Perhaps the Greatest Hymn Ever Penned

It is, at least, one of the greatest hymns ever penned, and it is my absolute favorite.  And, yes, it is a Wesley hymn:

And Can It Be?

And can it be, that I should gain

An interest in the Saviour's blood?

Died he for me, who caused his pain?

For me? Who him to death pursued?

Amazing love! How can it be

That thou, my God, shouldst die for me?

'Tis myst'ry all: th'Immortal dies!

Who can explore his strange design?

In vain the first-born seraph tries

To sound the depths of love divine.

'Tis mercy all! Let earth adore!

Let angel minds inquire no more.

He left his Father's throne above

(So free, so infinite his grace!),

Emptied himself of all but love,

And bled for Adam's helpless race.

'Tis mercy all, immense and free,

For, O my God, it found out me!

Long my imprisoned spirit lay,

Fast bound in sin and nature's night.

Thine eye diffused a quick'ning ray;

I woke; the dungeon flamed with light.

My chains fell off, my heart was free,

I rose, went forth, and followed thee.

No condemnation now I dread,

Jesus, and all in him, is mine.

Alive in him, my living head,

And clothed in righteousness divine,

Bold I approach th'eternal throne,

And claim the crown, through Christ my own.

(Charles Wesley, 1738)

Comments listed in The Works of John Wesley, Vol. 7, A Collection of Hymns for the Use of The People Called Methodists, indicate that the hymn was originally entitled "Free Grace."  It is said that this hymn was written immediately following Charles' conversion on May 21, 1738.  They surmise that it is probable that this hymn was sung when John came late in the evening of the 24th to announce his own conversion (322).

Also in the notes, it is mentioned that Dr. Bett was of the opinion that John had authored this hymn, rather than Charles (though, it seems, that the vast majority of people have assumed Charles' authorship).  And, it is stated that the opening question is decisive for the whole of Wesley's theology (323).

What is your favorite hymn?

A Couple of Wesley Hymns

I thought I would share, as I occasionally do, a couple of the Wesley hymns that were a part of my Morning Prayer time, this morning.  These were taken from Hymn Poems of Charles Wesley for Reading and Singing, issued by Tidings, Nashville, TN. 

16. Depth of Mercy!

Seymour. 7.7.7.7.



Depth of mercy! can there be

Mercy still reserved for me?

Can my God His wrath forbear -

Me, the chief of sinners, spare?

I have long withstood His grace,

Long provoked Him to His face,

Would not hearken to His calls,

Grieved Him by a thousand falls.

Now incline me to repent;

Let me now my sins lament;

Now my foul revolt deplore,

Weep, believe, and sin no more.

There for me the Saviour stands,

Holding forth His wounded hands:

God is love! I know, I feel,

Jesus weeps and loves me still.

17. Jesus, the Sinner's Friend

Federal Street. L.M.

Jesus the sinner's Friend, to Thee,

Lost and undone, for aid I flee,

Weary of earth, myself, and sin:

Open Thine arms, and take me in.

Pity and heal my sinsick soul;

'Tis Thou alone canst make me whole:

Dark, till in me Thine image shine,

And lost, I am, till Thou art mine.

At last I own it cannot be

That I should fit myself for Thee;

Here, then, to Thee I all resign;

Thine is the work, and only Thine.

What shall I say Thy grace to move?

Lord, I am sin, but Thou art love:

I give up every plea beside -

Lord, I am lost, but Thou hast died.

Nazarene Superintendency/Episcopacy Reconsidered, Part II: My Objections Reconsidered

As stated in my previous post ("Part I"), I have consistently been outspoken when it comes to clearly identifying the Nazarene general superintendents as bishops.  I also indicated that there are others in our midsts who have given the title bishop to our district superintendents, and that I have opposed this view for three major reasons (as will be discussed, below).

In that first post, I set out to show the basis and foundation of the Nazarene superintendency/episcopacy.  There, I made clear that the superintendency within Wesleyan/Methodist denominations (including the Church of the Nazarene) constitutes the episcopal element of their government structures.  -  I will not rehearse that, here.  (That's what the first post was for!)

In this, second part, I will be turning my attention to the view that district superintendents ought to be identified as bishops, and the three major reasons that I have opposed this position, holding that the designation of bishop belongs to general superintendents.

The three major reasons for my opposition to identifying district superintendents as bishops are:

     1.) Wesley's Intent
     2.) Ecumenical/Fraternal Relations Within American Methodism, and The Consistent Structure of American Methodism
     3.) The Authority to Ordain

Wesley's Intent

As shown in the previous post, Wesley "ordained" Thomas Coke to oversee the Methodists in America, and instructed him to ordain Francis Asbury for the same oversight.  The oversight that the two were to share was understood to be the general oversight of the people called Methodists in America.  They were to be general superintendents, not simply district superintendents.  While it turns out that Asbury truly became the bishop of American Methodists, the intent was that the two men would share this role . . . with Wesley, himself, still clearly exercising . . . (at least) parental authority.  (cf. Wesley's letter, which accompanied The Sunday Service.  It clearly shows Wesley's continued authority.  He, after all, appointed Coke and Asbury and gave instructions concerning The Sunday Service, etc.)

The issue here is that Wesley intended Coke and Asbury to be general superintendents.  Unlike the ordinal of the Church of England, Wesley did not make provisions for different levels of superintendents (the CoE's ordinal speaks of bishops and archbishops).  -  Admittedly, I have not done sufficient research into the history of the development of presiding elders/district superintendents, or the expansion of the general superintendency during Wesley's life.  However, it seems clear enough that Wesley's intent was that the episcopal role would be expressed in the general superintendency.

With that in mind, I have consistently identified the general superintendency with the episcopacy, and I have rejected the idea that district superintendents should be identified as bishops.

But, is this valid?

Upon further reflection and "reconsideration," it can be said that Wesley, whatever his intent, did not ordain Coke or instruct that Coke ordain Asbury as general superintendents.  The ordinal clearly shows that they were ordained simply as superintendents.  There was no designation of general or district; just superintendent.

They were, of course, understood to be general superintendents, as the Book of Discipline clearly indicates to this day.  However, the point is, it was Wesley's intent that the episcopal role be expressed in the superintendency, itself; the superintendency is what expresses episcopal oversight.  He could not have foreseen the day when the United Methodist Church would have expanded the episcopacy so vastly with so many bishops.  Nor could he have foreseen the day when the church would develop such a vast district superintendency to assist the bishops.  Thus, Wesley simply spoke of the superintendency.

Therefore, it is not really fair to impose upon our current, developed situation the original intent of Wesley, who is not here to express what he would do in our situation.  It is sufficient to say that, for Wesley, the episcopacy rested in the superintendency, pure and simple.  Since the superintendency now consists of the general superintendency, as well as the district superintendency, it is legitimate to view the district superintendency as an expansion of the episcopacy.  (In fact, even the UMC Discipline states that the district superintendency is an extension of the episcopacy.)

So, in my "reconsideration," I have concluded that the first of my three reasons for opposing the identification of district superintendents as bishops is not really valid. 

But what about the other two reasons?

Ecumenical/Fraternal Relations Within American Methodism, and The Consistent Structure of American Methodism

Here, I have argued that American Methodism, across the board, has identified general superintendents, not district superintendents, as bishops, and it would confuse matters in relationship with our Wesleyan/Methodist sisters and brothers if we began to do something so inconsistent as speaking of district superintendents as bishops.  -  (I have consistently been an active supporter for better relations within the Wesleyan/Methodist family.  By God's grace, I have played a significant role in the Church of the Nazarene joining the World Methodist Council, and I have actively sought the exploration of merger with The Wesleyan and Free Methodist churches, including the writing of General Assembly resolutions to that affect.  Plus, I'm a Nazarene pastoring a United Methodist Church!)  So, there is the ecumenical/fraternal relationship issue.

Related to that is the idea that identifying district superintendents as bishops would simply be inconsistent with how American Methodism has developed.

Again, I have not done the research on all of this, but . . .  -  At some point, early on, American Methodism developed the presiding elder as one who assisted the bishop in limited geographical areas.  Obviously, as the name implies, this person was an elder who "presided" over what were eventually identified as districts.  (Confessing, again, I don't know the details of this development in history).

Phineas Bresee, the principle founder of the Church of the Nazarene, served as a Methodist Episcopal presiding elder in both Iowa and California.

To this day, the African (American) Methodist denominations use the term presiding elder.  The UMC, however, along with the Free Methodists, Wesleyans and Nazarenes, use the terminology of superintendent.  All of the latter denominations (with the exception of the Free Methodists, I believe) now refer to them as district superintendents.  (I believe the Free Methodists just use the term superintendent, which, itself, is interesting in light of Wesley's ordinal.)  -  What is clear is that, even the denominations that use the term, bishop, do not identify district superintendents/presiding elders as bishops.  -  Therefore, to identify Nazarene district superintendents as bishops would be inconsistent with the rest of American Methodism.

But, is this a valid reason for opposing the identification of district superintendents with bishops?

It would, I think complicate some aspects of relationships.  However, the truth is, as consistent as the government structure has been among American Methodist denominations, there is still quite a lot of inconsistencies.  Let me list a few:  The use of the term bishop, or general superintendent.  The use of the term district superintendent, or presiding elder.  In the case of The Wesleyan Church, the use of the term minster instead of elder.  Deacons: some have them, some don't; for some they are transitional, for others permanent.  The appointment or call system.  General, jurisdictional, conference, and district levels; some have all, some have combined levels, some have eliminated certain levels.  Terms for bishops: some are for life, some for 4-year terms.  For some, the g.s. is elected at the General level, for others, at a different level.  Some denominations operate as a global denomination, others operate more like a federation from different world areas.

All of that is to say, while there is a good bit of consistency within the American Methodist structure, there are already considerable differences in the development of each denomination.

Then, there is the consideration of global Methodism.  In the "mother church" of British Methodism, there is no episcopacy (at least not in terms of a superintendency).  They maintain a conference that elects a president.  If one were to look at the Methodist Church in Nigeria, however, one would see a very developed structure that would remind one of Anglicanism with its dioceses and synods, bishops, archbishops and prelate, etc.  Global Methodism has clearly developed its structures in various ways.  In fact, it has been truly stated that the episcopacy is not essential to Methodist structure, but rather, if there is an essential nature to a Methodist structure it would be some form of the connectional system (which, of course, underlies American Methodists, as well).

It should also be stated that the means of oversight for general superintendents and district superintendents differ among the respective denominations.  -  I will not go into this too much, but, for example, United Methodist bishops are residential within their conference, while Nazarene general superintendents, though presiding at district assemblies, are not residential, but rather cover many districts throughout various world regions.  Further, it can be argued that a Nazarene district superintendent, in many ways, not only fulfills the role of the UM d.s., but also many of the roles of the UM bishop.

So, I am forced to conclude that, while identifying Nazarene district superintendents as bishops would be unique in America, it cannot be said that such uniqueness, alone, provides a valid reason for not doing so.  This is especially the case when it has been clearly demonstrated, even in the UMC Book of Discipline, that the district superintendency is an extension of the episcopacy.  In fact, chapter three of the UMC BoD, which covers bishops and district superintendents, is titled, "The Superintendency."

Well, upon further consideration, I have had to conclude that two of my arguments are really not sufficient to continue to deny that district superintendents are bishops.  So now I turn to my last major reason for opposing the identification of district superintendents as bishops.

The Authority to Ordain

Let me state a couple of matters up front.  I have no desire to discuss, at this point, Wesley's authority to ordain.  For the sake of this article, it is my position that orders derived from him are valid, and that Nazarene orders are valid, as well.  Anglican readers of this blog will disagree.  Roman Catholic readers with disagree with the validity of both of our orders.  -  This article is not about that.

Second, it is clear, from Wesley, and within Methodism, that the right to ordain, in terms of transmission of orders, comes from the order of elder, itself.  None of the American Methodists understand the episcopacy/superintendency to be a separate order.  (Some may wish to argue that it should be, but that is beyond the scope of this article.)  -  Wesley, in his letter to the American Methodists, said, "Lord King's account of the primitive church convinced me many years ago, that Bishops and Presbyters (Elders/Priests) are the same order, and consequently have the same right to ordain . . ."

That does not mean that, within the structure of our respective denominations, any elder can ordain at his/her whim.  Rather, it seems to be consistent among those Methodists that have a superintendency/episcopacy that the right to ordain lies with the general superintendent.  That is, by virtue of his/her representative office, the g.s. has the authority to ordain.  -  Now, I believe it is the case in all of the American Methodist denominations (though I am not certain of this) that other elders are involved in the laying on of hands.  -  [As an aside, I had the privilege to attend ordination services this summer for United Methodists, Nazarenes and Wesleyans.  The UM had representative elders join the bishop.  The Wesleyans had their (ordained) ordination board join the g.s.  And all of the Nazarene elders (and deacons!) present participated in laying on hands, with the g.s.]  -  However, it is the g.s./bishop, alone, who actually ordains.

Within the Church of the Nazarene, if the g.s. is unable to be at an ordination service he/she may designate another elder to ordain on his/her behalf, under the authority of the g.s.

Now, here is the issue.  I understand the authority to ordain to rest in the episcopacy (again, as an office, not necessarily as a separate order; I'm not arguing that, here).  And, I have no problem with the presiding general superintendent (the "senior superintendent," or, dare I say, "archbishop") having the right and authority to do the ordaining in a denomination, when present and presiding.  However, on those occasions when the g.s. is unable to be at the service of ordination, if we are to consider the d.s. to be a bishop, it would seem to me that she/he ought to be the one to ordain (rather than, simply an elder designated by the g.s.).

