A Perspective on the Ecclesiology of John Wesley

by W. Joseph Stallings

W. Joseph Stallings (M.Div., Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary) is a DMin student in the Wesleyan Practices track at ATS. A form of this paper was presented as a class assignment in a class on The Ecclesiology of John Wesley.

Introduction

The ecclesiology of John Wesley is both simple and complex, and is at once both mutable and unchanging. It is simple in that it is at one level a quest to rediscover and re-implement the foundations of the true primitive and apostolic Church. Wesley simply wanted the Church of his day to be as much as possible like the Church of earliest origin. Likewise, his ecclesiology is complex in that he came to understand over time and through powerful existential experience that the reality of the Church is profoundly missionary and pneumatic in nature (cf. Acts 1–2), and therefore required the ongoing development of contextually responsive methods to perpetuate its evangelistic endeavor. Furthermore, as to mutability, the missionary focus—coupled with the necessities of practical divinity—compelled Wesley to take certain “extraordinary” actions for the sake of propagating the Christian Gospel. In this vein, although he tried valiantly to carry out the missio Dei within the institutional parameters of the Church of England, Wesley came to believe that ultimately nothing was truly ecclesially “sacred” except the seeking and saving of lost souls (cf. Wood 2007, 84—“You have nothing to do but save souls. Therefore spend and be spent in this work.”). And, yet, at its very constitution, the Wesleyan theology of the Church was ultimately rested upon two mighty pillars set absolutely and uncompromisingly in (Anglican) stone. It was from these two inseparable and immovable cornerstones—the Word and the Sacrament—that sprung forth every extension and missional adaptation of Wesley’s ecclesiological divinity. Throughout his entire life, Wesley held strongly and without deviation to Article XIX of the Church of England which states: “The visible Church of Christ is a Congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly administered according to Christ’s Ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same” (cf. Oh 2008, 256). In August 1785, referring to Article XIX (above), Wesley affirmingly wrote: “Here is a true logical definition, containing both the essence and the properties of a church” (Jackson 1996, 13:254), i.e., Word and Sacrament are the functional “marks” of the Church (cf. Snyder 1996, 74). While he learned out of missional necessity to adapt his functional ecclesiology to meet changing circumstances (Oh 2008, 125), it was because of his powerful belief in the tandem significance and efficacy of both Word and Sacrament that Wesley adapted: the Word had to be proclaimed in every place, and the people required access to the Sacrament in every place.

In Wesley’s understanding, Word and Sacrament were much more than just formal identifying characteristics (or “rites”) of the Church; they were the absolutely necessary foundations for the continued existence and functional life of the Body of Christ. In other words, Wesley’s many innovative adaptations were for the express purpose of the continual and maximal propagation of Word and Sacrament because Word and Sacrament are the central essence of the Church’s being and missional praxis. It was through these twin pillars that sinners were sought, taught, grown, strengthened, and discipled into the fullness of Christian faith and maturity. 1 The practical ecclesiology of Wesley was built around these two indispensable bulwarks.

The First Wesleyan Ecclesiological Pillar: The Word Wesley’s Scriptural Renewal Ecclesiology

First, the Word of God is extremely significant in Wesley’s Church paradigm. It was from the Holy Scriptures—God’s Word-in-text—that Wesley earnestly and primarily sought to find the details with which to renew the Church of England through the reformulation of the apostolic Church as revealed in the book of Acts (Keefer 1984, 24–32; cf. Payne 2014, 16; Hildebrandt 1996, 47–49ff). It was from his study of Acts that Wesley developed “a dynamic concept of ecclesiology” complete with “pragmatic innovations and discoveries” (Payne 2014, 16). For instance, as he read such texts as Acts 2:42 (“And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of the bread and the prayers.”), etc., Wesley began to develop a view (“an ideal”) of the depth of devotion and practical operations of grace and faith within the primitive Church (Oh 2008, 250). When compared with the Acts Church, he saw in his denomination only an institutional shell devoid of the same Gospel passion and spiritual power. Wesley longed for its biblical apostolic restoration (Hunter 1988, 40–41). He dedicated himself “to the rediscovery of … ‘primitive’ or ‘scriptural Christianity’ ” (Chilcote 2002, 23).

Wesley’s Scriptural Synthesistic Ecclesiology

His personal quest to get back to primitive roots took him, particularly in his early years, through a myriad of diverse influences, including (inexhaustively) such things as Puritanism (Oh 2008, 61–77) and Pietism (Oh 2008, 112–113), as well as the Patristic Fathers (Wood 2007, 47–50). However, on looking back at his life and ministry in 1789 (just two years before his passing), Wesley said this: “From a child I was taught to love and reverence the Scripture, the oracles of God; and, next to these, to esteem the primitive Fathers, the writers of the first three centuries. Next after the primitive Church, I esteemed our own, the Church of England” (Jackson 1996, 13:272; cf. Wood 2007, 46–47). Note that the Scriptures remained the primary foundation and core of Wesley’s Christian understanding; the others—i.e., the Patristics and the Anglican doctrine, etc.—served as influential grids and tools for his scriptural interpretation, but with the Scriptures themselves holding ultimate authority. As Snyder summates so well:

He was at once a High Churchman and a Pietist; a traditionalist and an innovator; a biblicist and a experientialist. But he was always clear as to the priority of Scripture, especially from 1738 on, and his experiential emphasis was guarded from pure subjectivism not only by his respect for Scripture but also by his emphasis on the witness of the Spirit, the work of the Holy Spirit testifying to and confirming the Word in present experience.… Wesley’s conception of the church grew out of this matrix. (Snyder 1996, 71)

Wesley’s synthesistic understanding of theology enabled him to take very diverse, even seemingly contradictory concepts, and combine them together into a very workable (and scriptural) system. Ecclesiologically, he was ingeniously able to both preserve and irradiate (Snyder 1996, 72). Wesley had a unique capacity to reach deeply into the variant Christian traditions of both the past and present and claim what was apostolic and good; also, he could seamlessly add, subtract, and modify for the sake of a biblically-based praxis of mission. Following his evangelical conversion, Wesley’s ministry emphasis began to become less institutional-oriented and much more pragmatic (Oh 2008, 164–172). For Wesley, the Church certainly consisted of a traditional rule with which to reasonably honor, yet always one to be honored within the understanding that the Church also consisted of Christian believers indwelt by the Spirit of God—believers who make up the dynamic and living Body of Christ with a very real Christ-ordained mission to accomplish (Snyder 1996, 68–73). For Wesley, the Word was truth and the truth must always issue in mission. And for Wesley, also, mission remained Scripture-grounded and Spirit-driven. The gradual achievement of this understanding enabled Wesley to become much more flexible in ministry application.

Wesley’s Scriptural Proclamation Ecclesiology

The fact that Wesley was a self-described “man of one book” (Jackson 1996, 5:3) cannot be overemphasized. It was from the Bible that Wesley ultimately found the mission and essential message of life—namely justification by grace through faith—that he and his evangelistic army of Methodist preachers fervently proclaimed. At his evangelical conversion at Aldersgate (1738), Wesley came to know and experience this message firsthand. From that point on, the truth he knew personally became the truth he proclaimed communally (Brooks 2009, 373; Jackson 1996, 5:4). In fact, the scriptural Gospel that had saved Wesley’s soul cried out to be proclaimed as his personal witness for the salvation of others. As Coleman says, “For Wesley, Gospel witnessing issues from experiential knowledge of our living Lord and Savior” (Coleman 2006, 26). It became wonderfully visible to the masses that Wesley was able to personally identify with their plight. This, in the words of Outler, “stirred forlorn men to a real ‘hearing of faith’ ” (Outler 2000, 19). From his Word-mediated existential encounter with the living God and a new heart “strangely warmed” in the power of the Spirit came a raging fire of revivalism that sought “to spread scriptural holiness over the [entire] land,” i.e., the entire Earth (Wainwright 2009, 346). While he learned that methods of communication may be constantly—even in “vile” manner—adapted for effectiveness, the eternal kerygma of the Gospel itself, i.e., the basic substance of that which is presented and communicated, would never change because it came forth from the very character and nature of God Himself. For Wesley, all Scripture was considered to be the very Word of the living God (Brooks 2009, 372–373) that demanded to be proclaimed. In every sense, Wesley was truly a scriptural evangelical who really cared about the lost souls and desolate lives of his hearers. Therefore, a Wesleyan ecclesiology must certainly mean a Church grounded in missional evangelicalism.

