SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Devotional Thoughts : Ascetic Christianity ...

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 )

Joined: 2005/11/10
Posts: 530


It should be noted (again) I am not taking a jab at Methodists. I am and will always be a big fan of John Wesley, and the work he did. So, please don't interpret my comment in a way other than the symbolic sense in which I hoped it to be meant. I could have just very well used the German Pietists, or Jewish Essenes. I picked the Methodists, because well, most people on here know a bit about their history.

King Jimmy,

It doesn't make any sense to me that you feel the need to pick names. Even if I understand your point, which I am not sure I do, why not use terms and language as Jesus did. Yes, he denounced the Pharisees and called them sons of hell. Are the Methodists sons of hell? The Essenes lived in Jesus' day, so it looks like in choosing them for an object lesson you are ready to put down those who Jesus would not.

I realize I am perhaps disproportionately taking you to task over this, but my goal is not entirely your specific post, but the ongoing and neverending practice of this error among many. You said your use was intended to be symbolic. Why nail individuals and groups when so much symbolic and descriptive spiritual language is available?

We can rightly use the term Pharisee, because Jesus was clear on this. And "lawyer" or "scribe". And I think most of us would agree that we can warn against popery or looking to the Pope, because the position is anti-Christian. The same for Mormonism and probably also monks (who would have a hard time fulfilling the great commission). But Methodists?

The way you speak, it is a bad thing to be a Methodist. If you want to make that point, I suggest you attach a given time frame, because the Methodists of old were people of God. That should help us, as you say, with the history. For the record, I am not and have never been associated with any form of Methodism.

 2010/4/1 23:34Profile

Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC


Thanks for your concern. I'm simply saying that God has not called us to be Methodists. That is, He's not called us to the strict border-line ascetic lifestyle that early Methodists had adopted, for which Wesley wished he had made stricter. I'm not intending this as a slur against Methodism in anyway. I'm just saying, God has not called us to be Methodists :-)

I picked "Methodists" perhaps a little bit for shock value. If I said Pharisees, Essenes, whomever, it doesn't quite hit home or speak as loudly. It can be glossed over. Methodist... that'll make you think, as Methodism is something that has existed in our own back yards. It's contextualized in that sense.

Jimmy H

 2010/4/1 23:59Profile

Joined: 2010/2/19
Posts: 89


KingJimmy, I love the works and testimony of John Wesley and early Methodism, but I understand where you are coming from and do not believe you did anything wrong in your statement. I think we need to be careful not to idolize any particular denomination. It should sadden us that denominations/divisions ever came into fruition in the first place. The Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, Pentecosals, etc. should have never named themselves as such, but simply as the Church of Jesus Christ. Someone says, "what about the need for seperating one's group from cults who call themselves "the Church of Jesus Christ, like the Mormons"? What did the early Church do? They too had many false teachers among them who claimed to be part of the Church. But they still simply called their particular group "the Church in such city, at such's home". They were all connected.

 2010/4/2 0:21Profile

Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy