, while only 2 million newcomers will hear of Christ. To me, this is unacceptable. Jesus describes the Gospel as a seed capable of producing exponential fruit to the tune of up to a hundred fold! So why isn't the Kingdom expanding faster? Why is this kind of growth so elusive? I know there are many factors that play into this, and no answer alone suffices to explain the phenomenon. However, I would like to address one issue that, if rectified, would position the church much better for unleashing the phenomenal power latent in the Gospel.

 

Numbers 32:27 says: "Every man armed for battle, will cross over to fight before the LORD, just as our lord says." In God's plan for the conquest of the Promised land, every man yielded the sword, every person had a part to play. Significantly, they didn't delegate the responsibility of fighting to a few professional warriors. Rather, the people of God were "universally activated". Each person assumed an essential role. There was widespread ownership of the vision. The entire community was deeply motivated, fully-committed, and wholly vested in the enterprise. Everyone's life (and death) was on the line. If we could somehow quantify the sum of the Israelites' energy and passionate commitment to the goal, the total would be astronomical. And this (plus of course, an essential dosage of God's mighty power) enabled the Promised Land to be successfully conquered. A similar situation was true for the mending of Jerusalem's wall during the time of Nehemiah: "Have every man and his helper … serve us as guards by night and workmen by day." (Neh. 4:22). Again, the burden of rebuilding (and protecting) the wall was shouldered by the entire community.

Now, back to the 21^st century. Why do we as modern Christians bear so little resemblance to conquering Israelites, or wall-mending Jerusalemites? Our ministries and churches are staffed by a small army of pastors and missionaries – the "professional" builders of the church. But the vast majority of us Christians, have shirked our roles. We've relegated and delegated, dropping the sword and the trowel in the meantime. It's no wonder our cities aren't being conquered for God's Kingdom, hardly anyone is fighting anymore.

The power inherent in the Gospel is that God can use it to transform lives through every believer – not just the ones with titles. It's time the Church became universally activated. It's time we saw the Kingdom of God explode as an army of believers shoulder the responsibility together. It's time we unleashed the ministry potential of each believer (and thereby of the gospel) by following Paul's teaching, that we live "contending as one man for the faith of the gospel" (Phil. 1:27). The outcome? A Church positioned to conquer promised lands, rebuild walls, defeat the Kingdom of darkness… maybe even fend off an alien invasion!

Thad Roller

The Lord's Supper

    I would like to beging my first contribution to this blog by saying I'm thrilled to be part of an on-going discussion about the history of the FMC.  My undergraduate degree was in English Literature, and when I got to seminary it was a natural fit for me to study the hymns of Charles Wesley.  My thesis was on the collection of hymns called Hymns on the Lord's Supper.  The first question during my thesis defense was an easy, introductory question: "Why study this hymnal?"

    During a time of lament and sorrow, I was debating whether or not to receive Communion (the question would be unthinkable to John Wesley, but I'll explain more on that later).  I knew the service.  Could I "Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for me, and feed on Him in my heart, by faith with thanksgiving"?  The problem was that I was not thankful.  The world was not right and I was hurting.  But by the time the elements came to me, I did receive because I knew that regardless of how I may have felt about God, I could admit that I still needed His grace.  And secondly I received Communion looking forward.  In the Manual for the Free Methodist Church in Canada, there's a quote about Communion adapted from Michael Green:

    "In Communion we look in at ourselves and confess the things that have gone wrong.  We look back to Calvary and praise Jesus for his death for us.  We look up to his risen presence, longing to nourish us through the bread and the cup which he said were his body and blood.  We look around in love and fellowship with other guests at God's table.  We look forward to his return at the end of all history, the marriage supper of the Lamb, of which every Communion service is a foretaste.  And then we look out to a needy world; Communion is battle rations for Christian soldiers."

    During that time of lament, I received Communion looking forward to the Day when all would be well.  If Communion is a foretaste to the wedding supper on that glorious Day, I knew that it was our Lord's promise that He has not forgotten about us.  During that service I received the grace I needed, my lament came to an end, and ever sine the Lord's Supper has held a special place in my heart.

    I grew up with an infrequent celebration of the Lord's Supper.  Our Methodist roots, however, present a different picture.  John Wesley's sermon The Duty of Constant Communion attempts to show that it is the duty of every Christian to receive Communion as much as possible, and then he answers the objections to this practice.  Many of the objections he lists were ones that I once used in debating the practice of a weekly celebration of the Lord's Supper.  His message rests on two points: this is a command of God and it is meant for your blessing.  His conclusion is simple, "Considering this is a command of God, he that does not communicate as often as he can has no piety; consider it as a mercy, he that does not communicate as often as he can has no wisdom."  When I preached this message I used contemporary language to replace the vocabulary of "piety and prudence."  I suggested that people who refuse Communion are either sinful or stupid.

    The first Methodists had a practice of weekly Communion and it is not surprising that the Communion hymnal had to be large.  In that collection there are 166 songs arranged under the following headings: 1) As it is a memorial of the suffering and death of Christ.  2) As it is a sign and a means of grace.  3) The sacrament as a pledge of heaven.  4) The Holy Eucharist as it implies a sacrifice.  5) Concerning the sacrifice of our persons.  6) After the sacrament.

 

    When I first encountered this hymnal I was surprised by the many references to sacrifice, however, hymn number 63 has the line "No local Deity" to distance their theology from the sacrifice of the Roman Catholic Mass.  Nevertheless, in the introduction to this hymnal, John Wesley writes, "Too many who are called Christian live as if under the Gospel there is no sacrifice but that of Christ on the cross."  Granted the work of Christ is the only sacrifice that can atone for sin, but in receiving the elements of the Lord's Supper, the children of God are called to sacrifice.  We receive grace from God at His table in order that we might serve God in a needy and broken world.

    At the church where I serve in Holt, Ontario, there is a picture of the bread and cup of Communion.  And the prayer in the picture says, "Lord make me like your bread, your body.  Take me and pass me around among your people.  Bless me and pass me around among your people.  Break me and pass me around among your people."  I think this picture points to the Lord's Supper as a way of looking out to a world in need.

    The conclusion to Hymns on the Lord's Supper is a near epic 22 stanza opoem.  It begins celebrating the virtues of the early church.  The saints of old were "impregnated with life divine" and even "glad rivals of the heavenly choir."  But as the Methodist movement was beginning, things were very different.  It prompted the question, "Why?  What has changed?  Why is the church today lacking the power that was evident in the early church?"  The answer was because of a neglect of Communion: Sad mutual causes of decay, slackness and vice together move / Grown cold we cast the means away, and quench'd our latest Spark of Love."  The hymn closes with a petition that God would restore to His Church a hunger for the Lord's Supper.

The Fork in the Road

The Free Methodist Church is in the middle of an identity crisis.  All of us who follow the church closely know this.  Once a sect on the margins of society, we have become a primarily middle-class, mainstream evangelical denomination with little to offer America that is distinctive from the other church down the street.

As a new pastor working in the inner city, I am beginning to understand the importance of co-operating with other churches in accomplishing God’s mission.  And this leads me to ask the very important question: What makes the Free Methodist Church different than any other church?  What do we have to offer that is unique as part of the body of Christ?