  -  [I would love to hear from some Anglicans who have bishops, archbishops, etc. about how the authority to ordain works in that kind of "ranking" (for lack of a better word.]

I do not mind a "ranking" of authority (e.g., the g.s. "out-ranks" the d.s., and, thus, is the one who ordains), but if the d.s. is a bishop, she/he ought to specifically be identified in that "rank" with authority to ordain.  -  [As another aside, I do not yet know what I think about how the regional director fits into all of this.  Frankly, I need to brush-up on exactly what that role is all about.  Truth be told, I don't think we shoud have ever developed regional directors.  Instead, I think we should have continued our pattern of expanding the number of general superintendents, but we now have what we have.  I do know that regional directors are not identified as superintendents, nor are they elected by an assembly like the d.s. and g.s.  -  But I will leave aside the regional director, for now.]

Since the d.s. is not given explicit authority to ordain in the absence of a g.s., I have difficulty viewing them as bishops . . . at that point.



Nazarene . . . Archbishops?!



Nevertheless, apart from the function of ordaining, I no longer see any reason to not identify district superintendents as bishops.  It is clear that they are a part of the superintendency/episcopacy/oversight of the church.  However, just as other episcopal structures include rankings, or levels, of episcopacy (e.g., bishops and archbishops), this conclusion would imply that the district superintendent would corospond to bishop, and the general superintendent would corospond to archbishop.  -  Now, if Nazarenes aren't willing to us the term bishop, they certainly aren't going to us the term archbishop!

Perhaps, as we look forward (especially in terms of what kinds of resolutions might be written for 2013!), it might be best not to try to put forward anything that uses the term bishop (and certainly not archbishop!).  -  After all, the last time I tried that (in a footnote, even!), it didn't make it past our district committee!  -  I would, however, like to see a new sentence placed at the opening of our section on the district superintendent, as well as the section on the general superintendent, that simply states that the episcopal element of our representative government is expressed in terms of the superintency (or something like that).  Such a statement (in both locations) would clearly state what many of us have been arguing all along.  It has support in other parts of the Manual.  It avoids the term, bishop (and certainly archbishop!), while retaining the terms, district and general superintendent.  Yet, it would make clear that our superintendency is our expression of the episcopacy.  (Still, frankly, I think it will take a lot of work to get this through district committees, not to mention G.A.)

The other thing that I think needs to happen is the changing of the paragraph that says that the g.s. can designate another elder to ordain under the authority of the g.s.  I think, if we are going to identify the d.s. as bishop, we have to get the d.s. specifically in that paragraph.  (With a corosponding paragraph under the duties of the d.s. that talks about ordaining in the absence of the g.s.)

So, here we are.  Upon "reconsideration," it seems that I have changed my views.  -  Should I have changed them?  Do my reasons for doing so make sense?  Ought the rest of American Methodism change their terminology, as well?  -  What do you think?

Nazarene Superintendency/Episcopacy Reconsidered, Part I: Setting the Stage

Nazarene General Superintendents

For those who have followed this blog over time, it will come as no surprise that I have consistently been outspoken when it comes to clearly identifying the Nazarene general superintendents as bishops.  -  I will discuss the basis for that in the midst of this first of two posts.

However, there are others in our midsts who have given the title bishop to our district superintendents.  -  I have opposed this view for three major reasons:

     1.) Wesley's Intent
     2.) Ecumenical/Fraternal Relations Within American Methodism, and The Consistent Structure of American Methodism
     3.) The Authority to Ordain

I will develop and address those three reasons in part two of my "reconsideration."

First, then:  Laying the basis and foundation of the Nazarene superintendency/episcopacy.

Most who read this blog will understand that the Church of the Nazarene is a Wesleyan-Holiness expression of Methodism.  It was born out of the 19th Century Holiness Movement.  Behind each of the major parent denominations that merged together in 1907 and 1908 to form the current denomination, there lay a number of schisms from the Methodist Episcopal Church and the Methodist Episcopal Church, South.  -  That is to say, unlike The Wesleyan Methodist Church or the Free Methodist Church, the Church of the Nazarene was not a schism, itself.  It was a uniting group, uniting many of the Wesleyan-Holiness people across the nation.  Some of those who united did not have a Methodist background, but they did accept the Wesleyan emphasis on holiness of heart and life, and they understood that they were joining a denomination that was essentially Methodist.  Further, in early leadership, theology/doctrine, government, etc., the Church of the Nazarene is clearly identifiable as Methodist*

John Wesley

The Nazarene superintendency, then, finds its roots in American Methodism, and beyond that, in the founder of Methodism, the Rev'd. John Wesley.





Francis Asbury

When Wesley sent his The Sunday Service of the Methodists in North America to the American Methodists, he did so via the hands of the Rev'd. Dr. Thomas Coke.  Coke, like Wesley, was a priest in the Church of England.  However, prior to his coming to America, Wesley laid hands on Coke and "ordained" (yes, ordained) him "Superintendent" for the Methodists in North America.**  He instructed Coke to ordain Francis Asbury, deacon, elder and superintendent.  The two were to be "general superintendents" of the Methodists in North America.  -  It was a short time later that (much to Wesley's frustration)  the two men began to use the term bishop in place of general superintendent.  -  And there were plenty of good reasons for them to do so.

First, it was clear that the term superintendent was simply another way of identifying the episcopacy.  The Greek word, itself, while usually translated as bishop, actually means overseer (i.e., one who superintends).  A superintendent, then, is an overseer or bishop.

This identification is clear in that, even when the term superintendent was being used, the newly formed denomination was called the Methodist Episcopal Church.  Further, the "ordination" rite used by Wesley for Coke, and used by Coke for Asbury, and printed in The Sunday Service, was simply the rite for making bishops in the Church of England.  The term, bishop, was simply replaced with the term, superintendent.



Charles Wesley



Also confirming this identity was Charles Wesley's scathing response:



So easily are bishops made

By man or woman's whim!

Wesley his hands on Coke hath laid,

But who laid hands on him
(As quoted in Manschreck's A History of Christianity, vol. 2, p. 294)

Charles clearly understood that Wesley had acted to make Coke a bishop.***

To this day, the United Methodist Church, in The Book of Discipline, identifies the bishop as a general superintendent.  (Another aside: despite Wesley's rite of "ordaining superintendents," American Methodism is united in stating that the office of bishop is just that, an office.  It is not understood to be a separate order from that of elder.)

When we look to the various (major) Methodist denominations in America, we discover that: the United Methodist Church (as the MEC) went from using the title general superintendent to the title bishop; the three African Methodist denominations have continued to use the term, bishop; the Free Methodists originally used the term, general superintendent, but changed it to bishop; The Wesleyan Church and the Church of the Nazarene, both use Wesley's term of general superintendent.

