Browsing by Author "Maddox, Randy L"

The system of small groups John Wesley established to promote a proper life of discipleship in early Methodist converts was, in many respects, the strength of the Methodist movement. Those who responded to Wesley’s initial invitation to “flee the wrath to come” were organized into large gatherings called “societies,” which were then subdivided into smaller bands, class meetings, select societies, and penitent bands. The smaller groups gave Wesley the opportunity, through a system of appointed leaders, to keep track of the spiritual progress of every member in his movement, which grew to tens of thousands by the time of his death in 1791. As Methodism shifted from renewal movement to institutional church in the nineteenth century, however, growth slowed, and participation in such groups declined rapidly. By the early twentieth century, classes and bands were virtually extinct in every sector of Methodism save the African-American tradition. In recent years, scholars in various sectors of the Wesleyan tradition, particularly David Lowes Watson and Kevin Watson, have called for a recovery of these small groups for purposes of renewal in the church. There is no consensus, however, concerning what exactly contributed to the vitality of these groups during Wesley’s ministry.

Over the last century, sociological studies of group dynamics have revealed three common traits that are crucial to highly functioning groups: interdependence created by the existence of a common goal, interaction among group members that is “promotive” or cooperative in nature, and high levels of feedback associated with personal responsibility and individual accountability. All three of these were prevalent in the early Methodist groups. Interdependence existed around a shared goal, which for Wesley and the Methodists was holiness. That interdependence was cooperative in nature; individuals experienced the empowering grace of God as they each pursued the goal in the company of fellow pilgrims. Finally, the groups existed for purposes of feedback and accountability as individuals took responsibility both for themselves and others as they progressed together toward the goal of holy living. Wesley seemed to instinctively understand the essential nature of each of these characteristics in maintaining the vitality of the movement when he spoke of the importance of preserving the “doctrine, spirit and discipline” of early Methodism. Analysis of some of the present-day attempts to restore Wesley’s groups reveals frequent neglect to one or more of these three components. Perhaps most critical to recovering the vitality of the early Methodist groups will be reclaiming the goal of sanctification and coming to a consensus on what its pursuit means in the present day.

In the not-so-distant past, the language and theology expressed variously as theosis, deification, or divinization was relegated to Eastern Orthodoxy. Scholarship over the past fifty years, however, has moved deification from disgrace or quiet indifference to a place of active dialogue. Not only has theosis gained the attention of Protestant and Catholic theologians alike, it has also generated a host of literature exploring how figures in the West embody this once-considered Eastern concept.

This dissertation adds clarity and specificity to how John Wesley’s theology reflects deification. Wesleyan theologians, in their exploration of John Wesley’s interest in the “primitive church” and Eastern tradition, frequently gesture to the similarities between Wesley and theosis. Yet these studies, while adding rich specificity to Wesleyan-patristic studies, are often focused on parallels between Wesley and a particular figure. While tracing the lines of direct attestation and probable influence, they are not focused on theosis in particular, and as a result can only gesture toward possible resonances with Wesleyan theology.

Bypassing the question of Wesley’s sources and influences, this project focused instead on identifying the content of theosis within Wesley’s writings. By creating a “lens” of what constitutes the doctrine, as gleaned from recent scholarship, the way was paved to examine in detail what ways Wesley might reflect those core components of theosis in a large swarth of his writings, including the entirety of his sermon corpus. This adds meaningfully to Wesleyan scholarship in at least two ways: 1) it is both an explicit study of deification and John Wesley; and, 2) more than merely gesturing to parallels, it traces how those emphases are present throughout Wesley’s ministry by a close reading of a large representative selection of Wesley’s writings.

The close study of what constitutes deification reveals at least three theological axes which must be firmly established for the doctrine to be intelligible: 1) an understanding of God as desiring true union with humanity; 2) a theological anthropology which sees the telos of humanity as true Godlikeness; and 3) a soteriological thrust that points to redeemed humanity as participating in the Godhead. There is a deeply Trinitarian structure to this understanding of soteriology, which has corresponding anthropological implications. With an understanding of God and humanity in place to support the doctrine of deification, the final core idea is the means by which one is deified, an area that touches upon ecclesial context, sacramentology, and grace-enabled ascetic practices such as fasting and prayer.

When applying this lens to John Wesley’s theology, the results of my study overwhelmingly support not only the presence of deification within Wesley as a theological theme, but it has structural significance for understanding Wesley’s theology. The Trinitarian structure of Wesley’s soteriology is a rich interplay of both an understanding of God as desiring and empowering true union with humanity on the one hand, and a theological anthropology that sees the telos of humanity as true Godlikeness on the other.

Today the United Methodist Church faces a sharp decline of spirituality in general, and of church attendance in particular. Attendance at Sunday worship service has steadily decreased. In addition, those who consider themselves “spiritual but not religious” has certainly increased. Compared with the 1900s, it is more difficult for people today to believe in God because of the wide-ranging effects of secularism. Modern people find truth within themselves, rather than from a transcendent source.

Many small groups in the United Methodist Church aim to overcome this condition of secularism. Examples of such groups are the Covenant Discipleship group, the Disciple Bible study group, and the class meeting. To better understand whether these groups are able effectively to respond to contemporary needs, I conducted a survey of twenty-one churches in the Virginia Conference of the United Methodist Church that sponsored Covenant Discipleship groups or Disciple Bible study groups. This thesis investigates whether small groups (a Covenant Discipleship group and a Disciple Bible study group) are effective in spiritual growth and church growth. In addition, it uses the theory of the class meeting, which Kevin Watson reclaimed in his book The Class Meeting and the concept “mutual accountability” to present the direction for small groups in todays’ United Methodist Church.

As this thesis argues, a Covenant Discipleship group somewhat helps to recover the language for speaking of a living, breathing relationship with God. A Disciple Bible study group is also an effective way to change the locus of the authority from the self to the Word of God. However, these groups have limitations. While they are effective for supporting discipleship, they are seldom willing to foster conversation about deep matters such as a person’s relationship with God, with one another, and with the world. On the other hand, a class meeting deals with the basic question “How is it with your soul?” By sharing our spiritual status and being accountable for the growth of the relationships—as the class meeting seeks to do—our faith will grow into maturity in the Lord.

American Methodism existed without a rite of confirmation from 1784 to 1965. This study seeks to understand the distinctive problems and possibilities emerging from Wesleyan theology and Methodist history that inform our engagement in the broader

Protestant conversation about rites of initiation and the formation of children and youth. After taking a brief look at the current landscape of youth and religion in American life through the lens of practical theology and sociology, this study turns to important historical and theological questions: How did the rite of confirmation emerge in the West in general and in the Church of England in particular? Why did Wesley remove the rite of confirmation from the 1784 Sunday Service? What were the consequences for American Methodism? Why was it reintroduced? How should we approach confirmation now?

This study argues that John Wesley was not oblivious to questions of initiation. However, the removal of a rite of confirmation suggests that he was less interested in a single ritual event in which one received a bestowal of the Holy Spirit or made a one-time profession of faith. The burden of his ministry was to create thick communities of discipleship formation and to motivate and incentivize continued participation in the way of salvation through the means of grace in Spirit-filled community.

This end, that is, this aim—continued participation in the way of salvation through the means of grace in Spirit-filled community—must shape all Methodist theological reflection and liturgical rites of initiation.