{"id":1112,"date":"2015-08-17T15:47:35","date_gmt":"2015-08-17T15:47:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/blog\/2015\/08\/17\/john-wesley-v-the-iphone-perfectionbased\/"},"modified":"2020-02-15T19:32:59","modified_gmt":"2020-02-15T19:32:59","slug":"john-wesley-v-the-iphone-perfectionbased","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/blog\/2015\/08\/17\/john-wesley-v-the-iphone-perfectionbased\/","title":{"rendered":"\u201cJohn Wesley v. the iphone: Perfection\u201dbased on\u00a0Matthew 5:43-48"},"content":{"rendered":"

\nThis
\nis week 2 of a sermon series entitled \u201cWould John Welsey Drive a
\nPrius\u201d trying to consider how Wesley’s concepts, ideas, and even
\njust his words fit into our lives today. \u00a0The topic of the week is
\nperfection, and I figured that since the founder of the Methodist
\nmovement wrote only one book, called \u201cA Plain Account of Christian
\nPerfection,\u201d I should probably reread it for the 5th<\/sup>
\ntime. \u00a0\n<\/p>\n

\n<\/p>\n

\nThe
\nbook is short, and it is on point. John Wesley affirms his long held
\nbelief that by God’s grace and the process of sanctification, people
\ncan be filled with love and nothing else while they are still alive.
\nHe called the end point Christian Perfection. \u00a0Believing that a
\nperson could reach Christian perfection in this lifetime was, for
\nhim, the defining characteristic of being a Methodist.
\n<\/i>
\nTo understand, we need to look at the word perfection.
\n <\/i>
\nThis is the explanation of
\nSteven Maskar of the General Board of Discipleship:<\/p>\n

\nWhen
\npeople hear Christian <\/i>and
\nperfection <\/i>together,
\nthe word impossible
\n<\/i>immediately
\njumps to mind. \u00a0This response is common because the meaning they hear
\nin the English word perfection<\/i>
\nis that of the Latin word perfecto.<\/i>
\n This term is the perfection of the gods. \u00a0It means one who is
\nperfect in all regards \u2013 in thought, word, and deed. \u00a0Human beings
\nare, of course, not capable of such perfection. \u00a0But this is not the
\nmeaning of Christian
\nperfection.<\/i><\/p>\n

\nWesley,
\nand others who addressed the doctrine, took the meaning of perfection<\/i>
\nfrom the Greek words teleios <\/i>and
\nteleiosis<\/i>.
\n \u2026 <\/i>Several
\nEnglish words are today used to convey the meaning of teleios<\/i>:
\nwhole, complete, mature, grown-up,
\nperfect.1<\/sup><\/a><\/i><\/p>\n

\n<\/p>\n

\nThis
\ndoesn’t mean that people won’t make mistakes. \u00a0Wesley is clear on
\nthat time and time again. \u00a0Mistakes will happen no matter what, they
\nare the defining characteristic of being human. \u00a0But acting out love
\nis still possible: and the love is both for God and humans. \u00a0Wesley
\neven goes so far as to say that God primarily experiences love when
\nwe share it with other people.<\/p>\n

\n<\/p>\n

\nNow,
\nJohn Wesley’s book is not actually my favorite. \u00a0(The stories I’ve
\nheard about him lead me to liking him more than I do from his book.)
\nI find most of what he says outdated, redundant, and\/or offensive.
\nWhen he gets around to a point that is sort of awesome, which he
\ndoes, I’m generally too annoyed with him to give him full credit. \u00a0
\nLuckily, Marjorie Suchocki loves the book. \u00a0Marjorie Suchocki is a
\nlay woman who has been dean and theology professor at multiple UM
\nseminaries. \u00a0She was a professor emeritus when I was at Claremont,
\nand she attended Claremont UMC where I got to be Program Secretary.
\nI think she’s brilliant, and I take what she says very seriously.
\nShe added a theological reflection to the end of \u201cA Perfect Love\u201d
\n – a modern language version of Wesley’s classic – in which she
\nshares her opinion the first time she read \u201cA Plain Account of
\nChristian Perfection.\u201d \u00a0She thought to herself, \u201cWhy, this is the
\nmerriest theologian I’ve ever read.\u201d2<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

