Why am I a Methodist and not another Christian? Don’t worry I am not trying to convert you.

To clear the air before we get started I want to say that I was born a Christian, raised a Christian and have no worries about my faith in God. It’s probably best not to delve deeper on this one as it will only expose the difficult nature of religion. Suffice to say that while looking at other religions from a secular point of view I have found something special in following Christ. This however is something of a separate topic and thus I will follow through with ‘why I am a Methodist’.

I was born a Methodist and raised a Methodist, and there ends the similarity, in that I am proud to be a Methodist also. Sometimes I am not proud to be a Christian, but enough of delinquent U.S. presidents. Essentially I feel blessed that I was born into this church as it has something at its core that is special, something that none of the other denominations have. It has a specific and defined political and social remit. I hear a lot of squirming in seats; a lot of secular worries, Christians with social and political policies are a threat to secular values. This idea is based on the fact that a large number of very vocal Christians are Conservative in nature and hold to apparent high morals. Who can forget the ‘Jerry Springer’ and ‘Life of Brian’ protests and who can forget the arguments over abortion and homosexuality (an issue to which I will return later)? Sometimes I ask where is the love? Do these people really truly uphold the most noble of notions to Love your enemies or are they just trying to assert their own narrow opinions. Never fear we Methodists are not so crackers, in fact in the main we are at polar opposites of these Christians.

It is possibly best to begin at the start of Methodism. No, there is no great book or lecture coming. Simply, John Wesley became disillusioned with the established church and set up a new ‘wing’ of the Church of England called the Methodists. After he died in 1791 the church formally separated. The position that John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist church, pronounced is best summed up in a notable comment from one of his sermons, ‘Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as ever you can.’ This ideal while being a good creed for all (not only Christian folk) is the basis of the Methodist Church. Unlike the Catholic Church, the Church of England and later movements such as the Evangelical Alliance, this notion of ‘doing good for all’ is institutionalised. We worship God, yes, but unlike others denominations the ‘Mission statement’ is unique for a Christian church as Methodism has laid down social and political roles and responsibilities where other churches go for the ‘here’s the bible make up your own mind’ perspective. The Synod of the Church of England hasn’t made up any mission statement and the Catholics do not have the structure to do so as a result of Papal infallibility. The only Organisation in Britain that does is the Evangelical Alliance whose tag line is ‘Uniting to Change Society’ but it differs in ways that I will outline later. The main points to note in the Methodist statement are:

Struggling for a just world
Caring for individual people and communities
Being alongside the poor
Becoming friends with people of different cultures and faiths
Caring for the earth
Building partnerships with other churches and other groups who share some of our mission aims.


The last point is the most important. It allows the Methodist church certain flexibility. Primarily it allows it to exist both in the secular and religious worlds. On the basis of this point it can support both secular and non-secular groups in the furthering of the other points. Additionally it can also do this without referring to God at all and it should be noted that none of the aforementioned points, if taken separately from the three others, refer to God or Theology. Rather they are simply common sense based on Wesley’s comment, which also has no theological or religious references.

If we look at the history of Methodism as a whole then the social responsibility side is a central aspect and it is something that is reflected in the current mission statement. It is also something that I am proud to be aligned to. Wesley set up the church with not only a view to bringing people into it, but with a remit to help those in poverty, those in prison and all that were disadvantaged. Indeed in Wesley’s last letter he pushed for the abolition of ‘that execrable villainy, the scandal of religion, of England and of human nature, slavery’. This is probably the first recorded attack on slavery by a man of influence. He also pushed for prison reform. There was too an emphasis on temperance and rejection of gambling, two major ills in the 18th century.

As such where does this heritage place Methodism in light of the mission statement and its current activities? Methodism currently has three major organisations that are geared to caring for others. The Methodist Relief and Development fund is not dissimilar to other organisations such as Christian aid, and aims to provide long term help to those in developing nations. Secondly there is the Methodist Homes for the elderly, which care for around 8500 senior citizens in nursing homes. Probably the last and most famous organisation that has strong links with the Methodist church is NCH action for children. This organisation was established in 1869 by Methodist Minister the Revd. Thomas Bowman Stephenson and still has very close ties with the church. Lastly there is the Methodist diaconal order, which was re-established in 1986, but was allowed to become a religious order in 1993 by vote of the conference. A deacon in a Methodist Church is different than in the Church of England. In the C of E it is a stepping-stone to full ordination. In the Methodist Church it is a life-long commitment to work in the community, social care and actually getting out there and making a difference.

All these roles are supplemented by the work that Methodists do everyday in local communities. Methodism differs very strongly in my opinion to the approach that other denominations take. Underpinned by Wesley’s concept of social care and responsibility, and the Mission Statement, Methodism has always looked after the little people. While other churches tend to want to change society to Christianity, or have looked at helping in the community as a chance to convert others, the Methodists have always been on the ground, because that is where the need is, rather than being on the ground to change things drastically to their way. Indeed outreach programmes from other denominations do it with the aim of conversion, rather than with the simple aim of just helping people, no questions asked. Yes it is about doing ‘good for God’ but we won’t ram it down the homeless’ face. As such I am proud that I am in a church that presents such a giving spirit, but does it without asking anything in return, or expecting anything. In essence it holds true that the best way to show people what I believe is not by ramming it down their throat, but by doing good deeds.

There are of course three religious points in the Mission Statement which I should mention as it wouldn’t be a balanced picture if I didn’t refer to them. They are:

Telling the good news of Jesus
Calling people to faith in Jesus Christ and to Christian discipleship
Sharing the task of education and social and spiritual development

However I would argue that we wouldn’t be very good Christians if we did not accept these points and that they have to come as a ‘given’. I would also argue that none of these points bind themselves to the aforementioned six points as the others are non religious and that the former statements are grounded in universal common sense for building a better world that all would agree with. This re-enforces the fact that if need be the Methodist church and Methodists can in part divorce itself from the overtly religious aspect (while of course keeping it in mind) to act in the greater good rather than some narrow religious vision.

Talking of narrow religious visions enter the Evangelical Alliance of Great Britain, don’t forget the punch line ‘Uniting to Change Society’. Doesn’t that make your skin crawl. The alliance touts itself as being multi-denominational, but essentially it is dominated by the right wing evangelical churches from where its ideas stem. The problem with the philosophy of the Alliance is that it is in ideological, political and social opposition to the Methodist church. Whereas Methodism has the capacity to separate from the religious and unite with the secular for the greater good, the Evangelical Alliance has no capacity in this respect. Its mission statement is explicitly religious, focussing only upon religious ideas. One statement encompassing all is particularly of note, ‘Uniting Evangelicals to present Christ credibly as good news for spiritual and social transformation’. There is no aspect within the alliance, especially from the evangelical main, with regard to fostering the greater good in cooperation with others. Essentially they wish to enact widespread change to society on a Christian principal. A quote from their web page reads:

‘As part of a movement ‘uniting to change society’ the Alliance promotes unity and truth, acts as an evangelical voice to the state, society and the wider church, and works collaboratively with Alliance members and other evangelicals, to bring about social and spiritual transformation within society.’

This they wish to do by putting pressure on the government and the media and again I quote:

“The Alliance speaks on behalf of its members and represents evangelical concerns to Government, the National Assemblies, the media and key decision-makers.”

Yes if we Christians manage to convert everyone to Christianity it may be feasible to alter society to a singular state, however living in a secular society it is simply not fair to ‘change society’ to their way. My theorem is that Jesus was a revolutionary and while wishing all to believe he was the ‘way the truth and the light’, his words illustrate a principal for all of a universally good world. Theoretically all he needed to have done was illustrated his divinity through miracles and then said ‘I am the way the truth and the light’. He could have gone to war after that and everyone would still have followed him. Yet in many cases Jesus talks without referring to God explicitly or talks stating only that acts are ‘God approved’. He talks on a very human level and to human sentiments that there are simple principles and ideas about making the world better for everyone, for example, ‘Love your enemies as yourself’. Yet I find nothing in the Alliance’s phrasing that seems to hold true to the dual principle that I think Jesus held that yes he was ‘the way’ but also that through love improvement for all can come. It’s very much their way or no way.

This brings me onto a contentious ‘case study’ regarding the general attitudes of the denominations on an issue, namely homosexuality. I have to say in preparations for this I looked at the websites of the major churches of the Christian faith. The Catholic position did not surprise me:

‘Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."   They are contrary to the natural law.  They close the sexual act to the gift of life.  They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarily.  Under no circumstances can they be approved…Homosexual persons are called to chastity.  By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.’

Oh dear, well what were we supposed to expect? I also don’t like that idea of Christian perfection. Nobody’s perfect, did original sin jump out the window? This brings me neatly on to the old C of E. Their position is almost identical and more explicit:

‘b. In view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage;
d. [It rejects] homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture,
e. [It] cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions;’

I find the ‘not called to marriage part’ ridiculous in the extreme. All peoples are called to marriage; all people are called to committing to another in a loving environment regardless of orientation. Its simply about companionship, mutual support and trust. It is not always about children. However I have digressed and will return to the topic. Of course now enter the Evangelical Alliance:

‘3. We affirm that monogamous heterosexual marriage is the only form of partnership approved by God for full sexual relations today.
4. We affirm God's love and concern for all humanity, including homosexual people, but believe homoerotic sexual practice to be incompatible with His will as revealed in Scripture.
6. We oppose moves within certain churches to accept and/or endorse sexually active homosexual partnerships as a legitimate form of Christian relationship.  We stand prayerfully with those in such churches who are seeking to resist these moves on biblical grounds.
8. We oppose moves within certain churches towards permitting the ordination of sexually active lesbians and gay men to ministry. We stand prayerfully with those in such denominations who are seeking to resist these moves on biblical grounds.
9. We commend and encourage those homosexual Christian people who have committed themselves to chastity and celibacy. We believe that such people should be eligible for ordination and leadership within the church.’

And here is the point that I find really offensive to my sensibilities.

‘10. We call upon evangelical congregations to welcome and accept sexually active homosexual people, but to do so in the expectation that they will come in due course to see the need to change their lifestyle in accordance with biblical revelation and Orthodox Church teaching. We urge gentleness and patience in this process, and ongoing care even after a homosexual person renounces same-sex sexual relation
11. We commend the work of those organisations which seek to help homosexual Christians live a celibate life, and also commend those groups which responsibly assist homosexuals who wish to reorient to a heterosexual lifestyle.’
12. We believe habitual homoerotic sexual activity without repentance to be inconsistent with faithful church membership. Where someone is publicly promoting homoerotic sexual practice within a congregation, there may be a case for more stringent disciplinary action.

Theologically I have issues with these approaches. Point one, in Genesis it states that man was created in God’s image. Therefore by definition anything that is part of the Human Race excluding personality is perfect as created by God. Therefore if God creates an individual that is homosexual then that is his will and lets be clear there have always been homosexual relationships from the beginning of humankind. This is something that we may not understand given biology, however essentially God may make a person homosexual for other reasons. We cannot really justify anti-homosexual attitudes on a purely biological level as we are not in touch with God’s will, especially as Gods will is not something exclusively dictated by the comment ‘go forth and multiply’. This especially has resonance when put into the context of Jesus’ comments about Love being the key to a better world, and that being the ideal by which to stand. Perhaps God's will is that by making someone homosexual he or she may come in contact with that community and do good within it. Or perhaps it will put persons in a position whereby they are meeting people and may save or life. These are a few of a myriad of explanations and I feel that the ‘doing good part’ is more important than the ‘doing men or women part’.

In concert with this there is the comment that ‘God is Love’ I have heard it argued that love in a homosexual relationship is not love as homosexuality is evil. This is a curious and ridiculous premise. I love many people; I love my Mum, my Dad, my sister and my friends (both male and female). There is also romantic love between persons and a possibility that a man or woman can love two people at the same time, for example a wife and a mistress. There is also unrequited love. There is also love of a minister for his parishioners and love that is for a body of people for example an efficient organisation being respected to the point of love by their boss or team leader or vice versa. Therefore by the comment ‘God is Love’ all these loving feelings emanate from God as ultimately all these feelings are good. Therefore the notion that amongst all this, the love between same-sex couples to a romantic level is not from God is simply preposterous. No person who truly loves another will do the other wrong. Generally things that are evil mean hurt and pain, so therefore if homosexual love were evil it would involve some level of hurt and pain, right? No it never does it is exactly the same as heterosexual love. The only objections by Christians are on a biological level, but I have already proven that to have no resonance with myself. As such Homosexual marriage in churches should be allowed, as a marriage is the celebration of Love and therefore something that has emanated from God.

Lastly I would like to explore briefly the difference between 27AD and today and the modern aspect of the issue. Primarily it is generally misunderstood that while the message of Jesus was something that should be spread to all nations ultimately, the actual initial conversations that Jesus had were for the Jews of 2000 years ago who had clearly lost their way. In this environment it is clear that if Jesus had stated that homosexuality and homosexual love that emanated by God was acceptable he would have been hauled up in front of the teachers of the law quicker than he could say crucifixion. Thus he would not have finished his ministry. What however would he have said today? Careful study of the Bible reveals that Jesus himself does not comment on homosexuality at all, the only reference being in the Old Testament. Indeed an interesting story I heard was about a leaflet from the Episcopal Chaplain's office at Stanford University that reads, "What did Jesus say about homosexuality?" On opening it is completely blank. I believe that Jesus would probably be more liberal and come out in favour of same-sex relationships. As I have already stated I believe Jesus’ main theme is that Love can win the day to improving the human race, and that if he were around today he would have accepted that God has always created homosexual individuals and that not everything of God’s will refers to ‘Go forth an multiply’. He would have seen that it is better to endorse love in its many and varied forms and rather than resist something that is the creation of God. THAT IS THE ESSENCE OF HIS MESSAGE! Therefore I do not see where C of E and Catholic Church draw their inspiration for damming homosexuality, and I do not know where evangelical alliance find the gall to expect something God has created to change. But there is hope.

No one reading this will know of Peter Clark, but the man’s name should be up in Christian lights. He is my Minister at my Methodist Church. Approximately eight months ago at an ecumenical service for all the churches in our local area of all denominations (including the C of E, Catholic Church and an Evangelical Church) he conducted a sermon that blew me away. He said to all these congregations that we should not be worrying about issues such as homosexuality (and women clergy), that if we do we look as though we are standing still in light of the modern world. He stated that the nation was increasingly comfortable with Homosexual members of society, but the Church in opposition looks increasingly anachronistic in the face of this. I would agree whole-heartedly. Indeed his comments reflect the attitude of the Methodist Church as a whole and by resolution we have decided that:

‘1 The Conference, affirming the joy of human sexuality as God's gift and the place of every human being within the grace of God, recognises the responsibility that flows from this for us all. It therefore welcomes the serious, prayerful and sometimes costly consideration given to this issue by The Methodist Church.
2 All practices of sexuality, which are promiscuous, exploitative or demeaning in any way are unacceptable forms of behaviour and contradict God's purpose for us all.
3 A person shall not be debarred from church on the grounds of sexual orientation in itself.
4 The Conference reaffirms the traditional teaching of the Church on human sexuality; namely chastity for all outside marriage and fidelity within it. The Conference directs that this affirmation is made clear to all candidates for ministry, office and membership, and having established this, affirm that the existing procedures of our church are adequate to deal with all such cases.
5 The Conference resolves that its decision in this debate shall not be used to form the basis of a disciplinary charge against any person in relation to conduct alleged to have taken place before such decisions were made.
6 Conference recognises, affirms and celebrates the participation and ministry of lesbians and gay men in the church. Conference calls on the Methodist people to begin a pilgrimage of faith to combat repression and discrimination, to work for justice and human rights and to give dignity and worth to people whatever their sexuality.

The outcome is that, within the church, there is a diversity of interpretations and a range of understandings about intimate relationships. The Conference encourages Methodists to continue to discuss these differences in a spirit of openness and love. Our shared ambition is to combat repression and discrimination, to work for justice and human rights and to give dignity and worth to people whatever their sexuality.’

Here you see that the Methodist church has no damning commentary on the issue, no statement stating that homosexuality and homosexual marriage is wrong. No statement stating that we should try and make people heterosexual. The principal is simple. The attitude of the Methodist church represents a truly liberal ideal that has far more relevance to the modern world. It has shown that it has a supreme adaptability over the other denominations who’s ideals are not based on building bridges and stopping conflict which is what Jesus wanted, but trying to change the world based on a purely biological principal and a part of the Old Testament. Indeed within the Methodist Church’s last statement the last point affirms my belief in Love being the key. It commands that as a Methodist I should, ‘begin a pilgrimage of faith to combat repression and discrimination, to work for justice and human rights and to give dignity and worth to people whatever their sexuality.’ Where’s the hate? The answer is nowhere. The Methodist church is more akin to the message of Jesus.

This one example of a Liberal attitude is something that I am proud to be a part of. The Methodist church has repeatedly illustrated a relevance to the modern world and the adaptability of Christ’s Message in it. I don’t have to look far to other contentious issues to find that Methodism has a more relevant perspective. Church and politics is one such issue, especially for the secular. The Evangelical Alliance comments that with regard to politics that:

“As part of a movement ‘uniting to change society’ the Alliance promotes unity and truth, acts as an evangelical voice to the state, society and the wider church, and works collaboratively with Alliance members and other evangelicals, to bring about social and spiritual transformation within society.”

There is a distinct difference in the Methodist Church’s position

‘The Methodist Church has stated that “the commitment of individual Christians to work for social and political change should be recognised as a fully legitimate form of Christian discipleship”. In a society where self interest, acquisitiveness and individual happiness are often seen as the over-riding interests, the church, and Christians within it, are called to witness meanings, values and purposes beyond ourselves, whilst recognising our own self-interest and hypocrisy.’