Phineas Bresee

Carl Bangs, in his book, Phineas F. Bresee: His Life in Methodism, the Holiness Movement, and the Church of the Nazarene, says that whenn Bresee chose the term general superintendent, he knew well that this was the Methodist term for "bishop."  -  Likely, this was a wise choice, in that one of the issues that holiness people had was the perceived abuse of power by Methodist Episcopal bishops.  Using the other term, not only harkened back to Wesley's language, it also distanced the Nazarene "episcopacy" from that of the Methodist Episcopal Church.  Additionally, unlike the Methodist bishops, who were elected for life, Nazarene general superintendents would serve four year terms.  They could be re-elected at each General Assembly, but they had to be re-elected in order to stay in that office.

The denominations mentioned, above, have each developed their understandings of the power, authority and role that their general superintendents/bishops.  The three African Methodist denominations are very similar to each other and the UMC.  The Wesleyans, Free Methodists, and Nazarenes are similar to each other (though there are differences, with the FMC leaning toward the episcopal side, and The Wesleyans leaning toward the congregational side of their connectional governments).

All of this should make it clear that, for Nazarenes (and other Wesleyan/Methodists in America), the superintendency is their episcopacy, and a general superintendent is a bishop.

Further, the Church of the Nazarene, itself, has identified the superintendency with the episcopacy.  Admittedly, this is not as prominant as I would like, and it has not always been in a way that I would like.  In fact, it often makes this identification as it is describing the limitations of our superintendency/episcopacy.  Nevertheless, the identification is made. 

For example, in recent editions of the Manual, our general superintendents' "Foreword" has stated, "The government of the Church of the Nazarene is distinctive.  In polity it is representative - neitherly purely episcopal nor wholly congregational" (p. 6, emphasis mine).  In the "Preamble" to our section on "Government," it is stated, "The government of the Church of the Nazarene is representative, and thus avoids the extremes of episcopacy on the one hand and unlimited congregationlism on the other" (p. 62, emphasis mine). 

In Called Unto Holiness: The Story of the Nazarenes: The Formative Years. vol. 1, it is recounted how there was a (perceived) need to ". . . 'correct any interpretation' that the church's government was episcopal in form."  (In other words, the government was understood by many to be episcopal!)  The resolution at that General Assembly (which passed!) stated, "We are not an episcopal church in the common sense of that term" (emphasis mine).  The statement went on to explain the limits of the superintendecy's oversight, stating that "Our pastors are the overseers of their particular charges" (p. 247).

Those Nazarene quotes should indicate that:  1.) The Nazarene form of government is not purely an episcopal form of government.  -  None of the American Methodist denominations have a purely episcopal form of government, but rather all have a modified episcopal government.  It is a connectional, representative government that includes an episcopacy.  Each of the denominations lean, to greater or lesser degrees, toward or away from the episcopal side of their respective government.  The UMC, AME, AMEZ and CME lean more heavily toward the episcopal side.  The FMC leans somewhat less in that direction, while The Wesleyan Church leans more toward the congregational side of their connectional/representative government.  Nazarenes are probably between the TWC and the FMC.  -  It should be noted that not even The Episcopal Church (Anglican) in the U.S.A. has a purely episcopal form of government (much to the confusion and frustration of some global south Anglicans).  -  2.)  The Nazarene form of government blends epicopal elements with congregational elements as it forms its representative government.  3.)  The episcopal side of the Nazarene government is expressed in its superintendency.

What should be clear from this post is that the superintendency within Wesleyan/Methodist denominations (including the Church of the Nazarene) constitutes their episcopacy.  It was not the intent of this post to argue that the Church of the Nazarene has an episcopal form of government.  Rather, it was the intent to show that the Nazarenes, like other American Methodists, have an episcopal element in their government structure.  Further, it was the intent to demonstrate that that episcopal element is expressed in our superintendency.  Specifially, it was the intent to demonstrate that general superintendents in Wesleyan/Methodist churches are to be understood as bishops.

In the second part of this "reconsideration," I will look at the view that district superintendents ought to be identified as bishops.  I will further discuss and "reconsider" my three major reasons for opposing this position, viz., 1.) Wesley's Intent; 2.) Ecumenical/Fraternal Relations Within American Methodism; and 3.) The Authority to Ordain.

____________________________________

*cf., especially, Our Watchword & Song: The Centennial History of the Church of the Nazarene, edited by Floyd Cunningham. (Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City. 2009).  -  This history emphasizes that Nazarenes not only have a Methodist heritage, but they maintain an underlying Methodist identity.  Nazarenes are Methodists.  - This emphasis was confirmed in emailed conversations with the book's editor and conversations with one of the contributing authors.

**I have no desire to get into the conversation of Wesley's authority to ordain.  That will take too much time and distract from the immediate subject at hand.  Suffice it to say, Wesley understood that elder and bishop were essentially the same order.  However, that did not mean that any elder could, at any time, simply choose to ordain.  Rather, for Wesley a number of things came together leading to his ordaining.  1.) God providentially giving him leadership of the entire Methodist movement (because of which, Wesley could say that he understood he was as much a New Testament bishop as the Archbishop of Canterbury).  2.)  The emergency situation of those in American not having access to the sacrament, and the refusal of Church of England bishops to act.  3.)  The fact that he was not interfering with the established government and realm of the Church of England.

***I should mention that, it is true, John Wesley was not happy that the two general superintendents were now calling themeslves bishops.  However, the evidence seems to indicate that the reasons for his negative response was not because he did not understand the superintendency to be the episcopacy.  Rather, it seems to have more to do with a fear of a sense of pride and, possibly, the additional trouble that he might experience from other Anglicans.

Additional WMC Information

Just wanted to post a couple of additional comments concerning the post, below, about the World Methodist Conference.
In the post, below, I listed a page link for news releases from the WMC.  That page now contains newsletter download links for Day One, Two, and Three.  -  Even though the Conference concludes tomorrow, I would encourage those interested to keep visiting that page for continued/late updates.

Also, the Facebook page has really been putting out a considerable amount of information and pictures, including the one, below, which shows the Church of the Nazarene banner among some of the other denominational banners.

Wesleyan-Holiness Mergers Not Taking Place Anytime Soon

Nazarene Communications Network (on Tuesday) made the following announcement on their facebook page:

"The Board of General Superintendents recently met with several sister denominations. Of interest was a special facilitated session to explore the many issues involved in a possible merger. We can report the group voted to not pursue merger at this time. However, leaders of these denominations are working on a global alliance. More information will be posted when made available."

No information was given as to the specific denominations involved in this special facilitated session.  Hopefully we will be able to find that information in the near future.

I have to say, I like the idea of a global alliance.  It is a step in the right direction.

As many of you will know, I sent a resolution to the last Nazarene General Assembly that would call us to approach The Wesleyan Church and then the Free Methodist Church in order to pursue possible merger.  The G.A. committee amended the resolution so as to no longer talk about merger, but rather closer partnering.

I would still like to see merger talks for two theological reasons.  First, I think we must take seriously Christ's prayer that we be one.  Second, I think it drastically undermines the holiness message when so many (relatively) small denominations claim "perfect love" as our distinguishing doctrine, and yet we cannot seem to get together.

