What are the objections to the changes to Article X?

[Jon Twitchell]

Our GS definitely felt the need to provide additional explanation to the changes in Article X, as though he was attempting to proactively address questions or discussion before they occurred.

Despite this, we had a handful of members vote against these changes.

I've read... and re-read the article, and can't figure out what they're objecting to.

(I know... the obvious solution is for me to ask them directly... which I will probably do at some point... but I wanted to get some feedback here first.)

Can you help me figure out what the issues are?

[Hans Deventer]

Change?

[Shea Zellweger]

Change?

GS Toler said the first "no" vote he got on a constitution change was from a man who said he was sick and tired of all of the changes... so you may not be too far off :)

[Eric Vail]

My district voted unanimously to approve it at our August 2009 meeting. There was no discussion other than a very brief introduction made by GS Toler.

[Jim Chabot]

GS Toler said the first "no" vote he got on a constitution change was from a man who said he was sick and tired of all of the changes... so you may not be too far off :)

I'll add a third vote.

I'm quite happy with the changes, I think this helps us move gently away from the AHM "improvement" and toward Wesley's view, and more importantly these changes align us better with scripture.

My wife reminds me from time to time that my words upon first reading this over 30 years ago were; "You have got to be kidding, is this a cult?"

Good changes, we need a few more. Here is a link to a well written article on this by Tom Oord.

http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/test_entry11/

[Mike Schutz]

We heard none at Philadelphia District Assembly - and the vote was unanimous.
I was sitting next to a member of my congregation who recently entered the course of study, took Systematic Theology II from me in the spring, and will take Holiness from me in the fall. She asked my opinion of the changes, and I told her that they don't go far enough, such as a failure to clean up the misleading and unhelpful language concerning "phases."

[Jon Bemis]

Our DA is a couple of weeks off, but personally I'm glad for the changes, although I'm one of those that think they don't go far enough. I especially would like to see some work done with this sentence "We believe that entire sanctification is that act of God, subsequent to regeneration, by which believers are made free from original sin, or depravity, and brought into a state of entire devotement to God, and the holy obedience of love made perfect." I can't count the times I've been asked "What exactly does that mean?"

[Wilson Deaton]

... approve it at our August 2009 meeting...

Some of you other districts are behind the times...

Wilson

[Hans Deventer]

Some of you other districts are behind the times...

Wilson

We'll have to deal with this at our March 2011 DA! I heard the regional office was in no hurry to present the changes to us.

[David Graham]

I like the changes, to me it more closely equates to the experience of most committed Christians.

In saying that, I still don't regard the term "entire" as necessary, for when as a consequence of the act of God a person is "sanctified" the whole person is set apart for God and declared "holy". This is not to say that there is no room for further growth in "Christlikeness" or even in a person's Christian commitment, it just means that at that particular time in the person's journey, they are fully set apart to God to the best of their understanding and in that moment God sanctifies the whole person. Hence as the person receives more "light" in their spiritual journey, new areas of commitment are identified and new consecrations can be made, and in each subsequent new commitment the person is no more or less sanctified than the time before......... even though they have grown.

Blessings,
Dave

[Jon Twitchell]

We'll have to deal with this at our March 2011 DA! I heard the regional office was in no hurry to present the changes to us.

The cynic in me says...

"Put the cranky districts at the end of the approval cycle, and by then 2/3rds of the districts will already have concurred."

:)

[Hans Deventer]

The cynic in me says...

"Put the cranky districts at the end of the approval cycle, and by then 2/3rds of the districts will already have concurred."

:)

Oh, I don't expect a lot of trouble. So far, we never had much discussion about these kind of resolutions. It is of course only a yes/no vote. Now if we got the chance to amend, THAT would be a totally different story :)

[Dennis Bratcher]

I like the changes, to me it more closely equates to the experience of most committed Christians.

In saying that, I still don't regard the term "entire" as necessary, for when as a consequence of the act of God a person is "sanctified" the whole person is set apart for God and declared "holy". This is not to say that there is no room for further growth in "Christlikeness" or even in a person's Christian commitment, it just means that at that particular time in the person's journey, they are fully set apart to God to the best of their understanding and in that moment God sanctifies the whole person. Hence as the person receives more "light" in their spiritual journey, new areas of commitment are identified and new consecrations can be made, and in each subsequent new commitment the person is no more or less sanctified than the time before......... even though they have grown.

Wesley would agree that "sanctification" is part of any relationship with God. However, he also wanted to talk about that relationship in terms of spiritual growth, since he felt that was part of the biblical witness to that relationship. He used the metaphor of little children, young men, and fathers, drawn from 1 John 2:12-14, to illustrate that growth (Christian Perfection, Sermon 40 (http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/sermons/040.htm)).

Without lapsing into the later AHM obsession with "secondness," Wesley wanted to distinguish between:


1) justification, which frees from outward sin; this Wesley termed initial sanctification.

2) sanctification, which frees from inward sin and fills the heart with love so that love excludes sin; this is Wesley's entire sanctification.

3) glorification, which is the final preparation of a person for heaven; this he termed final sanctification, and agreed that all Christians believed in this form of sanctification.