In my opinion, two options lie before us.  First, we can return to our roots by once again becoming a sect which devotes itself to ministry among the poor.  We can, like the early Free Methodists, choose to live lives of radical simplicity and generosity, shunning the upward mobility of American culture and standing prophetically against the increasing materialism of our age.  We can do this both in families and as churches.  As churches, we can decide to relocate our buildings out of the suburbs and into the inner cities of America.  We can stop spending God’s precious money on padding for our pews and indoor basketball courts.  (If I sound radical here, please read B. T. Roberts and I think you’ll find him much more abrasive).  We can channel our funds into food pantries, community centers, homeless shelters, and soup kitchens.  And as families, we could reject the middle-class American way of life with its brand name clothes, new cars, and suburban houses.  All of this sacrifice is, of course, so that we could live in solidarity with the poor and provide more for their needs.  As a community, we could decide to “live simply so that others might simply live.”  But this option would require a deliberate shift from our focus on reaching middle to upper class America.  We would make this shift not because we are convinced that middle class America needs no church -- for they certainly do -- but because this need is being met by many denominations and OUR place in the body of Christ is to minister to the marginalizes of society.

The other major option I would propose is this: we continue to target not the poor, but middle class America.  However, if we choose this option, I believe we ought to overcome the denominational boundaries which separate us from other Christians.  We ought to merge with the Wesleyans, Nazarenes, and other holiness denominations.  As it is now, we are simply duplicating what they are doing, but oftentimes not doing it nearly as well.  It would be better to extend to them our hand of fellowship and stop trying to fill the exact same niche in American evangelicalism.  If this means the end of Free Methodist identity, then so be it.  In my opinion, we lost our identity long ago.

The status quo will not suffice.  We must choose to either become distinctive again or to merge with others who are doing the exact same things we are doing and bring unity back into the body of Christ.  Personally, I prefer the first option because I think it is more “Free Methodist,” but I would be happy to see us move in either direction. We simply cannot continue with business as usual or we will miss out on what God is doing in our part of the world.

- Greg Coates

Connecting the past and the future

    The East Michigan Conference has a training institute for those considering entering pastoral ministry. As there has recently been a change in the director, I have had the privilege of reviewing the content and brainstorming ways to expand the offerings.

    In looking over both what East Michigan offers as well as what is required by our denomination, I saw a gaping hole. The poor. Where do we teach our pastors in training about the Free Methodist’s heart for the poor and disenfranchised?

    Our church’s historical commitment to the poor kept me in the Free Methodist church as a college student in the 90’s. Doing research in the library, I read through one of BT Roberts’ books. I knew that one meaning of our “Free” was free pews to avoid the practice of the rich getting the closer seats or any seats at all. (Whatever happened to everyone wanting the seats in the front?) I read that we dressed simply so that the poor felt comfortable among us. I read that even our church buildings were kept simple for the same reason. I read that BT Roberts charged us with continuing to live what we believed. As a graduate of an inner city high school and the leader of an outreach to troubled teens, my heart was strangely warmed.

    Now in 2008, I read that pastors in training needed Wesleyan Theology, Inductive Bible Study, Leadership, and Church Administration. Frankly, other than maybe a different kind of theology class, I didn’t see much different on a list than perhaps an Episcopal priest or a Southern Baptist probably would get. Don’t get me wrong, most people would tell you that I’m ecumenical and I don’t desire to draw lines of division. However, the downside of focusing on those “core issues” is that we can lose some of the very things that make us unique.
    Identification with the poor is just one issue. What about women in ministry? There are still churches in my conference who refuse to have a woman even fill their pulpit for a Sunday. What about freedom of the Holy Spirit? Do our churches allow and expect the Spirit to move in their services and consequently in their lives? Or are we planned and programmed so much that we wouldn’t recognize the Spirit if he stood up and yelled our names during a Sunday morning sermon?

    Perhaps in order to find the soul of the Free Methodist church it starts with our pastors. If our pastors don’t know and have not been taught to preach and practice the peculiarities of Free Methodism, we surely can’t expect the broader church to do it. I’m not sure that on overview Free Methodist Doctrine and Polity course at the beginning of their education track will truly ignite their passion for living the uniquely Free Methodist method of following Jesus. We have the opportunity to train up the leaders among us who will begin leading others. The process of ordination has undergone several changes over the last few years. Maybe it still needs to be changed.