However, rather than try to put forward another resolution for merger (especially in light of these recent developments), I would like to see the Church of the Nazarene, The Wesleyan Church, and the Free Methodist Church work together to develop a united set of Articles of Faith/Religion, a common preparation process for ordination, and a common ordinal (with recognition of each other's clergy) with a goal of having our General Assembly/Conferences declaring that, while we remain separate organizationally, nevertheless we understand ourselves to be essentially one church.

(I have specified the three denominations because we The Wesleyan and Free Methodist churches are most like the Church of the Nazarene.  We share, not only a Wesleyan-holiness commitment (like other Wesleyan-holiness denominations), but also similarities in government/structure, as well as a strong Methodist heritage.  All three of these denominations share membership in the National Association of Evangelicals, the Christian Holiness Partnership, the Wesleyan Holiness Consortium, and the World Methodist Council.)

The ACiNA's New Ordinal

Well, I'm not always up to date, but recently the Anglican Church in North America has approved their new ordinal.  It was actually approved on June 24.  Sorry I didn't catch this earlier!  (I personally find this to be timely, none-the-less, given a couple of posts that I have in the works and will hopefully have out soon.  It is also timely in that I have had the opportunity this summer to attend ordination services for three Wesleyan/Methodist denominations, viz., the United Methodist Church, the Church of the Nazarene, and The Wesleyan Church.)

The article related to the approval of this new ordinal can be found, here.  A PDF copy of the ordinal, itself, can be viewed, here.

Those who have been waiting for a new Book of Common Prayer for the newly formed (still forming?) denomination will have to wait a bit longer.  However, I'm sure they will find the ordinal to be of interest.

I know that many have been waiting to see how the new ordinal will deal with women's orders.  What kind of language will they use?  This has been of special concern for some of my friends in the Reformed Episcopal Church.  The following information, printed in "General Information and Notes . . ." is telling:

"Throughout the entire ordinal, language referring to the number of ordinands (he/them) has been placed in italics. This is to aid the presider in shifting plural language to singular, and singular to plural. This is also the case when referring to the gender of the ordinand (in the liturgies for the ordination of Deacons and Priests)."

Indeed, the singular masculine has been used in italics, throughout.  -  REC folks will be happy about that, but not so happy about the above quoted note.

This issue of women's orders is (as I understand it from some of my REC friends) a major issue that could determine whether the ACiNA will be able to hold together as a cohesive group.

In fact, the idea that the Archbishop presented in his recent address to the new denomination (viz., that members now think of themselves as ACiNA first and whatever originating group second) seems to me to be wishful thinking.  The fact that the REC, for example, continues to identify itself as the Reformed Episcopal Church and continues to elect a presiding bishop seems to imply that they still view themselves as REC first and ACiNA second.

How does an REC priest view things?  They have their own bishop, then the presiding bishop of the REC, and then the Archbishop of the ACiNA.  And how do the REC bishops view matters (and how are they viewed by others)?  They are all a part of the ACiNA bishops; equal with each other, but then there is their own presiding bishop.

Anyway, this post was supposed to simply report the new ordinal.  I confess that this latter stuff comes from an idea for a post that I was wanting to write, but never got around to writing.  -  Still any REC comments would be quite welcome!

Hope you enjoy the ordinal!

2011 World Methodist Council/Conference

The World Methodist Council is currently meeting in connection with the 20th World Methodist Conference in Durban, South Africa.  The Council has been meeting since August 1, and it will end its meeting today, August 3.  The Conference will begin tomorrow, August 4, and continue through August 8.

The World Methodist Conference takes place every five years.  In 2001, I had the privilege of serving the Church of the Nazarene as one of four official delegates to that year's Conference in Brighton, England.  The 2011 theme is "Jesus Christ - for the Healing of the Nations."

The WMC, having just received three new denominations into its membership, now has 77 member denominations in 135 countries.  (-  I have to say, I have always had a problem with that last number, because the Church of the Nazarene, itself, has a presence in over 156 world areas!  So, I'm not sure where they are getting their figures, but . . .)

For news releases throughout the Conference, you can visit this page at the World Methodist Council site.  (I would have had this information up earlier, but they just published news articles, today.)

There are seven World Methodist Council denominations in the United States.  They are:  the African Methodist Episcopal Church; the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church; the Christian Methodist Episcopal Church; the Church of the Nazarene; the Free Methodist Church; the United Methodist Church, and The Wesleyan Church.

Looking For Free Methodist Statistical Clarity

Stats, especially membership stats, for denominations are in interesting thing.  It seems that everyone wants to make their stats look as good as possible.  I remember when the Church of the Nazarene used to compare its world wide stats and included membership stats for the United States.  When the denomination began to get considerably larger outside the United States, it began to talk about the U.S. and Canada.  The latter can, of course, be justified in that it refers to the U.S./Canada Region.  Still, it appeared that there was an attempt to hold onto the dominance of the U.S. church in membership.

From what I have been able to see (and perhaps I just haven't found the correct report, yet!), the Free Methodists are going even further than Nazarenes (see below).  According to their World Missions Report at General Conference, their global membership is now near the 1 million mark (the actual number is 962,289 in 2009, up from 515,951 in 2000).  -  I confess, I was surprised and impressed by this.  -  I congratulate the Free Methodist Church for all that they are doing, by God's grace, for the sake of Christ.

However, when they break down their membership by . . . regions(?), they indicate that their membership for the U.S./U.K./Canada . . . Yes, U.S./U.K./Canada!  We are talking about the Free Methodist Church of North America, and they are including U.K. stats?!  Not to mention the fact that their global organization is more of a federation than, say, the way Nazarenes are organized.  So, there is the Free Methodist Church of North America, and there is the Free Methodist Church in Canada (with their own bishop and Manual).  Then there is the Free Methodist Church Europe (United Kingdom Conference) which indicates that they are "a part of the Free Methodist Church in North America (and is overseen by one of the three FMCNA bishops), so, okay, I guess that's why the stats are put together, but . . .

Anyway, the membership for the U.S./U.K./Canada is shown to be 453,836.  -  I wasn't surprised by that number.  I was shocked!  That is considerably higher than the last figures I recalled for their U.S. membership (I was thinking around 70,000).

I thought, "This can't be right."  (It would be great for them and the Kingdom if it were, but . . . ).  Then I thought, "How many members do they have in the U.K.?"

Well, I went to their denominational website, and under their statistical fast facts they say, as of June 3, 2009, there are 63,777 full members in the United States.  -  Now that is a little more like what I recalled (actually a little lower).  -  Which, again, raises the question:  how many members do they have in the U.K.?  In Canada?  Do they really have nearly 400,000 members in the U.K. and Canada?  Or, are they using a different category of membership over against the June 3 report of full members?

