When something is lost you begin to look for it in the last place you saw it. The last place the Methodists saw a clear and complete statement of our Articles of Religion was in the Thirty-Nine Articles, not the abridged twenty-five we currently hold.
When John Wesley produced the Sunday Service of the Methodists in North America, he was not producing a new doctrinal work, nor was he publishing a revised Book of Common Prayer. He produced an abridged version of the Book of Common Prayer just as he had published abridgements of many other works. In an abridgement, pertinent information is left out to make the work more affordable and more accessible for more people.
It was a sloppy abridgement. He did not intend for Methodists in North America to omit Scripture readings on two Sundays a year. Wesley did not intend that we use two different versions of the Lord’s Prayer. Others meddled with the text prior to publication requiring Wesley to print several errata pages and ship them to the United States for binding. That resulted in two versions of the Sunday Service in circulation at the same time. Each of them had numerous errors.
The Sunday Service does contain some editorial changes that are suitable to the new situation in America and a few that better reflect a Methodist ecclesiology, but none of these represent a theological shift. He omits reference to a national church and replaces terms bishops and priests with superintendents and ministers.
Wesley offered only one paragraph of general guidelines he used in the abridgement process, but many of the changes do not seem to meet the criteria. People have been scratching their heads ever since wondering what he meant by this work. Some of the Articles he omitted were ones he had always defended. The simplest answer is his stewardship principle—save all you can. The thinner he could make the book the more copies he could afford to print, ship, and place in the hands of more people. The Sunday Service is an abridged Book of Common Prayer produced as a temporary resource for a new church in an historically unprecedented situation. Somebody was supposed to finish it. Nobody ever did.
While the Articles of Religion were abridged in the Sunday Service for Methodists in North America, the original Thirty-Nine Articles remained the standard for Methodists outside the United States for well into the next century. For a couple of generations, the abridgement had little impact in the United States because, even though they were omitted from the text, Methodists still advocated and defended the principles established in the missing Articles and used them to guide their practice.
The delegates to the historic Christmas Conference were understandably enthusiastic about being part of a new work and excited about getting on with the mission of spreading Scriptural holiness throughout the land. So much so that they apparently expended little effort in the less exciting work of examining their foundational documents. The oversight had little effect on the first two generations. However, by the third generation the idea arose that an omission meant rejection, rejection is equivalent to denial, and denial means the principle must be refuted. There is an unobstructed road from the omission of the Nicene Creed to modern day bishops who refute the Nicene Creed. There is a clear path from the omission of Article XV to the open refutation by modern Methodist clergy of the sinless nature of Christ.
In the first General Conferences of the United Methodist Church, the delegates were enthusiastic about getting on with the more immediately rewarding aspects of being church and avoided reconciling the doctrinal standards of the merging churches. To avoid that difficult task, they codified doctrinal pluralism. Three generations later that sandy foundation collapsed. As the Global Methodist Church prepares for its convening conference the delegates also will be understandably enthusiastic about being part of a new work and excited about getting on with the mission of spreading Scriptural holiness throughout the land. For the sake of future generations let us attend to the less exciting work of examining our foundational documents.
This series looks at our doctrinal standards starting with the original Thirty-Nine Articles. We ask along the way, what needs to be retained, what needs to be omitted, and what new Articles, if any, need to be added. Some Articles should be laid aside as they are better addressed in instruments of polity. Some subjects are not suitable for an article of faith. The test would be universality—is it true and helpful for Christians in every place and time. Choose a village at random from anywhere in the world and pick a year out of a hat. Would the statement be a necessary and helpful truth? In the five-hundred years since the Articles were written the Church has moved into new lands, encountered new cultures, and faced new challenges. The global Church may require some new Articles to state afresh that which Scripture has always maintained.
We will examine the subject in five essays that correspond to the five sections of the Thirty-Nine Articles:
I. Nature of the Triune God, Articles 1-5 (1-4 Abridged Version)
II. The Rule of Faith, Articles 6-8 (5-6 Abridged Version)
III. The Way of Salvation, Articles 9-18 (7-12 Abridged Version)
IV. Nature and Ministry of the Church, Articles 19-36 (13-22 Abridged Version)
V. Relationship Between Church and State, Articles 37-39 (23-25 Abridged Version)
Numbering follows the order of the original Thirty-Nine then indicates its place in the Abridged Version.
Italics indicate words that are present in the original but omitted in the abridged texts.
Underlines indicate an addition to the original.
Leave a Reply to A Radical Proposal for Recovery of Doctrine in the Global Methodist Church – Omnia MethodistCancel reply