In fact, one of the most important contributions of Wesley to Christian theology is his rejection of the Greek-influenced notion of a contaminated and unalterably flawed humanity that is basically irredeemable except by a decree of God, and a corresponding emphasis on the reality of a pure heart before death as human beings respond to God's grace. It is this emphasis to which the term "entire" points.

So while sanctification is certainly a valid way to talk about any relationship with God, it is important in a Wesleyan context to make this distinction. Whether "entire" is the best term is certainly open to discussion. However, there needs to be some term or some way to talk about spiritual growth that results in a heart filled with love that excludes sin that is different than the initial acceptance of God's grace in establishing relationship with God. If there is not, then we have lost the Wesleyan emphasis on purity of heart and practical holiness.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Kevin Rector]

Some of you other districts are behind the times...

Wilson

...and some of us get to vote yes for it twice!

[James Diggs]

I like the direction the article is moving so I am not going to nitpick some of the experiential language that still remains. I do like the fact that the changes in the first sentence seem to better frame sanctification as a whole in a way that makes it more clear that we are not just talking about "entire sanctification" when we say the word "sanctification".


We believe that sanctification is the work of God which transforms believers into the likeness of Christ. It is wrought by God’s grace through the Holy Spirit in initial sanctification, or regeneration (simultaneous with justification), entire sanctification, and the continued perfecting work of the Holy Spirit culminating in glorification....

Again, I really like that first new sentence. Still, I would like us to someday move away from some of the experiential language that remains in the rest of the Article; but such language is still meaningful for those who understand the idea of sanctification through the lens of their own experiences. I can respect the need to keep some of this for those whom this may have been the only way sanctification has been framed and still move forward with making some theological clarifications. Again, I think the changes are a good compromise that moves in the right direction.

I do think in time we will likely move away from the experiential language all together- not that it won't be something we experience but that we will stop trying to nail down a description based on a particular experience thus turning it into a prescription.

[Ryan Scott]

Our GS definitely felt the need to provide additional explanation to the changes in Article X, as though he was attempting to proactively address questions or discussion before they occurred.

Could this potentially be because your district is closer in proximity to more vocal criticism on such things?

[Eric Frey]

I have no objections to the proposed changes. I do have an objection to the haste with which they were handled at our recent DA. It was right after lunch when they were addressed. Our service (at the restaurant) was slow and we were a little late. I missed the first two "discussions." After the third passed with no discussion whatsover, I dared ask a question about the fourth. The GS had no answer. The DS attempted an answer. There was absolutely no discussion of the issue. We moved right along and passed it and the fifth change we are asked to accept.

Understanding that I am in favor of all the the proposed changes, it bothers me very much that any change can get through a DA with absolutely no discussion whatsoever. Perhaps I like to think too much for my own good, but it just seems too hasty and rubber-stampish and not thoughtful or prayerful enough. All proposed changes passed easily.

[Dennis M. Scott]

I confess a degree of inattention, but if I got the vote tallies correct, the other four changes had eight or nine "no" votes, but the Article X vote had only one "no". I don't get it.

[Shea Zellweger]

I confess a degree of inattention, but if I got the vote tallies correct, the other four changes had eight or nine "no" votes, but the Article X vote had only one "no". I don't get it.

There was some vote at the NED Assembly in which one pastor appeared to be voting no just for the sake of voting no, but I don't recall if it was this one.

[Karen Troxler]

There was some vote at the NED Assembly in which one pastor appeared to be voting no just for the sake of voting no, but I don't recall if it was this one.

It couldn't have been this vote, because the Manual changes were voted on by paper ballot, not upraised hands.

[Roy Richardson]

the only objection I have heard is the emphasis on glorification, and how that can possibly diminish the emphasis on sanctification in this life.

[Mike Schutz]

I have no objections to the proposed changes. I do have an objection to the haste with which they were handled at our recent DA. It was right after lunch when they were addressed. Our service (at the restaurant) was slow and we were a little late. I missed the first two "discussions." After the third passed with no discussion whatsover, I dared ask a question about the fourth. The GS had no answer. The DS attempted an answer. There was absolutely no discussion of the issue. We moved right along and passed it and the fifth change we are asked to accept.

Understanding that I am in favor of all the the proposed changes, it bothers me very much that any change can get through a DA with absolutely no discussion whatsoever. Perhaps I like to think too much for my own good, but it just seems too hasty and rubber-stampish and not thoughtful or prayerful enough. All proposed changes passed easily.

Eric,
I agree. I suppose it is because I see some advantage to the old Wesleyan concept of Christian conference. While I legitimately understand the decisions behind removing pastor's individual reports, it now seems that there is almost no discussion of real issues - just a barrage of advertisements for various programs and events. However, i also understand that discussions are often fueled by the most reactionary among the delegates, who - in these days - are most resistant to change. So the pragmatist in me understands the desire of those at the head table to keep things moving and keep in control of the flow. That means that real substantive discussion, and even questions, are discouraged.

After all, we have to be done on time so that the clergy choir can rehearse for the ordination service. ;)

[James Diggs]

the only objection I have heard is the emphasis on glorification, and how that can possibly diminish the emphasis on sanctification in this life.

What specifically about it makes people see it as possibly diminishing the emphasis on sanctification in this life?