Talk:Methodism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Christianity Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Methodism work group. (rated as Top importance)
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 Anglicanism Project? 2 Connection 3 Number of adherents 4 Universities 4.1 == 5 Methodists and Catholics 6 Evans ? 7 Something which may interest editors of this page 8 How is this not worth posting? 9 Language conventions 10 Philosophy 11 Linking error - Oxford 12 Proposed Methodism project 13 Aldersgate Street 14 Lent 15 Merger proposal 16 Removal of the "Controversies" section 17 my vision for the Methodism page 18 Proposed Methodism work group 19 note in Lead on armininanism calvinism difference 20 Books 21 Confirmation?

[edit] Anglicanism Project?

Why is Methodism part of the Anglicanism project? I know that Methodism started out within Anglicanism, but that connection disappeared over 200 years ago. KitHutch 02:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Connection

How does the "connectional" model of organization compare with the episcopalian model described in that article? They sound similar; are they the same, or are there some important differences? Wesley

It is important to note that we are not a connectional people because of biblical or theological or even historical mandates. The evolution of our polity has, however, been a natural response to these elements in our background and they continue to inform and direct our efforts. [1]

If I'm interpreting this correctly, the term is adopted in order to express the fact that Methodist episcopalianism does not claim any biblical, theological or historical mandate for this form of government, and adopts that form of polity for practical reasons (although the Bible, theology and history have had a measure of influence on its development). To make a difference between jus divinum (divine law) episcopalianism, and the Methodist aim to construct a maximal network for pragmatic reasons (which happens to be episcopal), the Methodists appear to prefer the term "connectional" to "episcopalian", as introducing less confusion and implying more completely the principle upon which polity has developed (although the latter is still an accurate term, it appears - with the appropriate qualifiers). Mkmcconn

Wouldn't it be better to call this article "Methodism" rather than "Methodist"? -- Mike Hardy

I was just coming here to ask that. -- Zoe

I'd go for that. We'd have to delete the redirect that's there, to move this page. Right? Mkmcconn

[edit] Number of adherents

I came to this article wondering how many adherents the Methodist denominations had, and how these adherents were distributed geographically. The article has no such information. Can someone who knows add it? If this is not the right article to answer these questions, at least there should be a crosslink to the right one. I also wondered how the number of Methodists grew between Wesley's time and the present. Thank you.

[edit] Universities

Where does "the most famous of these is the prestigious Ohio Wesleyan University" come from? This seems POV, and I replaced it with "...and altogether there are about twenty universities and colleges named after John Wesley still in existance," unless there is a good source (Also see Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms).
--Asbestos 17:52, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've reverted an edit by an anonymous user (who can be identified as User:Ranamim by his IP address) who reverted my edit. The sentence under dispute was originally:

"Numerous originally Methodist institutions of higher education were founded in the United States in the early half of the 19th century. The most famous school among these institutions is the prestigious Ohio Wesleyan University in Delaware, Ohio."

I changed this to

"Numerous originally Methodist institutions of higher education were founded in the United States in the early half of the 19th century, and today altogether there are about twenty universities and colleges named after John Wesley still in existance."

This would seem to me to be more NPOV, but if you wish to discuss, please do so here and not by reverting without signing in.

--Asbestos 15:54, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I feel that the changed sentence is written from a more NPOV standpoint, and is therefore more encyclopedic, and should thus remain in this article. If the anonymous user/Ranamim, or whatever, does not want his edits changed then maybe he should create a website on this topic, because the nature of Wikipedia is that articles will constantly be updated and improved beyond their original content. Rje 03:28, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] ==

I know I am adding my two cents worth almost four months later, but it seems to me that statement "the most famous of these is the prestigious Ohio Wesleyan University" couldn't be qualified in an objective way, and if it could be, who would make that determination As an OWU grad I can tell you that it was a nice place to be, made lifelong friends, met my husband and a received a good solid education. But prestigious? ;-) Jrossman 02:25, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Methodists and Catholics

Can someone please state the big differences between the two religions; United - (Methodist) & Roman Catholic.