I do wish that denominations would simply give us a clear break down when doing their stats.  I would like to see clear U.S. stats compared to other parts of the world.  As I've said, the Free Methodists are not the only ones that are less than clear, at times.  My own denomination does it, at times, as well.  -  Then, of course, when comparing one denomination with another, there is the question of whether we are talking "apples to apples" or "apples to oranges" when it comes to what constitutes membership and how members are counted.

Still, the Free Methodists are to be congratulated as they near the 1 million member mark, globally.  -  May God's grace and anointing be upon them as they continue to spread the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the message of holiness of heart and life to the world!

The Free Methodist Church Prepares For General Conference

On July 13 - 17 the Free Methodist Church will meet in General Conference on the campus of Roberts Wesleyan College & Northeastern Seminary in Rochester, NY. 

The Free Methodist Church was organized in 1860 near Rochester, New York.  It arose out of the conflict within the Methodist Episcopal Church (now known as the United Methodist Church) over the Wesleyan interpretation of the doctrine of entire sanctification as well as issues such as slavery, free pews, secret societies, and freedom in worship.  Benjamin Titus Roberts was the denominations first bishop.  (Originally he was designated "general superintendent," Wesley's term for the episcopal office, but later the denomination chose to use the more historic designation of bishop.  -  A move I wish we, Nazarenes, would follow!)

The Free Methodist Church, like the Church of the Nazarene and The Wesleyan Church, is a Wesleyan-Holiness expression of Methodism.  Like the other two Wesleyan-Holiness churches, the Free Methodist Church is a affiliated with the Christian Holiness Partnership (which is no longer organized), the Wesleyan Holiness Consortium, the National Association of Evangelicals, and the World Methodist Council.  The three denominations have strong fraternal connections.

Like most (at least American) denominations in the Wesleyan/Methodist tradition, the Free Methodist Church meets for their General Conference every four years.  This Conference marks the denomination's "sesquicentennial."

The General Conference can be followed a number of ways.  There is a website set up for the Conference, here.  Additionally, portions of the Conference will be available via live stream.  Information about that, as well as other General Conference information can be found at the General Conference website.   Of particular interest for many will be the various resolutions provided on the website.  For readers of this blog, you may find interesting the resolution on "open communion," which has already been rejected.

I encourage the readers of this blog to keep our Free Methodist brothers and sisters in our prayers during this important Conference.

Two Prayers For Our Nation

I should have posted these, yesterday.  However, since I was out of town, celebrating the 4th, I didn't have the chance!  Nevertheless, here are two prayers for our Nation. 

Both of these prayers come from the Book of Common Prayer (1979).  The first is the Collect for Independence Day, July 4.  The second is a Collect For the Nation.

Lord God Almighty, in whose Name the founders of this

country won liberty for themselves and for us, and lit the

torch of freedom for nations then unborn: Grant that we and

all the people of this land may have grace to maintain our

liberties in righteousness and peace; through Jesus Christ our

Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one

God, for ever and ever. Amen.

 

Lord God Almighty, you have made all the peoples of the

earth for your glory, to serve you in freedom and in peace:

Give to the people of our country a zeal for justice and the

strength of forbearance, that we may use our liberty in

accordance with your gracious will; through Jesus Christ our

Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one

God, for ever and ever. Amen.

Freedom to Worship Our God

This Sunday is July 3, just one day removed from Independence Day.  Recognizing that, I want to give thanks for the privilege of living in America.  I am thankful for all of our freedoms.  I recognize that there are many places on this planet where Christians, in particular, are not free to gather to worship God.  And, I enjoy the festivities that come with the celebration of our American independence.  I enjoy the picnics and parades, the patriotic music, the community gatherings, and, of course, the fireworks. 

Having said that, every pastor must deal with the question of what to do on the Sunday nearest the Fourth of July.  Now, for some pastors, there is no question at all.  Some will be doing special patriotic services.  They will do these without a second thought.  Some will be planning to use such patriotic services as an evangelistic tool; promoting and advertising their patriotic service in order to get new people in.

I'm not one of those pastors.

Let me be quick to say, I think that it is fine, good, and even appropriate for churches to celebrate the Fourth together.  I think that it is fine, good, and even appropriate to have a time of musical celebration; a special service of sorts; maybe a choir cantata, or a service of patriotic hymns, or even a special preaching service (certainly it is good to have a pitch-in dinner!).  -  I just have a tremendous problem with the idea of such a service taking the place of the time when the Church gathers to worship our God.

I have seen it happen time and time again.  I have come away from such services recognizing that we have not praised or worshipped God at all.  We have, instead, "praised America."  Oh, we have invoked God in both prayers and in music, but God is almost always, exclusively invoked as a means of blessing this nation which we are engaged in praising.  -  Just take a quick look at the patriotic "hymns" found in our hymnals and see how God is used.

Let me use the Sing to the Lord hymnal from my denomination (Church of the Nazarene).  It lists eight hymns in the "Patriotic" section.  One is "O Canada!", and one is "God Save the Queen."  I think it is fair to skip those two!  -  Two others, "Eternal Father, Strong to Save" and the national hymn, "God of Our Fathers," are likely not sung during "worship" on (or near) Independence Day or Memorial Day (at least that has been my experience).  -  However, that leaves these well known hymns:  "Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory" (the Battle Hymn), "My Country, 'Tis of Thee," "America, the Beautiful," and "The Star-spangled Banner."

With a few exceptions, I enjoy singing those songs outside of the worship setting.  However, let's take a quick look at them in connection to the setting of Christian worship.

"Mine Eyes . . ." is, of course, the "Battle Hymn."  This song, does, indeed, invoke God.  "Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord . . ."  Yet, the song combines the purposes of God with the march of a nation at war.  God's wrath is being poured out, as "His truth is marching on."  In the final verse, we are reminded of Christ's birth, His glory that transfigures us, and His death "to make men holy."  However, the latter is expressed in the line that says, "As He died to make men holy, let us die ("live" in times of peace) to make men free, While God is marching on." 

Please hear me on this.  While profoundly grateful to those who have been willing to die for our freedom, I must note that, unlike Christ who died to make us holy, these brave men and women are not simply going forth to die.  They are willing to die, if need be.  They are putting their lives on the line.  However, as they do so, they are also going forth to defend us, to fight, to kill the enemy.  While their willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice deserves our profound and deep gratitude, it is difficult for me to sing a song in the context of worship that intends to make the comparison between Christ who died to make us holy (while calling us to love our enemies), and those who are willing to die while fighting to kill our enemies.

I know, I know!  -  But please remember, we are trying to look at these songs from within the context of Christian Worship, and I find this to be problematic for Christian worship.

When we look to "My Country, "Tis of Thee," I think the title says it all.  We are singing, not of God, but of our country.  I like this song, and I like to sing it at patriotic gatherings, but ought we really sing a song in which the first three of four verses never mention God, but are focused on the praise of our country, and then call this Christian worship?  When we get to the fourth verse, it does sing to God.  But, immediately upon addressing God, we discover that the purpose of our singing to God is so that God will bless and protect our country of which God is declared to be "our King!"  -  So the entire focus of the song is on praising our nation, with the final verse asking our nation's King to bless and protect our nation.  -  Again, I like to sing the song in patriotic settings, but is this really a song fitting for the worship of God?