The phrase that I most find relevant is, ‘recognising our own self-interest and hypocrisy’, which is basically saying that we do have an agenda, but we have to recognise that it is not everyone’s agenda. We accept our position within the grand scheme whereas other churches have it in their heads that they could change everything to their way.

There are things I of course do not agree with and I do have issues about the Methodist Church’s opposition to abortion and euthanasia. However even there we see a difference in attitude between the churches. In the Evangelical Alliance, C of E, and particularly in the Catholic church, these decisions are not just out of my hands, but so far away from my hands that I do not have an effective say in the decision making process. I would be told what to believe, not based on my own assessment of the bible and my own convictions, but on someone else’s assessment of my belief. However in the Methodist church’s fact-sheets on abortion and euthanasia, which reject them, there are distinct open doors for those who disagree. On euthanasia:

‘A firm conviction against euthanasia does not lessen the complex moral problems integral to the final stages of some terminal illnesses. Sometimes, for example, the management of excessive pain may have the outcome of shortening life. On other occasions it may be extremely difficult to ascertain in what sense, if any, a patient may be judged still to be alive (for example, persistent vegetative state).’

On abortion:

‘It would be strongly preferable that, through advances in medical science and social welfare, all abortions should become unnecessary. But termination as early as possible in the course of the pregnancy may be the lesser of evils. If abortion were made a criminal offence again, there would be increased risks of ill health and death as a result of botched ‘back-street' abortions. Late abortions should be very rare exceptions. To refuse to countenance abortion in any circumstances is to condemn some women and their babies to gross suffering and a cruel death in the name of an absolutism which nature itself does not observe.’

These are very much a logical and more studious approaches in contrast to the blanket opinions of the other denominations. They don’t ram a judgment down anyone’s throat, rather they illustrate the sentiment that the church doesn’t agree with the practice, but that there may need to be outstanding issues to be resolved. This by default allows those in the church to put forward a different opinion and also illustrates that the opinions of the church are not just of a ‘scripture says’ approach. Rather the Methodist church takes into account all factors when considering an issue and tends not to pass resolutions without keeping mind the various pros and cons. This is in direct contrast to the Evangelicals who have set up an organisation called ‘Care not Killing’ with regard to Euthanasia. For them the debate is over. In all circumstances it is wrong. To back up the argument that I can have my own opinion it should be also made clear that these are simply the resolutions of the conference and are entirely open to change through the election system of the Methodist church. They may be the church’s decision, but they don’s have to be my decision. Indeed I am not hounded down at my church for having a difference of opinion. Indeed difference of opinion and the difference of conviction is a central theme of Methodist church. The Methodist fact sheet on membership to the church has a section that asks the question, ‘What do I have to believe or say to become a member?’ The answers are simple.

‘The Service of Confirmation and Reception into Membership includes two questions asked as an Affirmation of Faith: ‘Do you turn away from evil and all that denies God?' and ‘Do you turn to God, trusting in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, and in the Holy Spirit as Helper and Guide?' The answer to both questions is ‘By the grace of God I do.'

After confirmation and the reception, the newly-confirmed are asked to make three promises: ‘Will you commit yourself to the Christian life of worship and service, and be open to the renewing power of God?', ‘Will you seek the strength of God's Spirit as you accept the cost of following Jesus Christ in your daily life?' and ‘Will you witness, by word and deed, to the good news of God in Christ, and so bring glory to God?'. The response to each of these is ‘With God's help I will.’

All I have to do is believe that Jesus is my guide, my friend and my saviour. No rationale to believe or do anything I don’t want to outside this. The phrasing is short, sweet and understandable. Contrast with that Evangelical Alliance which provides an 11-point plan covering all the bases. This 11-point plan is very much extended by the resolutions by the central ruling body. Overall the key idea is that you have to in essence believe every article of their version of Christianity without anyone being allowed to hold a different view openly. It is not about drawing strength from faith and spreading love. Their rational is to get you on the exact same page as everyone else with no exceptions. This is not about acceptance; it is about conforming, making all people the same. It is ‘1984’, church style.

So what is the conclusion? The conclusion is simple in that I am proud to be a Methodist as it promotes love as a changing factor for all peoples and not just Christians. It cares for the disadvantaged without ramming Christianity down people’s throats. It promotes equality and acceptance. It can see itself in the context of the other churches, religions and ideals. It is open to new opinions and views and allows freedom of speech. Most importantly of all it presents a new view of Christianity that allows it to be relevant in the future, while other churches are simply standing still. All this while still holding to ‘Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as ever you can.’ Amen.

By David Turner

Published February 2007