Is it necessary for one to convert to the other for marriage ?

In reply: I can't speak authoritatively, but I think the big difference is the Apostolic Succession. I suspect that the Methodists would recognoze a Catholic marriage, but that the Catholics would not recognize a Methodist marriage. I don't think it's neccessary to convert to Catholicism to marry a Catholic. A preacher or priest should be able to tell you for sure, and would probably not be surprised at the questions.

I am a United Methodist pastor who married a Roman Catholic. Married in a United Methodist Church by a United Methodist pastor, our marriage is not recognized as sacramental by the Roman Catholic Church. I don't believe I would have needed to convert in order to have a Roman Catholic wedding, but I probably would have had to agree to raise the children as Roman Catholics. While I certainly have nothing against Roman Catholicism (and my wife has since become a United Methodist), I wasn't going to make that promise, wanting my children to, of course, be a part of my own church family. A Roman Catholic priest might be able to enlighten you a bit more. KHM03 22:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evans ?

I removed Clement A. Evans from the "see also" section; he's not very prominent, but might be better listed on a different page. KHM03 00:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Evans was quite prominent in the rise of the "holiness movement" within Methodism in the Atlanta region, a movement that spread throughout the South. He pastored churches of over 1,000 people in an era when the average Methodist church was less than 70 members. Hence the reason why I originally included him in the "see also" comments. 129.252.52.221 16:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that there are many significant pastors & preachers; we simply can't list all of them! KHM03 17:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Something which may interest editors of this page

Any help which could be provided would be greatly appreciated. Agriculture 07:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How is this not worth posting?

On Jan 14th 1991 On his television show The 700 Club, Pat Robertson attacked a number of Protestant denominations when he declared: "You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist."

grazon 05:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

It isn't about Methodism. It's about Pat Robertson. Please don't keep trying to insert this in articles about the groups he is attacking. It isn't relevant to those articles. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Pat Robertson isn't just a bum on the streets he's a power broker on the National level and if he's saying things like this those he's smearing need to know it.

grazon 05:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if he is the Great Wazoo of all wazoos, his comments are not relevant to this article. He has no authority, in Methodism, Presbyterianism, or Episcopalianism. It belongs in an article about him, and is of no consequence to understanding the groups he has attacked. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Persecution of members of a faith is part of their history.

grazon 05:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

How about if we wait until persecution actually starts, then. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

persecution starts with slander and I'd just as soon let people know the slander is taking place.

grazon 06:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Blogs are good for letting people know about slander taking place. Wikipedia is not a blog, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Please only add content that assists in understanding the topic, info about Mr. Robertson and the things he says belong in the article about him; info about Methodism, etc., belong in their appropriate articles. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok Elder mark ;)

BTW any idea where (other than on Pat's page) the quote should go?

grazon 06:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know. It's really not such an important comment as you want it to be. After all, the comment was made 14 years ago. The man has a longstanding reputation for saying more than he means, and he gets plenty of grief about it. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

what can I say?

I don't like OUR churches being called supporters of the anti-Christ.

grazon 06:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

don't let it get to you - much worse is said of other religions...

[edit] Language conventions

Recently User:Saikiri reverted a spelling variation, calling it vandalism in the edit comment. This is inappropriate as it was simply the difference between British and American spelling. Both conventions are regarded as appropriate in Wikipedia, so it is not vandalism. In cases of dispute, Wikipedia policy is that the original convention takes precedence.

The page history reveals that the page was started October 29, 2001 in American English, no other English was used until June 6, 2003, when two words were introduced with British spelling. So strictly speaking, the article should continue in American English. However I note that the section of history which occurred in England seems to be written in British English and that part referring to the American experience seems to be writting in American English. We could consider that an appropriate compromise. Is that agreeable to all? At any rate let's refrain from calling the other spelling covention vandalism. Pollinator 04:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, you darn Brits. KHM03 12:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophy

[In the study of human knowledge, methodism refers to the epistemological approach where one asks "How do we know?" before "What do we know?" The term appears in Ernest Sosa's seminal essay "The Raft and the Pyramid: Coherence versus Foundations in the Theory of Knowledge," and is to be contrasted with "particularism."

Since the question "How do we know?" does not presuppose that "we know," it is receptive to skepticism. In this way, Sosa claims, Hume no less than Descartes was an epistemological methodist.

See "Particularism."]

This entry is not "unrelated nonsense." It is a matter of coincidence that "methodism" is a word already in use by a religious group: in epistemology, the term distinguishes an important approach to epistemological problems.

If it is possible to start a new page, that would be fine with me. Otherwise, the section will remain on this page. Religion has no more a claim to the term than epistemology.

Here you go: Methodism (philosophy) Tom Harrison ^(talk) 01:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks... but typing in "methodism" neither takes one to a disambiguation page, nor is there any link on this page. Can you rectify this please? Thanks Tom.

[edit] Linking error - Oxford

Hi. I would do this myself but I just want to check I'm not being stupid as I am no authority on the topic.

Under 'The Wesleyan Revival' section it mentions some students from Oxford regarding how the term 'Methodist' came into being. The link on Oxford directs to the city of Oxford article. Surely it should direct to the University of Oxford article?

Alright then, it just sounded a bit funny when I read over it. Carl.bunderson 00:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting use of the word "sobering" in an article about methodism which in the UK for many a long year was Teatotal —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.210.142.186 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Methodism project

There is now a proposed group to deal specifically with articles relating to Methodism at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Methodism. Any interested parties would be more than welcome to indicate their interest there. Thank you. John Carter 17:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aldersgate Street

Can I request that someone with a knowledge of the early history of Methodism take a look at the Aldersgate Street section of the currently-under-construction A1 road (London) article and edit/correct/expand it as appropriate. As (obviously) the location is of key importance in John Wesley's life, I feel it needs a lengthy mention, but as I'm not a Methodist I'm concerned I may have misunderstood exactly what took place, and also that "epiphany" may be an inappropriate term to use in this context — iridescent (talk to me!) 14:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not get much understanding about the origin of Methodism from the introduction at the top of this page. The only hint in this introduction that John Wesley had anything to do with Methodism is the indirect passing reference to Methodists as "Wesleys". Perhaps how how Methodism came into existance could be mentioned more clearly in the introduction.
I make this obervation only as a reader; not as one with the current knowledge to add the necessary information. Rwilkin 10:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lent

Do Methodists observe Lent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.72.95 (talk • contribs)

Yes KitHutch 17:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No, a Catholic friend had to explain it to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.188.202.95 (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC) Lent is part of the traditional church year. It IS observed in some Methodist congregations. KitHutch 13:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

well, some methodists observe lent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.160.68.253 (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merger proposal

I propose that Homosexuality and Methodism be merged into Methodism. I suppose we could wait long enough to see if the former becomes a bigger article, but I see it as a subheading under methodism. I don't even know if it's important enough to be its own article, as many christian denominations struggle with this, and there are some denominations that are specifically on other sides of the issue. I could be wrong, so share your opinions. Aepoutre 17:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see the table on the new page. It includes several denominations. If you want to merge Homosexuality and Methodism, you will need to merge all of the other "Homosexuality and <religion>" pages. To do that, you need the consent of the community working on Homosexuality and Christianity and, arguably, the consent of the communities working on the pages of other denominations. I am not necessarily against the merge or even suggesting it is a bad idea. I am pointing out that your idea has relatively far reaching implications that you need to deal with.LCP 17:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Good to know. I was curious to know if anything like that was going on. We can wait just a little longer to see if anyone comments on the merge. Thanks! Aepoutre 18:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'm opposed to the merge; we have a whole series on individual denominations' relationship to the homosexuality question. Although Homosexuality and Methodism is short, it's not too short, and moving it here would be putting undue weight on what is really a minor aspect of Methodism. —Angr 13:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'm also opposed to the merge and am in agreement with User:Angr on a philosophical basis, and with User:LCP on a very practical basis. But I appreciate User:Aepoutre's effort to improve both Wiki and those two articles.Afaprof01 21:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks, I'm removing the tags. Aepoutre 22:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'm also opposed partly because this is an irrelevance to a serious discussion of Methodism. In any case, Methodism is too big a subject to be covered in one single artice. (see my comment on my vision for the Methodism page) Robert of Ramsor (talk) 14:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of the "Controversies" section