\n<\/p>\n

\nI
\nwant to give Marjorie a chance to convince all of us of how wonderful
\nWesley’s book is, and how \u201cmerry\u201d he is. \u00a0It is only out of my
\nutmost respect for her that I can do this without sarcasm. \u00a0She
\npoints out that in Wesley’s view humanity is highly regarded namely,
\n\u201cGod creates humans for the sake of flourishing, of full
\ndevelopment, and this development tends towards God’s glory.\u201d3<\/sup><\/a>
\n (Which is also Love.) \u00a0She also point out that neither bodies nor
\nminds are denigrated in Wesley’s theology. \u00a0\u201cGod the creator is not
\ngloried through our denigration, but through the wonder of who we
\nwere created to be. \u00a0God created us with minds, and calls us to
\ndevelop them to the fullest. \u00a0We are to rejoice in our ‘mindedness’
\nand learn all that we can, pushing our abilities to the very
\nlimit…. In short, a Wesleyan understanding of what it is to be
\nhuman considers our intelligence, emotions, and bodies all to be a
\ngift from God, and thus we honor God insofar as we gratefully develop
\nthe gift as much as possible within our circumstances.\u201d4<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

\n<\/p>\n

\nShe
\ntakes from his book an understanding of God that I can get behind,
\n\u201cGod
\nis a fountain of pure love \u2013 not abstractly, not philosophically,
\nnot in isolated splendor. \u00a0Rather, God’s very nature is to love, and
\nthrough loving, to elicit our own loving nature in return. \u00a0Love is,
\nof all things, relational; and the God whose name and nature is love
\nis relational, through and through. \u00a0Out of the depths of divine
\nlove, God loves us; and we are most wondrously created because of
\nthat love, and for that love, and toward that love.\u201d5<\/sup><\/a>
\n Now, I read the same book she did. \u00a0And when she points this out, I
\ncan totally see where she gets it from, and how all the redundant
\nstatements get to that point. \u00a0However, I couldn’t get past my own
\nannoyance to see the wonder of what he was saying. \u00a0Thank God for
\ncheerful theologians looking for the good in what others say!! \u00a0(And
\nwho maybe, just maybe, use their own brilliance to explain the
\nslightly less exciting perspective of others.)<\/p>\n

\n<\/p>\n

\nSuchocki
\nhas a few other significant points that she draws out of Wesley’s
\nlittle book: \u00a0\u201cThe remarkable thing about Wesley is that he figured
\nGod couldn’t be stopped by human recalcitrance.\u201d6<\/sup><\/a>
\nand, \u201cConsider the nature of sin in a Wesleyan world. \u00a0If God
\nintended us to develop ourselves fully under the criterion of the
\nlove of God, then sin is anything that works against that goal.\u201d7<\/sup><\/a>
\n Now, we haven’t covered Wesley’s book as a whole, nor Suchocki’s
\nreflections on it, but we’ve done enough to be able to have a
\nconversation on the concept of perfection.<\/p>\n

\n<\/p>\n

\nOne
\nof Wesley’s favorite scripture passages to promote this topic is the
\none we read today, although he had many, many others. \u00a0It is an
\nexcellent passage because in addition to actually using the Greek
\nword for perfection\/wholeness\/completeness the passage calls for it
\nto be in love. \u00a0The passages pushes for more love than people would
\nnaturally want to give, and Wesley does too! \u00a0He really jives on this
\npassage, talking about doing good to those who would do you harm. \u00a0He
\npushes Methodists to show love outside of their own circles, and to
\nengage everyone as a beloved child of God, and he lived it too.<\/p>\n