Wesley’s Scriptural Soteriological Ecclesiology

From Aldersgate onward, Wesley’s understanding of the Word went from being innately institutional and impersonally philosophical to being overtly soteriological and flamingly missional. As Stokes strongly asserts in classic Wesleyan fashion:

The whole aim of Scripture is to lead us step by step to repentance, faith, good works, as an everlasting destiny through Jesus Christ. But this requires our response to God’s great salvation offered in Jesus Christ. (Stokes 1981, 90)

Wesley began to see the way of salvation, i.e., “the way to heaven” (Jackson 1996, 5:3), running through every verse and pericope of Scripture; reaching and saving lost souls and turning them into faithful, practicing disciples of Jesus Christ became the central emphasis of his preaching and teaching. In Wesley, the Word-in-text is truth that by its very nature demands a response from its hearers. Wesley was committed to seeking that response. Thus, the full message of the Bible—viz., the condition of human depravity combined with the condemning law which prescribes the saving and redemptive Gospel of Christ—must be boldly and passionately proclaimed to the ends of the Earth (Brooks 2009, 374). As it had been personally applied to him at Aldersgate, Wesley became impassioned with the understanding that the Great Commission must be fulfilled at all costs. The eternal destiny of the masses depended on it. As Outler clarifies, “His passion for truth had been transformed into compassion for persons” (Outler 2000, 19). Wesley came to serve and to preach, not in order to dodge hell and judgment as had been his pre-Aldersgate motivation, but rather out of self-identification and pure love (Snyder 1996, 88–89; cf. Jackson 1996, 8:3.2) for those who need so desperately “God’s great salvation offered in Jesus Christ” (Stokes 1981, 90).

Wesley’s Scriptural Innovative Ecclesiology

It was because of such an immoveable and unchanging foundation of the Church: the Word—now for Wesley set more than ever within an urgent soteriological milieu—that caused him to make certain moves that (at the time) were considered to be extremely unorthodox. He became much more focused on the mission of the Word and much more keenly aware of the work and fruits of the Holy Spirit in the fulfillment of that mission (Oh 2008, 165). After Aldersgate, Wesley could not contain his divine call to proclaim divine truth, even if it meant clashing with certain institutional traditions. As a good churchman, he did everything he could to fulfill his ministry through the Anglican system. However, due largely to his evangelical message, Wesley was systematically disallowed the opportunity to preach from most Anglican pulpits (Wood 2007, 94). Thus, having nowhere else to go, and following the urging of George Whitefield (Wood 2007, 100–101: cf. Jackson 1996, 1:185), Wesley out of necessity “submitted to be more vile” (Jackson 1996, 1:185) and preach the Word wherever he found opportunity, even if it was in the open-air and with indiscriminate disregard for formal parish boundaries (Snyder 1996, 91). Reaching the world became his supreme mission; the world truly became his parish. As he began to see the amazing fruit of such “radical” actions, Wesley’s innovative boldness became amplified more and more. In time, with great evangelical zeal, he provided for the increased proclamation of the Word through the implementation of such things as trained lay preachers and teachers (Heitzenrater 2012, 43), itinerant evangelism (Wood 2007, 121), the use of “preaching houses” (Heitzenrater 2012, 42), distribution of tracts and pamphlets (Hunter 1988, 55), the practice of extemporaneous preaching (and prayer) (Wood 2007, 71; Oh 2008, 73), preaching in fields, in town squares, on street corners, etc. (Wood 2007, 107–116), even allowing female “exhorters” (Heitzenrater 2012, 44)! Furthermore, unlike Whitefield (Hunter 1988, 126), he also provided for the retention and development of seekers and converts through the widespread use of mandated societies and classes. Wesley was determined to both evangelize and to disciple people. The goal was to derive more than a simple decision for Christ, but also to cultivate a lifelong commitment to Christ (Jackson 1996, 8:310).2 Hildebrandt later affirmed what Wesley already knew: “Missionary Christianity is the synthesis of scriptural and practical Christianity” (Hildebrandt 1996, 47). Wesley, as he saw the Holy Spirit moving and obviously working beyond the “regular” boundaries (as, for instance, the Spirit did in Acts 2 and 4), began to utilize whatever worked in order to advance the cause of Jesus Christ and the biblical message of His salvation (Wood 2007, 115).