I'm removing the entire controversies section. I'm not against having such a section, but it's content was entirely about proposals within the United Methodist Church to divest from companies that do business with Israel. It may be relevant on the United Methodist Church page, but not here. –RHolton≡– 20:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

A more useful contribution would have been tomove this section to the United Methodist Church page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.35.32 (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] my vision for the Methodism page

Having edited the Lead section (I intend a bit of tidying to shorten it, for example moving one or 2 sentences to the Doctrine section of the article), here is an outline what I would like to see. Putting the subject on a square grid, horizontal and vertical "noughts-and-crosses" dividers include history / present day, Britain / USA / rest of the world; Branches (Weslayan / Primitive / Welsh / Countess of Huntingdon / etc ); as well as belief (doctrine) distinctives. Also comprehensive Book LIst (starting with a couple of dozen books in my study).

So I propose, if the Wikipedia etiquette allows, that the actual sections on the main Methodism page double as the Lead introductions on a series of satelite articles. This is to keep the length down to saomething practical on the main Methodism page. This will not aim to cut existing text, just to organise it (subject to general agreement) in the most logical way we can.

Timetable would be completion by end 2008 with main done by September.

My background includes growing up in a Methodist manse, being a Local Preacher, and running a web site devoted to some aspects of Methodist history. Robert of Ramsor (talk) 15:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. :) John Carter (talk) 15:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it sounds like a good idea. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Methodism work group

There is now a proposal for a WikiProject group, possibly initially a subproject of Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity, to deal with articles relating to the Methodist churches at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Methodism. Anyone interested in taking part in such a group should indicate their interest there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] note in Lead on armininanism calvinism difference

Please note that this needs moving (later, when the whole article is further revised) from the Lead section to one on Beliefs in the article body, since the Lead is too long. I hope to work on this in April to cut down the number of words in the Lead.

I have changed back to what I said on the distinction between arminianism and calvinism for the following reasons.

My original is

The primary difference is that Arminians interpret the Bible as teaching that the saving work of Jesus Christ is for all people (general atonement} but effective only to those who believe in accordance with the Reformation principles of Grace alone and Faith alone. Calvinists emphasize the deterministic interpretation of Election, that salvation is only for a few decreed by God (limited atonememt) while all others are decreed to be condemned.

end of extract.

A. Jacobus Arminius and John Wesley are fully within Reformation principles and thinking. Note that I did not say Reformed here, partly because some calvinists equate reformed with calvinist ignoring the wider strands of the Reformation. The principles known as the "4 Solas" (or 5 in some lists) are common ground between arminians and calvinists.

B. "Election to damnation" is one of the basic tenets of calvinism (though not part of the TULIP summary), as is "limited atonement". (I think it is the 1659 Particular Baptist Confession, I need to check when I get time.) On calvinist discussion web sites (example, Challies), some refer to unbelievers as "VOWFTD" - "vessels of wrath fitted to destruction". While I would not include this in a Wikipedia article, it can be found by anyone looking at these discussions.

C. As an engineer by training, I see the calvinistic emphasis on the decrees of God from the beginning of eternity as being deterministic, hence including the term.