Joanna DeWolf

Fair Play

     Most of us have embarrassed ourselves by forwarding an email purporting a supposed disastrous danger only to find it to be false. I still find myself caught offguard at times but mostly I remember to check a website like Snopes.com to be certain of the validity of a claim before panicking everyone in my address book.

     During this political season I have received numerous emails about Barack Obama. One such proposes he is an active Muslim who was sworn into the Senate with his hand on the Koran, which actaully happened to a totally different congressman, not Obama. The most recent supposedly quotes from his books and suggests he is a racist and Muslim as well.

     The quotes are taken out of context, don't exist or are reworded. His actual comments about white people come from his struggle as a biracial child to understand his identity. The misworded comment about Muslims comes from his suggestion that after 9-11 we need to avoid the kind of racial panic that caused us to intern the Japanese Americans during WWII. I hope we as Christians would all agree with that stand.

     This whole smear campaign offends me on several levels. First, as voters most of us don't like negative campaigning. We say we want to evaluate the candidates on their positions, not on their attacks on their opponents. So why would we participate in such a negative tactic ourselves?

     Second, the accusations are false or at least twisted. Obama's has created a website to clarify the truth, http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/factcheckactioncenter . But if that seems too one-sided, the same website I use for urban legends, which is politically  neutral, also addresses these issues, for example  http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/ownwords.asp. At least check it out before forwarding it.

     Third, if we are not careful, we will unwittingly contribute to the racism that threatens to focus the attention of this election on something other than the worthiness candidates and their positions. In unjustly accusing Obama of being a racist we are contributing to the problem ourselves.

     I pastor a church of both whites and African Americans. Because of this we are naturally more politically diverse than most churches. I am extremely careful about what I say politically, even one on one, and mostly stress tolerance and understanding. We are all entitled to our political opinions and agendas.

     But as Christians I don't believe we are entitled to spread slander against anyone, especially someone running for President. BT Roberts worked actively for political causes, and so should we today as Free Methodists. But whether we are supporting the Democrat or Republican candidate, we should not contribute to the misunderstanding and slander that will poison our opinion in such a crucial race in our nation.

    My prayer is that this election will not bring out the worst in us, but instead will help us take a hard look at ourselves and our nation and consider how we can rise above pettiness and decide our future based on the real issues at hand.

Kathy Callahan-Howell

Celebrating Our Multicultural Ministry From Paul's Perspective

Paul championed the mission to the gentiles. From the very beginning of his conversion, he received the revelation that the field of his calling would be in a gentile –multicultural– context (Acts 9).

One of the bigger battles that Paul had to fight was with the judaizing Christians who believed that gentiles, in addition to converting to Christ, should also keep the religious and cultural way of life of the Jews. The more radical judaizers would teach that to become part of the people of God they had to become Jews.

We must be careful that in our evangelistic or missionaries efforts we be not only “americanizing, hispanicizing, africanizing, etc.” people of other cultures. It is true that for practical reasons, it is important for people of other cultures to be assimilated within the dominant culture, but that is secondary to Pauline doctrine of justification by faith. In his mission to the gentiles, Paul did not require them to be assimilated into Jewish culture. No matter how reasonable and advantageous the process of integrating into another culture may be, for the effects of reaching people for Christ in multicultural contexts, they do not have to be as I am, culturally speaking, to be converted to Christ or to be good Christians.

As biblical Christians, we should get our identity from our relationship with Christ and not primarily from our ethnic identity. When Paul defines himself, he says that he has “no confidence in the flesh” that is, in his rich Jewish background as a Pharisee. He says about all his religious and ethnic labels that he “counts them as garbage.” Paul has a new pivotal point around which his life revolves. That new pivotal point is Christ and the gospel. Paul gets his identity from these (Phil. 3).

Humanly speaking, nobody can deny that cultural backgrounds close or open doors (Paul himself sometimes used his Roman citizenship as recourse). Nobody can deny the reality of “technologically developed or underdeveloped” regions. However, as Christians, we are called to surpass the human criteria that determine the way we perceive ourselves and the way we see and treat others.

We should see ourselves as part of a “new creation” in Christ and not use the standards of the old creation. Paul says in 2 Cor. 5:16 “So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer.” In Colossians 3 Paul says that we should “put to death our members which are of the earth.” The reason to doing so is that now we are part of a new creation in Christ. This new creation in Christ is the new humanity that God is forming in us. This is the new community of the Spirit where: “There is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.” All this teaches us that as Christians we no longer treat our brothers and sisters based on nationality or social class labels but based on our unity in Christ. National identities are important, but in a multicultural context, these identities should be integrated in the larger identity of God's international family.

- Guillermo Flores

Free is a Verb

     Last week urban pastors and workers from Massachusetts to Portland gathered to celebrate urban ministry. Bishop David Kendall set the tone with a stirring call from the bishops stating the primacy of urban ministry in our denomination.

     During the closing address, Tasha Hodgens Pryor mentioned that while sitting observing the sign for the conference which mentioned the Free Methodist Urban Fellowship, God told her that for too long we had let the free in our name be an adjective, and it was time for it to be a verb.

     This simple principle can help us return to the soul of our denomination. We are not about being Methodists that are free. We are to free others from bondage. We are not to continue to only celebrate the freedoms of the past, from rented pews to slavery, but to continue to free people from materialism and sin, in the power of the Holy Spirit.

     Whether we serve in city, town or country, we can ask God who needs to be free in our midst. Who is bound that needs to be released? How can we live out the principles of Isaiah 61 in our ministry, whether clergy or lay, and see that the poor hear the good news, the captives are set free? May we all hear God's call to change our passive adjective affirmation of our past victories for a new, live, up to date, active voice of change and freedom.

Kathy Callahan-Howell

Dying to Self

 

I’ve always been a “why” person.

 

I remember sitting in the library at Spring Arbor while in college and finding one of the books written by BT Roberts that explained why we dressed plainly, why our churches were simple, etc. It was to be inviting to the poor. So that all would feel comfortable in our churches and with our people. It was because we were putting others before ourselves. As a Sociology major ministering to inner city teenagers at the time, I was thrilled to find this amazing history of my denomination.

 

As I see it, I grew up towards the end of the extreme legalism era. Thankfully my parents were people who simply loved Jesus and wanted others to love Him as well. Interestingly, a pivotal moment in my teenage years as it relates to my parents and the church was when I asked if I could get my ears pierced. I will never forget my parents’ response. They said, “Let us think about it and get back to you.” When we revisited the topic, they said frankly, “There are people in our church who believe that Christians should not wear a lot of jewelry. If we were to allow you to get your ears pierced it would cause a problem with those people. We don’t believe that it is a matter of salvation but for the sake of our position of leadership we don’t feel like we can give you permission to do that.” I was very disappointed and of course annoyed that people thought that way. But I appreciated my parents’ honesty.

And in retrospect, I think my parents modeled the same principle that BT Roberts set forth long before. We make choices about our behavior and lifestyles for the sake of others. A true friend lays down her life for her friends. We often read this only as it applies to dying for someone else. But maybe it is far simpler than that—choosing not to do something that we would otherwise have no problem with simply for the sake of another.

And isn’t this perhaps what sanctification is about? Dying to self. It seems that our churches and our culture could use a little of this teaching and practice. I don’t believe in rules for the sake of rules. When I turned 17, I got my ears pierced. No one left the church and eventually they even ordained me, ears pierced and all. Now there are other things I refrain from doing and things that I do that I don’t particularly enjoy. Why? I’ve been crucified with Christ. I become all things to all people that I might invite others to join me in letting Christ live in me.

Thank you BT Roberts for founding a church with that principle and practice. Thank you Mom and Dad for continually modeling it for me.