\n<\/p>\n

\nPersonally,
\nI’m pretty fond of this passage as well. \u00a0Many scriptures that name
\nenemies end up claiming that God will punish those who do us harm,
\nand that always sounds wrong. \u00a0This one doesn’t. This one points out
\nthat sun and rain are gifts for everyone, no matter what their
\nbehavior, and that the love we share is to be as unbiased as the sun
\nand the rain. \u00a0It is even specific! \u00a0It calls out people for not
\nwanting to greet others who they don’t know or like. \u00a0Apparently
\nhumanity hasn’t’ changed all that much in 2000 years. \u00a0The passage
\ncalls out the people who follow the way of Jesus, and asks them to
\nbehave with MORE love than those who don’t. \u00a0The way of Jesus isn’t
\njust another way of living the same sort of life, it is a more
\ngenerous, more inclusive, more connected, more relational, more
\nloving way of life. \u00a0Thus, it is harder and more rewarding!<\/p>\n

\n<\/p>\n

\nLike
\nWesley, I’ve seen people live out love. \u00a0The pastor I interned under
\nlet me follow him around like a puppy dog two days a week for two
\nyears. \u00a0I sat in every meeting he sat it, I listened to him talk on
\nthe phone, and I listened to him when people interrupted him when he
\nwas on his way to get something important done. \u00a0I heard him speak to
\nthe District Superintendent, the lay leaders, the staff, people who
\nwere homeless, people who I knew drove him nuts, his partner, his
\nchildren, and those who said to him that he was outside of God’s
\ngrace. \u00a0Finally, near the end of him shadowing him, I asked him how
\nhe did it. In every conversation I saw over 2 years he was
\nUNFAILINGLY patient, loving, kind, and gentle. \u00a0He looked at me
\nsurprised and said, \u201cWe’re supposed to treat people with the love
\nthat God has for them!\u201d \u00a0I looked back at him and replied, \u201cYes,
\nof course we are! \u00a0But none of the rest of us actually manage to do
\nit!\u201d<\/p>\n

\n<\/p>\n

\nOn
\nthe off chance that Rev. Dr. Ed Hansen reads this sermon on Facebook,
\nI will admit for the sake of his humility that I’m not quite claiming
\nperfection for him. \u00a0But I learned a lot about what it means to live
\nin love in those years of following him. \u00a0He is an example for me of
\nhow profoundly powerful it is when we seek to live out God’s love.
\nThere are others, as well. \u00a0Lots of them actually. \u00a0In your unique
\nways, almost of you have taught me as well (with the exception of
\nthose I haven’t met yet… harder to make that claim before we meet.)
\n We can learn about love from all those we meet, if we are paying
\nattention to it, and around here it is even easy!<\/p>\n

\n<\/p>\n

\nJohn
\nShelby Spong, in his book \u201cA New Christianity for a New World\u201d
\nproposes that God is NOT a being (which is sort of a projection of
\nourselves most of the time anyway), but rather the Source of Being.
\nHe suggests that we consider God in new ways: \u201cGod is the ultimate
\nsource of life. \u00a0One worships this God by living fully, by sharing
\ndeeply,\u201d8<\/sup><\/a>
\n\u201cGod is the ultimate source of love. \u00a0One worships this God by
\nloving wastefully, by spreading love frivolously, by giving love away
\nwithout stopping to count the cost.\u201d9<\/sup><\/a>
\n \u201cGod is Being \u2013 the reality underlying everything that is. \u00a0To
\nworship this God you must be willing to risk all, abandoning your
\ndefenses and your self-imposed or culturally constructed security
\nsystems.\u201d10<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

\n<\/p>\n

\nSpong
\nis talking about God as I’ve known and experienced God. \u00a0But, in
\naddition to what Spong offered, I would add a fourth: \u00a0God is the
\nultimate source of justice. \u00a0One worships this God by seeking
\nequality and fairness for all people regardless of race, age, gender,
\nsexual orientation, country of origin, economic status, ability or
\ndisability, language, health or sickness, annoyance or wonderfulness.
\n \u00a0(You might be able to argue that Justice and Love are the same
\nthing for God, that because God loves all the people and seeks good
\nfor all, that justice would follow. \u00a0I’d agree, in theory, but in
\npracticality I want to mention it separately.) \u00a0Spong’s theory is
\nquite different from many of the church’s historical teachings. \u00a0It
\nrefutes God as supernatural, as intervening in the world in physical
\nways, as having favorites, or even of ensuring people’s safety.
\nBecause of that, it frees us from old trappings and lets redefine
\nwhat it means to be people of God in more inclusive, prophetic, and
\nloving ways. \u00a0Or, perhaps around here, it gives words and form to
\nwhat many of us already believed,<\/p>\n

\n<\/p>\n

\nThis
\nunderstanding, this perspective of the Holy One is both radically
\ndifferent from what John Wesley wrote and EXACTLY THE SAME. \u00a0It
\nboggles my mind how profoundly true both sides of this are. \u00a0Wesley’s
\nunderstanding of God, in most ways, fits his 18th<\/sup>
\ncentury context. \u00a0 So much of what he says is dated, and yet, he is
\nhyperfocused on this life. \u00a0 He is focused on making the world a
\nbetter place, on building the kin-dom of God, by guiding people into
\nthe sorts of relationships with God that let love be built up in and
\nthrough them. \u00a0His life and his writing are obsessed with helping
\nthere be more love in the world in practical and real ways – ways
\nlife food, shelter, heat in winter, clothes, and companionship. \u00a0His
\nlove wasn’t pie in the sky. \u00a0It was practical, down to earth, and
\nextended to ALL the people.<\/p>\n

\n<\/p>\n

\nJohn
\nWesley’s understanding of God starts with God’s love that seeks
\njustice, and includes God’s enrichment of life. \u00a0Without Marjorie I
\nmight not have seen it, but he has some points that hold up as well
\nas the most radical of 21st<\/sup>
\ncentury theologians. \u00a0Oh, and the iphone? \u00a0It is just a device that
\nis pretty close to perfection in the Latin version of the word.
\nCompared to the power of love, it doesn’t matter. \u00a0Wesley for the
\nWIN. \u00a0Love for the WIN. \u00a0Thanks be to the Source of Life, Love,
\nJustice, and Being. \u00a0Amen\t<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

1<\/a>\u00a0A
\n\tPerfect Love: Understanding John Wesley’s ’A
\n\tPlain Account of Christian Perfection’<\/i>
\n\tModern Language Version and notes by Steven W Manskar (Discipleship
\n\tResources: Nashville, 2004), \u00a0page 10.
2<\/a>\u00a0Suchocki\u00a0p. 33 and 104.
3<\/a>\u00a0Suchocki,
\n\t106.
4<\/a>\u00a0Suchocki,
\n\t107-8.
5<\/a>\u00a0Suchocki,
\n\t108.
6<\/a>\u00a0Suchocki
\n\t110.
7<\/a>\u00a0Suchocki
\n\t111.
8<\/a>\u00a0John
\n\tShelby Spong A New Christianity for a New World: Why Traditional
\n\tFaith is Dying and How a New Faith is Being Born
\n\t(HarperSanFrancisco, 2001) page 70.
9<\/a>\u00a0Spong,
\n\t72.
10<\/a>\u00a0Spong
\n\t72-73.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Rev. Sara E. Baron
First United Methodist Church of Schenectady
603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305
http:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/
<\/a>https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/FUMCSchenectady<\/a>\u00a0
\u00a0August 9, 2015<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This is week 2 of a sermon series entitled \u201cWould John Welsey Drive a Prius\u201d trying to consider how Wesley’s … Continue reading \u201cJohn Wesley v. the iphone: Perfection\u201dbased on\u00a0Matthew 5:43-48<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11],"tags":[33,1248,812,1240,1243,1247,1249,1245,1246,56,831,1241],"class_list":["post-1112","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sermons","tag-umc","tag-aperfectlove","tag-fumcschenetady","tag-johnshelbyspong","tag-johnwesley","tag-marjoriesuchoki","tag-perfection","tag-progressivechristainity","tag-relevent","tag-schenectady","tag-thinkingchurch","tag-wouldjohnwesleydriveaprius"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1112","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1112"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1112\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1307,"href":"https:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1112\/revisions\/1307"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1112"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1112"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1112"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}