"America, the Beautiful" is a bit better than the last song in terms of invoking God.  Each verse praises America, and each verse ends asking God's various blessings upon America.  -  I like the song, but it is clear that the focus of praise is America.  God is recognized.  God is seen as needed.  God is invoked.  And I think that it is appropriate to ask for God's blessings upon the nation.  Yet, God is not the One who is praised and worshipped.

Finally, "The Star-spangled Banner" focuses upon our nations flag in the context of war.  The first two of three verses says nothing about God.  The final verse does, and it does so in a way that may be somewhat more fitting for worship in that it acknowledges that our nation is "heav'n-rescued," and it calls us to "Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserved us a nation!"  -  Of all of the hymns that we have looked at, this is the only one which actually praises God.  This verse goes on to declare that our motto is, "In God is our trust!"

Now, my point in all of this is not to "rag on" these patriotic hymns.  As I have said (with some slight exceptions), I like to sing these songs.  I enjoy singing them in a patriotic setting.  I am thankful that God is invoked in such a patriotic setting.  I think that it is fine and good for a church to have a time when the people of the church can come together and celebrate our freedom and our nation.  I am just not willing to set aside our worship of God in order to praise our nation.  -  To do so, for me, would run awfully close to idolatry.  (But then again, please understand, that I am not willing to have gospel singing groups in for a "concert" in place of the worship of God's people, either.  I'm happy to have them on a Sunday night, or I am even willing to let them sing the "special" or offertory during worship, but I do not want them to take away the people's work of activelyworshipping God.)

In fact, I think it is at this point of the praise of our nation that the church in America comes the closest to overt idolatry.

I must confess, I was frustrated recently while attending a "Camp Meeting" service at an historic holiness Camp Meeting tabernacle in our area.  It was an open-air tabernacle.  On the front wall were the familiar words, "Holiness Unto the Lord."  But, as we sang one of the gospel songs, I found my self looking up to gaze on the cross above the pulpit . . . only there was no cross there.  Instead, the American flag was stretch open above the pulpit.  Oh, the pulpit was designed with a cross on the front, but no cross on the wall, just the American flag.  A cross could have added so much meaning as we were singing, but the flag only drew my focus away from God.

Of course, I have seen the pictures of the old "Glory Barn" of P. F. Bresee's day.  Bresee was the first general superintendent (bishop) and the principle founder of the Church of the Nazarene.  The "Glory Barn" was home for Los Angeles Nazarenes.  And I have seen the pictures of all of the American flags draped everywhere in celebration of Memorial Day and Independence Day.

One nation under God?

These days, I drive around and see churches, not just with American flags displayed, but with American flags flying over Christian flags.  It is clear the symbolism of flying flags.  It is also clear the symbolism of which flag goes on top.  In America, if a flag is flown on the same pole as the American flag, it is always flown under the American flag BECAUSE our ultimate/primary allegiance is to our nation.  But for Christians, our primary/first/ultimate allegiance is to Christ.  Nevertheless, to fly a Christian flag below any national flag is to symbolize that our allegiance to Christ is secondary to our allegiance to that nation.  That may not be what anyone intends to say, but that is the symbolism.  -  And that sounds a lot like idolatry.

I think that it is appropriate to be mindful of the holiday during our time of prayer, and perhaps even in the sermon, so long as it is done in a way that does not take the focus away from the God whom we worship.

What I would suggest is to encourage churches to plan to stay after worship for a pitch-in/pot luck dinner on the grounds, with games, followed by a patriotic service and celebration.  During that time of celebration, I would joyously encourage the singing of patriotic songs.  But when the Church gathers to worship, if I have any say in the matter, we will gather to worship God.

(As I close, I will confess, this year I'm on vacation over this weekend, so I am free from having to engage in this battle.  And honestly, I am thankful that I don't have to deal with it.  -  Who knows what I will get when I go to worship, Sunday.  I do hope, though, that I am able to worship God.)

Feel free to share your thoughts, but please try to be Christlike in doing so!

A Few Changes

I have just finished making a few changes in the various links on the sidebar of this blog.  Unfortunately, I felt that, if my blog links were to be helpful, some of those links should be removed due to their inactivity.  -  I know that such a charge could be leveled against me, at times.  However, the links that I removed have been dormant far longer than I have allowed between my posts. 

Now, if one of my readers find that I have removed your blog link, don't worry.  I have saved all of them in a file, so I can keep track of them.  It is my hope that they will become more active, so I can include them on this blog once again.

In the meantime, I have discovered a few more links, which I have added to the sidebar.  Some of them are quite new to me.  Time will tell how valuable they may be.  I would encourage you to check them out.

First, under the Nazarene Links, you will find Evangelism/Vital Church Renewal.  This is a part of the official site for the Church of the Nazarene, but I think that it will be of value to non-Nazarenes, as well.

Under the Anglican Links I have added a link to Bishop Todd Hunter's site.  +Hunter is a bishop in the Anglican Mission in America.  I am not personally familiar with +Hunter, but I have seen his name listed on a number of Anglican sites I have visited.

Under the Blog Roll, I have added three new links.  Adiaphora is the blog site of Fr. Chris Larimer.  Chris+ is a priest in the Anglican Church in North America.  He is from the Louisville, Kentucky area (just across the river from me), which is how he first caught my attention.  He has recently been installed as Rector of Holy Apostles Anglican Church in Elizabethtown, KY.  -  I think he stands on the Calvinist side of the tracks, but I'm willing to give him a bit of a pass for the time being. :0) 

Next, I've added a link to Confessions of a Closet Anglican by the Rev'd. Tim Powers.  Tim+ is a United Methodist pastor serving in the same Annual Conference as myself (the Indiana Annual Conference).  Like myself, Tim+ is also a member of the Order of St. Luke.

Finally, under the Blog Roll, I added a link to Old Worship New.  The goal of this blog is, as the title implies, viz., to make old worship (liturgical worship) new!  This blog is brand new to me.  I'll be checking it out over the next few weeks.  It appears to be written by three Lutherans with Masters of Sacred Music degrees.

I have also added a link,  under the Other Links of Interest section, for The Book of Common Prayer Online.  (I know that there are other links to the various Books of Common Prayer, and I would be happy for readers to post them in the comments section!)

In addition to all of these, I have invited folks who are members of my Wesleyan/Anglican Facebook group to post links to related blogs.  If you are on Facebook, but haven't joined the Wesleyan/Anglican group, I invite you to do so.  There has been some great discussions taking place on that group page in recent days.