The Second Wesleyan Ecclesiological Pillar: The Sacrament Wesley’s Sacramental Sacerdotal Ecclesiology

Second, the Holy Sacrament was also absolutely essential to Wesley’s ecclesiology. Wesley lived and died an Anglican priest. From the day he took his orders until the day he breathed his last, he held strongly to Article XXV of the Church of England (as stated in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer), which reads:

Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God’s good will towards us, by which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him.… There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord. (Wainwright 2009, 343)

Wesley was a High Church Anglican and an unfailing and completely avowed sacramentalist (Oh 2008, 145; Snyder 1996, 102). This carried two major implications: [1] the Sacraments were considered to be a means of grace and thus much more than a token or symbolic gesture reflecting a contemporary connection of some recollective sort to certain acts of God in the historic past (Snyder 1996, 102–103; cf. 1 Corinthians 10:16–17, 11:23–26); and [2] the Sacraments therefore required episcopally-ordained and duly appointed administrators (Snyder 1996, 103; cf. 1 Timothy 4:14; 2 Timothy 1:6). Despite all of his evolving pragmatic notions, Wesley always and indisputably held to an unflagging sacramental sacerdotalism (Oh 2008, 259).

Wesley’s Sacramental Body of Christ Ecclesiology

Wesley clearly understood that the essential ministry of the Word had to be coupled with the essential ministry of the Table for maximum and effective efficacy for the Body of Christ. In essence, the two are different sides of the same ecclesiological coin. Correspondingly, he also understood that the Sacrament of Holy Communion is an event and practice directly and innately related to the spiritual and institutional Church. Administrators and recipients of the Sacrament are thus participants in the life of the gathered and visible Christocentric Church community. As Harper states: “TRUE SPIRITUALITY always exists in relation to the [gathered and visible] church” (Harper 1983, 36). Thus, Wesleyan-Methodist ecclesiology, while certainly innovative, was and is no variety of “loose canonism.” Wesley held strongly to the understanding that the Church as the unified Body (as opposed to the Church consisting of isolated and solitary believers) is the triune God’s primary chosen instrument of salvific mission. Please note that Methodism as a movement was never devoid of the Church, either spiritually or institutionally. From the 1740’s until the Christmas Conference of 1784, all of Methodism existed as a “church within the Church” (with an especial symbiotic relationship to the Church of England [and later in America, to a lesser degree, to the Episcopal Church]). In 1784, American Methodism, out of necessity, then became an independent church denomination. In either instance, whether as a renewal movement within an older ecclesial institution, or as a stand-alone revivalistic ecclesial institution proper, Methodism and the Church were and always have been integrally connected (cf. Payne 2014, 1–2). This is a very important ecclesiological point to grasp as it pertains to both Word and Sacrament, but especially to Sacrament.

Wesley’s Sacramental Grace Conveyance Ecclesiology

Wesley believed that the sacraments, particularly the Sacrament of Holy Communion, are “literally indispensable” for the Christian and for the Church as a body.[3] According to Outler:

[T]he Wesleys conceived of sacramental grace as God’s love in action in the lives of faithful men at worship. The Lord’s Supper is the paradigm of all “the means of grace”—the chief actual means of actual grace and, as such, literally indispensable in the Christian life. (Outler 1980, 333).

In classic Wesleyanism, the Holy Sacrament is “among the appointed means of grace” and a “gracious form of encounter with Christ” (White 1999, 23). Wesley, who said of the Sacrament, “This is the food of our souls” (Jackson 1996, 7:148), also wrote: “All who desire to increase in the grace of God are to wait for it in partaking of the Lord’s Supper … Ye openly exhibit the same, by these visible signs, before God, and angels, and men; ye manifest your solemn remembrance of his death, till he cometh in the clouds of heaven” (Jackson 1996, 5:194). Thus, Wesley and the early Methodists believed that the Sacrament of Holy Communion was both a portrayal of an historical event (“a solemn remembrance of his death”) and an effective and actual conveyance of the special grace of God (a confirmation of pardon and a spiritual strengthening for continued faithfulness; Jackson 1996, 7:148)[4] to the participants (White 1999, 22–23). According to Stevick:

Wesley sees the sacrament as a sign which shows Christ’s body and blood, but it is an effective sign—a sign that enacts what it signifies, a bestowal of God’s mercy and strength. The blood imparts pardon, the bread gives sustenance. (Stevick 2004, 89)