--Joanna DeWolf

Soul in Massachusetts

If you are looking for the soul of Free Methodism, try joining us this week, April 23-25 for CUE 2008 (Continental Urban Exchange). Our theme is Urban and Free. We are meeting at the First Spanish Free Methodist Church in Lawrence, MA. You can find all the pertinent information at http://fmuf.freemethodistchurch.org/.  You can register online or just show up.

For the modest cost of only $50, you will hear from Bishop David Kendall, veteran church planter and pastor Rev. Hector Fernandez of the First Spanish FM Church in Passaic, NJ, and a vibrant new voice, Rev. Tasha Hodgens Pryor, church planter in DC. Perhaps you heard Tasha at General Conference last  year. Besides these challenging speakers workshops and ministry tours are offered, and meals are included. It's the best $50 you'll ever spend!

The urban pastors of our denomination face the cutting edge of ministry to the poor and disenfranchised. If you are on that front line, come for encouragement and fellowship. If you are ministering in a different setting, come catch the passion these pastors share.

Hope to see you this week!

Kathy Callahan-Howell

From a Monument to a Movement

I remember vividly watching the 1998 film adaptation of Victor Hugo’s Les Miserables and seeing the young idealistic student Marius Pontmercy standing atop a box in the middle of a crowded street.  He proclaimed the dawn of a new era for France and encouraged young and old alike to join him in the revolution.  As I watched, something within me envied this young man.  He had a cause and he believed in it; he had found something worth living and dying for.

As a young idealist myself, I long to be part of a movement that is radical, edgy, and nonconformist – one that challenges the status quo and invites its members to a place of radical (and dangerous) action.  And, much to my delight, as I have studied the history of the Free Methodist Church I have found that this is exactly what we once were. 

According to Donald Dayton, B. T. Roberts “pushed his followers to a radical discipleship that affirmed simple lifestyle, polemicized against the ‘modern, easy way of people getting converted, without repentance, without renouncing the world,’ and insisted that such renunciation of the world include such social sins as ‘slavery, driving hard bargains, and oppressing the hireling in his wages.’” The tone of the early Free Methodist movement carried seeds of dissent from the increasingly bourgeois church of the late nineteenth century leading its followers to a radical simplicity of lifestyle for the sake of the poor.

The dual concern for complete holiness and social justice lies at the heart of Free Methodist DNA.  Our founders were convinced that these two were completely inseparable.  For holiness means nothing more and nothing less than perfect love and this perfect love will drive us to “follow in the footsteps of Jesus... by seeing that the gospel is preached to the poor” (B. T. Roberts).  Unfortunately, the 20th century convinced us that we must choose between doctrinal purity and what is now called the social gospel movement – creating a split which still haunts us to this day.

This young idealist in his late twenties wishes to see the Free Methodist Church denounce the unholy divorce of personal and social holiness as demonic and return to our roots – to a place of radical self-denial and sacrificial love which motivates not only our prayers, but our pocketbooks as well.  We must reject a hyper-spiritualized gospel which tells us that God only cares about souls and not about physical needs as well.  We must embrace holistic ministry which meets people where they are and presents them with the fully-orbed, robust gospel of Jesus Christ in all of its personal, social, and political glory. 

In many ways, the Free Methodist Church has become that very denomination against which we rebelled.  We have become a “respectable church” rather than a church on the margins and on the fringes of society.  We have traded in the plain dress and unadorned church buildings of the early Free Methodists for middle-to-upper class luxuries and padded pews. 

I suggest we take our cue from the founders of the church of the Nazarene (close relatives of ours) who wrote the following: “We can get along without rich people, but not without preaching the gospel to the poor... Let the church of the Nazarene be true to its commission; not great and elegant buildings; but to feed the hungry and clothe the naked, and wipe away the tears of the sorrowing; and gather jewels for his diadem.”

- Greg Coates