If you have a blog that is related to Wesleyan/Methodist, Anglican, Wesleyan/Anglican, or liturgical kinds of things, and you are not already listed on my side bar, feel free to post them in a comments.  I won't guarantee that they will be listed on the sidebar, but I'm happy for you to plug your blog (if its subject matter is related to one of these areas).

God's Presence and Grace in the Eucharist

When we come to the Table of the Lord to receive the Holy Sacrament known as the Eucharist (or the Lord's Supper, or Holy Communion), we are called to partake of the body and blood of Christ our Savior and Lord.  In the West, in particular, the Church over the centuries has tried to specify how, exactly, the partaking of the the bread and cup are a partaking of the body and blood of Christ.  (The East has not been so interested in such determinations.) 

There have been four primary understandings concerning this issue.

  The Roman Catholic position is called transubstantiation.  While there has been some relatively recent reinterpretation of how to talk about transubstantiation by contemporary Catholic theologians, the position basically means that the substance of the bread and wine are changed into the substance of the physical body and blood of Christ during the prayer, while the "accidents" remain those of bread and wine.  This view relies on Aristotle's distinction between substance and attributes, though, as I indicated, some more recent Catholic theologians have begun to reinterpret this doctrine along relational and personalistic lines, rather than Aristotilean lines).

The Lutheran position is called consubstantiation.  In this understanding, the bread and wine do not miraculously become the body and blood of Christ.  They remain bread and wine, but the presence of Christ is said to be "in, with, and under the elements."  Therefore, in receiving the bread and wine, one also receives the body and blood of Christ.

Ulrich Zwingli's view (taken up by many Evangelical churches) is called the memorialist view.  For Zwingli, the bread and wine signify  Christ's body and blood.  The sacrament (or ordinance) does not convey salvific grace, but rather it is a sign of grace that has already been received by faith.  The Table, then reminds us of the redemption won by the death of Christ.  However, to be fair (and many who hold this position do not understand this aspect), it is not simply a "mental" remembering.  Rather, it is a remembrance by reenactment.  (In reality, all of the positions would agree that the Sacrament is a memorial.  The other positions would say, however, that it is much more than just a memorial.)

Calvin's position is called spiritual presence.  Calvin's position rejects the Roman and Lutheran position, on the one hand, and Zwingli's position on the other hand.  Like the Roman and Lutheran positions, Calvin held that Christ is truly present and actually feeds believers with His body and blood.  At issue is how this happens.  Since it is believed that Christ is bodily present in heaven, He is seen to be spiritually present by the Holy Spirit, so that the Supper is a true communion with Christ, who feeds us with His body and His blood.  Rob Staples quotes Calvin as saying, "Now, if anyone should ask me how this takes place, I shall not be ashamed to confess that it is a secret too lofty for either my mind to comprehend or my words to declare.  And, to speak more plainly, I rather experience than understand it."  (Emphasis mine.  And it should be said that for all of this, I am relying heavily upon Rob Staples, cf. below.)

Of these four positions, the Wesleyan view is most similar to that of Calvin's, though there are some differences.  (Some Wesleyan denominations, particularly the Church of the Nazarene, may, unfortunately, sound Zwinglian in their Articles of Faith, but one must view terms like "sacrament" within a self-professed Wesleyan context, and one must take into consideration other statements and the ritual, itself, which affirms that the position is not merely Zwinglian.)  Wesley rejected the other three positions and held to a real, spiritual presence of Christ in the sacrament.  However, Calvin talks about Christ's body being present in terms of "power," mediated by the Holy Spirit, while Wesley speaks of the presence of Christ in terms of His divinity.

Like Calvin, Wesley was not so concerned as to explain the how of Christ's presence.  Instead, he was concerned that the faithful experience the reality of Christ's presence.  -  Such an emphasis is expressed in the following two Wesley hymns taken from J. Ernest Rattenbury's, The Eucharistic Hymns of John and Charles Wesley:

57

1. O the depth of love Divine,

Th' unfathomable grace!

Who shall say how bread and wine

God into man conveys!

How the bread His flesh impart,

How the wine transmits His blood,

Fills His faithful people's hearts

With all the life of God!

2. Let the wisest mortal show

How we the grace receive,

Feeble elements bestow

A power not theirs to give.

Who explains the wondrous way,

How through these the virtue came?

These the virtue did convey,

Yet still remain the same.

3. How can heavenly spirits rise,

By earthly matter fed,

Drink herewith Divine supplies,

And eat immortal bread?

Ask the Father's Wisdom how;

Him that did the means ordain!

Angels round our altars bow

To search it out in vain.

4. Sure and real is the grace,

The manner be unknown;

Only meet us in Thy ways,

And perfect us in one.

Let us taste the heavenly powers;

Lord, we ask for nothing more:

Thine to bless, 'tis only ours

To wonder and adore.

And . . .

59

1. God incomprehensible

Shall man presume to know;

Fully search Him out, or tell

His wondrous ways below?

Him in all His ways we find

How the means transmit the power -

Here He leaves our thoughts behind,

And faith inquires no more.

2. How He did these creatures raise,

And make this bread and wine

Organs to convey His grace

To this poor soul of mine,

I cannot the way descry,

Need not know the mystery;

Only this I know - that I

Was blind, but now I see.

3. Now mine eyes are open'd wide,

To see His pardoning love,

Here I view the God that died

My ruin to remove;

Clay upon mine eyes He laid,

(I at once my sight received,)

Bless'd, and bid me eat the bread,

And lo! my soul believed.

_______________________________

As indicated, above, much of this post has drawn from Rob Staples' Outward Sign and Inward Grace: The Place of Sacraments in Wesleyan Spirituality. Beacon Hill P. Kansas City, MO. 1991.

Ascension Day

Today, forty days into the Easter Season, is the day  the Church celebrates the Ascension of our Risen Lord.  In celebration of the Ascension of Christ, I have printed a hymn, below, from William C. Dix (1866), followed by the Collect for Ascension Day from the Book of Common Prayer:

Alleluia! Sing to Jesus

1. Alleluia! sing to Jesus!

His the scepter, His the throne.

Alleluia! His the triumph,

His the victory alone.

Hark! the songs of peaceful Zion

Thunder like a mighty flood:

"Jesus out of ev'ry nation

Has redeemed us by His blood."

2. Alleluia! not as orphans

Are we left in sorrow now.

Alleluia! He is near us;

Faith believes, nor questions how.

Tho' the clouds from sight received Him

When the forty days were o'er,

Shall our hearts forget His promise:

"I am with you evermore"?

3. Alleluia! bread of Heaven,

You on earth our food and stay!

Alleluia! here the sinful

Flee to You from day to day.

Intercessor, Friend of sinners,

Earth's Redeemer, plead for me,

Where the songs of all the sinless

Sweep across the crystal sea.

(Sung to HYFRYDOL)

Grant, we pray, Almighty God, that as we believe your only-begotten Son our Lord Jesus Christ to have ascended into heaven, so we may also in heart and mind there ascend, and with him continually dwell; who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.  Amen.