As such, the sign and that which is signified are inseparable (White 1999, 22) and are not merely recollectionally informational, but actually spiritually effectual (White 1999, 21). This understanding is known as the sacramental principle—inward grace is transacted through outward means (Chilcote 2004, 72). Wesley believed that God provided His grace to people, according to their specific need, through the Sacrament, but not from the Sacrament; i.e., it is God-in-Christ (not the Sacrament itself) who is the source of grace (Webber 1994, 246–247). It is God’s pleasure to willfully use the Sacrament as an instituted channel of His giving. In this light, the Lord’s Supper is certainly a sign, but a living sign (Greek anamnesis) of the paschal mystery; it is also an objective and concrete communion (Greek koinonia) with the Crucified and Risen Christ and an active co-participation in the gift of His new resurrection life (Hicks 2002, 143). It is through participation in the Sacrament that God-in-Christ personally and profoundly administers His gracious self-giving to Christian believers in the here and now (White 1993, 52). Charles Wesley even includes the element of incarnational theosis as a part of the divine self-giving mystery in the Holy Communion encounter (Kimbrough 2011, 89–91; cf. White 1993, 59). Thus, Wesley taught that believers should “neglect no opportunity of receiving the Lord’s Supper” (Jackson 1996, 7:148) because he understood the Sacrament to be a literal transaction of “actual grace” from Christ to His people (Outler 1980, 333). Just as meat and drink enable the physical bodies of people to properly function, the Sacrament likewise provides spiritual strength and sustenance for the abundance of the soul. As Harper says, the Lord’s Supper is indeed, literally, “food for the journey” (Harper 1983, 36). This is why the Sacrament is a mighty pillar, along with the Word, within the paradigm of Wesleyan ecclesiology.

Wesley’s Sacramental Constant Access Ecclesiology

It is also why Wesley took such extraordinary measures to make sure that Methodists had constant access to the sacramental gift. With only the means of the Word, the cup of divine grace for Methodists would remain only half-full at best. If the Sacrament were only considered by Wesley to be a weak Zwinglian symbol, it would not be of such significance. However, in light of the scriptural teachings of 1 Corinthians 10 and 11, and in the context of the Anglican canon, the significance of the Table as an instituted means of divine grace was overwhelming. Wesley was compelled to make sacramental provision for all Methodists and to implore all Methodists toward their duty to participate constantly (Jackson 1996, 7:147).

The matter of the Sacraments, both the issue of their accessibility to the Methodist people in general, and the issue of their administration by Methodist preachers, was something that Wesley had thought much about over the course of many years (Norwood 1974, 96). It was just that in 1784, with the new post-Revolution situation in America—inclusive of the exit of the Church of England from the colonies—there developed an ongoing condition of increasingly extreme urgency. The American Methodists had been deserted by their Anglican clergy brethren and had thus become largely devoid of sacramental opportunity.

Prior to this, the Methodist situation had not been so dire. The American societies engaged with the local Anglican congregations in Lord’s Day worship and sacraments. In other words, there had been no overt need for Methodists to have to administer the sacraments themselves. Methodism could remain focused on its primary mission of evangelism and discipleship. Theologically, the primary Methodist ministry of lay preaching was justified by Wesley in his separation of the offices of pastor and evangelist. In fact, he believed it to be “a return to New Testament practice” (Snyder 1996, 93). In Wesley’s understanding, the office of pastor was an “ordinary” ministry of preaching, pastoral care, and sacramental administration. Such ordinary ministry required episcopal ordination. However, Methodist preachers were not pastors. They practiced the office of evangelist and thus carried out an “extraordinary” ministry that did not include the ordinary ministry duties of pastoral care and sacramental administration. Such ministry did not require episcopal ordination (Payne 2014, 6–7; Snyder 1996, 91–94). Yet, when the Anglican departure occurred, the scenario drastically changed. In effect, American Methodism went from being a “church within a Church” to being a disconnected parachurch organization without ordained clergy and without accessibility to ordained clergy (for sacramental administration). This brought Wesley out of necessity to a point of major ecclesiological decision.

Wesley’s Sacramental Extraordinary Necessity Ecclesiology

Since Wesley was a sacerdotalist (making either independent self-ordination or lay administration of the sacraments out of the question), his only choice was to provide for some manner of “valid” ordination (Norwood 1974, 96). Under the influence of his readings of King (Jackson 1996, 2:6; cf. 13:251) and Stillingfleet (Jackson 1996, 12:147), Wesley had long-before concluded that his priestly orders sufficed him with the authority to ordain (Norwood 1984, 80, 82). He had come to believe that the biblical terms of bishop and presbyter were, in fact, synonymous (Jackson 1996, 2:6) and therefore he was actually a “scriptural episcopos” (Norwood 1974, 96), even if not an Anglican episcopos. In light of this reasoning, and as a pragmatic matter of extraordinary necessity, Wesley then finally acted and proceeded to ordain (“appoint”) Richard Whatcoat and Thomas Vasey (Norwood 1984, 79) as “elders” with sacramental authority (Jackson 1996, 4:288). He also “set apart” Thomas Coke as a “general superintendent” with the power to ordain (Jackson 1996, 13:251–252). These men were then sent by Wesley from Britain to the American Methodists in order to provide for their needed sacramental relief. Upon arrival, Whatcoat and Vasey could immediately begin administering the Sacraments and Coke could immediately begin ordaining other Methodist preachers to take sacramental authority. This was the final act of Wesley that led to the official formation of the Methodist Episcopal Church. As Wesley wrote somewhat prophetically in the final words of his letter to “Our Brethren in North America”:

As our American brethren are now totally disentangled both from the State, and from the English hierarchy, we dare not entangle them again, either with the one or the other. They are now at full liberty, simply to follow the Scriptures and the primitive Church. And we judge it best that they should stand fast in the liberty wherewith God has so strangely made them free. (Jackson 1996, 13:252)

With the spirit and authority of these words, the Christmas Conference of 1784 took their “full liberty” and formed the MEC. On three successive days, Coke ordained Asbury first to deacon, then to elder, and finally to general superintendent. They then followed with the ordination of either twelve or thirteen Methodist lay preachers (the exact number is not known) to the ministerial office of elder with full sacramental authority (Norwood 1974, 100–101). As such, Wesley’s American revival child had grown into a fully independent ecclesial adult. Wesley had successfully and fully completed in extraordinary manner the functional bequeathal to the American Methodists of the two pillars of his missional ecclesiology: Word and Sacrament.

The Wesleyan Ecclesiological Fulfillment of Word and Sacrament: The missio Dei

That very thing has become, however, the issue—and crisis—today within the ranks of The United Methodist Church. It seems that the American Methodists have placed far too much emphasis upon their “full liberty” and have forgotten the Wesleyan words that followed: “stand fast in the liberty.” Wesley intended his child to be free, but not licentious. His intent was for American Methodism to be free and independent to follow the Scriptures in light of the primitive and apostolic Church for the sake of the Christian mission. His intent was that American Methodism never stop the seeking and saving of lost souls and making them into faithful disciples—who then become themselves seekers and savers of the lost.

Many local congregations of the UMC have relinquished the power of God because they have given up the living praxis of either Word or Sacrament, or both. The words of Wesley and his actions reminded the world about the true pillars of the Church, yet his actions spoke still louder than even his words. He spent much of himself through the constant innovation of new and extraordinary ways to both propagate the proclamation of the Word of God (e.g., through the implementation of lay preachers, open-air preaching, itineration, etc.) and to ensure that the people of God have constant accessibility to the necessary Sacraments of God (e.g., through the implementation of “scriptural episcopos” ordinations, the granting of freedom to form a new ecclesial institution, etc.). Though Wesley tried his best to honor the precepts and premises of the Church of England, he understood that the mission of God to advance the cause of Christ superseded all other things. Where the institution stood as a hindrance to the fulfillment of the scriptural missio Dei, it was at that point precisely that the institution required a necessary practical abrogation. For Wesley, everything—whether theological or practical—was really about the Church fulfillment of the Christian soteriological mission to make disciples of Jesus Christ. For Wesley, sinners became disciples under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit through the constant praxis of Word and Sacrament. For Wesley, all else extended from or devised from those two pillars which are connected inseparably as one. For Wesley, the praxis of Word and Sacrament is the essence of the visible Church of Jesus Christ and the very center of all Christian mission.

Wesley’s Progeny: What Would Happen if?