I therefore maintain that my original (accepting with thanks the edit by KitHutch) is an accurate and factual description and I therefore stand by it as according with Wikipedia principles. But there may be a case for inserting a note that calvinists also accept the Solas.

Robert of Ramsor (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Correction - Baptist Confession is 1689 not 1659. Anyone who reads Section 3, on God's Decree, cannot fail to see either determinism or election to damnation. By way of example, young Andrew Fuller (1754-1815) scandalised the society of Soham Baptist Church for rebuking a fellow member for drunkenness; the pastor excused Fuller for his youth, and argued responsibility for keeping from open sins, and was forced to resign; the man admonished by Fuller "smelt ... the Arminian heresy that a man could be his own keeper in matters of conduct." (Griffiths, "A pocket History of the Baptist Movement", p.109) Yet calvinist Paul Washer is preaching this "arminian heresy" of holy living as vigorously as John Wesley. (I am giving reference for my original statement, not advocating a doctrine.) I need to add the 1689 Confession as a reference to the Methodism article. Robert of Ramsor (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Books

While we compile a comprehensive books list, I would like to have a place for discussion of some of the books, regarding what we think of them, and why they are more or less important. There is no argument as to the primacy of some of the "standard" texts, such as John Wesley's Journals, Letters, and other books he wrote. In this category, I would also put the Methodist Magazine (Arminian Magazine in Wesley's time, changed to Wesleyan Methodist Magazine in the 1860s - I have Methodist Magazine 1863, Wesleyan Methodist Magazine 1868).

The 2 volume "New History of Methodism" by Townsend, Workman and Eayrs is probably the most comprehensive single work on the origins, history, and spread overseas of Wesleyan Methodism and its later branches, up to publication in 1909. Local detail is supplemented by a large number of other histories of individual Circuits or Churches. Examples I have to hand include the Leek Circuit and the Congleton Circuit (volumes by John Dyson in the 1850s), the Melton Mowbray Circuit, and Bilston and Cheddleton as Churches.

To me, one of the most significant books for understanding Methodism is "Anatomy of a Conversion" by Rev Dr. Philip S Watson (1931-1983) (who was Professor of Systematic Theology and of Philosophy of Religion at Handsworth College when my father was a student there). ISBN 0-310-74991-3 This book is the foreword of "The Message of the Wesleys". It deals with the events leading up to the conversion of John and Charles Wesley in 1738, detailing the part played by Peter Bohler. Then this book analyses the Methodism of the Wesleys, as much as possible in the Wesleys' own words. Philip Watson does a brilliant job in great depth in spite of the brevity. Amongst other things, he exposes, some years before it was published, the errors of Kenneth Cracknell's book "Our Doctrines". (I regretted spending money on this book, Cracknell dismisses doctrines which Watson clearly shows to be the authentic Wesleyan thinking.) Another of Philip Watson's works is a series of talks on Martin Luther, which is very worthy of attention to understand Luther, and incidentally his influence on Methodism via John Wesley. Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You do know that this entry mentions Yoda, right? Should that be corrected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.200.15 (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Confirmation?

Why is there no information or even a reference to the protestant and specifically Methodist, coming of age ceremony and process of confirmation. I was confirmed a Methodist and it is not even included in this entry. It is also not included in protestantism as well, which makes most of these religious articles on Wikipedia suspect. Was it just a simple case of absentmindedness that precluded full coverage of the some of the most important rituals of protestantism or is there a larger agenda that entailed the conscious and deliberate exclusion of a rite that is basic to traditional protestantism? --Stevenmitchell (talk) 15:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the reason is that the article deals with Methodism in general, not just with one particular set of practices in one branch of Methodism. To me, the word confirmation sounds specifically Anglican, and I have never come across the term in Methodist circles. This is only a personal view, and traditions vary widely, so it might be common in some Methodist communities. Dbfirs 17:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If you go to the article about confirmation, it does mention the Methodist view. KitHutch (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)