What would happen if the People called Methodist returned fully to Wesley’s missional ecclesiology? What would happen if every local congregation of the UMC were exposed each Sunday to a sermon grounded in an exposition that treated the Bible as Holy Scripture? What would happen if every worship service had additional scriptural readings (from the lections, for instance) other than the texts specifically used in the sermon thereby allowing God’s Word to speak independently of the preachers’ commentary? What would happen if every local congregation had ongoing expository Bible studies and other small groups designed to assist both church members and seekers to understand the Scriptures in a deeper way and to grow more and more in God’s grace? What would happen if local churches focused more on proactively going out into their area communities and inviting the unchurched to participate with them in the life of the congregation? What would happen if the general church and the annual conferences decided to change their understanding as to the importance of evangelism and thereby appoint clergy to be local evangelists and to find and provide ways for their support?[5] What would happen if these local evangelists did more than preach local church “revivals” and actually sought lost people in communities and found ways to work with local church pastors whereby the newly found became connected to local congregations? What would happen if every single United Methodist was taught to understand the inherent power that God provides through His instituted means of grace, especially through the Table, and were urged to unceasing participation? What would happen if every local church administered the Sacrament of Holy Communion every single Lord’s Day thereby extending the sacramental grace of Christ to each person constantly? What would happen if all United Methodists, both clergy and laity, began taking dedicated Christian discipleship much more seriously than formal church membership? Just how the people in the local churches decide to answer these types of questions by their actions will have much to say as to the continued viability of the UMC. Payne provides words of guarded hope:

[S]ince American Methodism was born as a missionary church, a missional ethos remains in its ecclesial DNA. The revitalization of American Methodism will require the reclamation of its missional character. To do this, it must recapture the dynamic elements of Wesley’s missional ecclesiology. (Payne 2014, 17)

Wesley’s Progeny: “And Are We Yet Alive”?[6]

Methodism is either soteriologically missional—or dead. The determination as to which is true must begin at the grassroots level with each local congregation (cf. Jackson 1996, 2:7). Each local church is faced with a local crisis of praxis that is related to a local understanding of ecclesiological ontology. What does a local church want to be? Does a local church want to be a dynamic and transforming missional entity, or a static and declining maintenance institution? It has been the contention of this essay that Wesleyan ecclesiology boils down to the twin foundations of Word and Sacrament. A local congregation is faced with doing something or nothing with that concept. Wesley would assert that good and true Methodists would claim the former. He would implore Methodists to seek and find creative ways to put the Word and the Sacrament into an evangelistic spirit of mission. Evangelistic people are prayerful and watchful and ready for the movement and prompting of the Holy Spirit. Certainly the scriptural precept to watch and be ready is not merely eschatological, but also presently pneumatic as well. Many struggling congregations, whether due to spiritual complacency, or inattentiveness to God’s leading, or downright hardheartedness toward the lost, have arrived at their station after long periods of missing the visitation of the Holy Spirit. A church can never know just when a special visitation will come again (if ever). Yet, a congregation can be sure that God does desire to seek and to save the lost. Therefore, local churches that faithfully honor in praxis the twin pillars of Word and Sacrament are surely set up most favorably for a powerful outpouring from heaven.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Brooks, Gennifer Benjamin. “Preaching.” In The Oxford Handbook of Methodist Studies. Ed. William J. Abraham and James E. Kirby. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Chilcote, Paul W. 2002. “The Wesleyan Tradition.” In The Wesleyan Tradition: A Paradigm for Renewal. Ed. Paul W. Chilcote. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.
• ———. 2004. Recapturing the Wesley’s Vision. Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
• Coleman, Robert E. 2006. Nothing to Do But Save Souls. Anderson, IN: Francis Asbury Press.
• Harper, Steve. 1983. Devotional Life in the Wesleyan Tradition. Nashville, TN: The Upper Room.
• Heitzenrater, Richard P. “The Founding Brothers.” In The Oxford Handbook of Methodist Studies. Ed. William J. Abraham and James E. Kirby. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Hicks, John Mark. 2002. Come to the Table. Abilene, TX: Leafwood Publishers.
• Hildebrandt, Franz. 1996. Christianity According to the Wesleys. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
• Hunter, George G., III. 1988. To Spread The Power. Nashville, TN: Abington Press.
• Jackson, Thomas. Ed. 1996. “Earnest Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion.” The Works of John Wesley. Vol. 8. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Company.
• ———. Ed. 1996. “Father Thoughts on Separation from the Church.” The Works of John Wesley. Vol. 13. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Company.
• ———. Ed. 1996. “Preface to Standard Sermons.” The Works of John Wesley. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Company.
• ———. Ed. 1996. “Journal.” April 2, 1739. The Works of John Wesley. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Company.
• ———. Ed. 1996. “Journal.” January 20, 1746. The Works of John Wesley. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Company.
• ———. Ed. 1996. “Journal.” September 1, 1784. The Works of John Wesley. Vol. 4. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Company.
• ———. Ed. 1996. “Letter to His Brother Charles.” June 8, 1780. The Works of John Wesley. Vol. 12. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Company.
• ———. Ed. 1996. “Letter to Dr. Coke, Mr. Asbury, and Our Brethren in North America.” September 10, 1784. The Works of John Wesley. Vol. 13. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Company.
• ———. Ed. 1996. “A Letter to the Rev. …” August 19, 1785. The Works of John Wesley. Vol. 13. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Company.
• ———. Ed. 1996. “The Duty of Constant Communion.” The Works of John Wesley. Vol. 7. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Company.
• ———. Ed. 1996. “The Means of Grace.” The Works of John Wesley. Vol. 5. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Company.
• Keefer, Luke L., Jr. 1984. “John Wesley: Disciple of Early Christianity.” In Wesleyan Theological Journal 19:1 (Spring 1984).
• Kimbrough, S. T., Jr. 2011. The Lyrical Theology of Charles Wesley. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books.
• Norwood, Frederick A. 1974. The Story of American Methodism. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.
• ———. 1984. Sourcebook of American Methodism. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.
• Oh, Gwang Seok. 2008. John Wesley’s Ecclesiology. Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press.
• Outler, Albert C. 1980. John Wesley. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• ———. 2000. Evangelism & Theology in the Wesleyan Spirit. Nashville, TN: Discipleship Resources.
• Payne, William P. 2014. “Discerning John Wesley’s Missional Ecclesiology.” Accepted for publication in Wesleyan Theological Journal 49:2 (Fall 2014). (Note: the page numbers listed in the various citations are from the pre-publication version of the paper.)
• Snyder, Howard A. 1996. The Radical Wesley and Patterns for Church Renewal. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers.
• Stevick, Daniel B. The Altar’s Fire. 2004. Peterborough: Epworth Press.
• Stokes, Mack B. 1981. The Bible in the Wesleyan Heritage. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.
• The Holy Bible. Revised Standard Version. (OT) 1952. (NT) 1971. National Council of Churches of Christ.
• Wainwright, Geoffrey. 2009. “The Sacraments.” In The Oxford Handbook of Methodist Studies. Ed. William J. Abraham and James E. Kirby. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Webber, Robert E. 1994. Worship Old & New. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
• White, James F. 1993. Sacraments as God’s Self Giving. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.
• ———. 1999. The Sacraments in Protestant Practice and Faith. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.
• Wood, A. Skevington. 2007. The Burning Heart. Lexington, KY: Emeth Press.

Notes

1. In his “Earnest Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion” (1743), Wesley parsed “living faith” into the Anglican ecclesiological conception of Article XIX (Jackson 1996, 8:31.78). However, Wesley also understood that Word and Sacrament are the typical means to faith. Thus, Word and Sacrament are foundational even to faith (cf. Romans 10:14).
2. In fact, more often than not, during the Evangelical Revival, professions of faith typically came during participation in the classes rather than during the preaching.
3. Though Wesley considered the Sacrament of Holy Christian Baptism to be important as the Sacrament of Christian initiation, for the purposes of this essay on ecclesiology, the focus will be primarily on Holy Communion, the Sacrament of Christian continuation.
4. Here Wesley states: “This is the food of our souls: This gives strength to perform our duty, and leads us on to perfection. If, therefore, we have any regard for the plain command of Christ, if we desire the pardon of our sins, if we wish for strength to believe, to love and obey God, then we should neglect no opportunity of receiving the Lord’s Supper; then we must never turn our backs on the feast which our Lord has prepared for us.” (The highlighting is mine.)
5. After all, there are provision systems in place for the support of District Superintendents and Bishops and others who do not directly serve a local church. Are their offices more important than the office of evangelist? How would Wesley answer that question?
6. Charles Wesley, hymn (1749).