Two of Wesley's sermons

Text: Mark 9:38-39

The thing that all Methodist church stewards dread more than anything else is that the preacher appointed to take the service will fail to arrive. This is because, should this state of affairs arise, it is the responsibility of the steward on duty to step into the breach.

He or she is not, however, left entirely without aid. In the vestry of every Methodist church, you should find a copy of this helpful little volume: John Wesley’s 44 Sermons; and it is one of these that should be read in the absence of a suitably qualified preacher.

Fortunately (or perhaps unfortunately), preachers usually do manage to make it to their appointments, so it is quite likely that you have never had the opportunity to savour one of these gems of literature. Do not despair! In this talk, I intend to rectify this by giving you a taste of not one but two of Wesley’s sermons.

I hasten to add that I won’t be reading them to you in their entirety – the attention span of eighteenth century audiences was clearly considerably longer than that of the average congregation today, and I know you want to get home to lunch – but I hope to whet your appetite and perhaps have a go at reading them for yourselves at home.

I started thinking about this service with the following passage that we read earlier from St Paul’s letter to the Romans in mind.

Romans 2:11-29 (New International Version)

11 For God does not show favouritism.

12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

17 Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and boast in God; 18 if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; 19 if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, 20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of little children, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— 21 you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? 22 You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who boast in the law, do you dishonour God by breaking the law? 24 As it is written: “God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”

25 Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. 26 So then, if those who are not circumcised keep the law’s requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27 The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the[b] written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.

28 A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29 No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God.

I wanted to explore the idea that we must be wary of setting ourselves up as a chosen elite, of thinking that we have all the answers, of assuming that we have nothing more to learn and outsiders are, at best, ignorant and deluded.

Now, Local Preachers in training are (or were in my day) required to read certain of our founder’s 44 sermons. So, many moons ago I dutifully ploughed my way through those which were on the statutory list – and promptly forgot the contents, once my oral examination in front of the Local Preachers’ meeting was over. However, there was one phrase which stuck in my subconscious:

“If your heart is right with my heart – give me your hand.”

This is part of the text upon which Sermon 34 is based. The title of this sermon is “Catholic Spirit” – catholic being used in the sense of “universal”. The full text is from the Second Book of kings, chapter 10:

And when he was departed thence, he lighted on Jehonadab the son of Rechab coming to meet him: and he saluted him, and said to him, Is thine heart right, as my heart is with thy heart? And Jehonadab answered, It is. If it be, give me thine hand.

Or in a more modern translation:

After he left there, he came upon Jehonadab son of Rekab, who was on his way to meet him. Jehu greeted him and said, ‘Are you in accord with me, as I am with you?’

‘I am,’ Jehonadab answered.

‘If so,’ said Jehu, ‘give me your hand.’

This seemed to fit in rather well with my theme, so I got out the book and had a look at sermon 34.

The first thing that struck me when I started to read was: why on earth had I found Wesley’s sermons so boring before? This one was really rather good, and quite witty in places.

The second thing was: how advanced and liberal Wesley appeared to be, considering that he was writing more than two hundred years ago. (But perhaps we need to remember that he was a product of the Age of Enlightenment and in some quarters Christian thinking went backwards during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.)

It was reassuring to find him expressing opinions that I had long held, but which I suspected might not be quite orthodox. He was willing to accept, as fellow members of the Christian fold, people with widely differing beliefs and modes of worship. (No wonder he incurred the wrath of the church establishment of the time!) His only criteria for acceptance being: “Is thine heart right, as my heart is, with thy heart?”

Having read Sermon 34, I idly turned the pages and stumbled across Sermon 33 entitled “A caution against bigotry”.

This looked promising! So I read on – and I was further impressed. This was even better! Not only could the spirit of God be seen working through Christian people of diverse beliefs and practices, but we should also be willing to recognise His presence in the actions of Jews or Muslims!

So, I would like to share with you the main points which struck me from reading these two sermons.

First: On the Catholic Spirit.

We should love everyone, just as God loves us. But it is perfectly proper that there should be a special kind of love between fellow Christians. However, this special love does not depend on being of the same opinion, or on using the same modes of worship. We should love all our brothers and sisters in Christ, whether or not we agree with them.

Wesley backs this up with reference to his text:

“The very first thing we may observe is that here is no inquiry concerning Jehonadab’s opinions. And yet it is certain he held some which were very uncommon, indeed quite peculiar to himself.”

He goes on to explain that he is not suggesting that our own personal beliefs are unimportant, or that we should try to accommodate everyone else’s opinions within our own. We are free to disagree, and disagree heartily, with one another’s opinions – but this should not be permitted to create a barrier between us. As Wesley says,

“It is very possible that many good men now also may entertain peculiar opinions; and some of them may be as singular herein as Jehonadab was. And it is certain, so long as we know but in part, that all men will not see things alike.”

And he goes on:

“Although every man necessarily believes that every particular opinion which he holds is true (for to believe any opinion is not true is the same as not to hold it); yet can no man be assured that all his own opinions, taken together, are true. Nay, every thinking man is assured that they are not.”

And, if another person is mistaken in his beliefs, who are we to blame him for it? How can we know to what extent he is responsible for his opinions? Is it not often the case that our beliefs are more a result of our upbringing than our own choice? I had previously thought that the idea that we are conditioned by our environment into holding particular views was a modern one. (Certainly the atheists, who try to explain away religion as purely a result of childhood conditioning that ought to be swept away by the pure fresh air of rational thought, would have us believe that this is a “new” “scientific” approach.) But Wesley was there before the psychologists:

“I say, ‘perhaps cannot know’; for who can tell how far invincible ignorance may extend? Or (that comes to the same thing) invincible prejudice? – which his so often fixed in tender minds that it is afterwards impossible to tear up what has taken so deep a root. And who can say, unless he know every circumstance attending it, how far any mistake is culpable?”

Similarly, we should not allow our different modes of worship and church organisation to come between us. Differences of belief will inevitably lead to differences in worship. Upon neither should we pass judgement, since what is important is that each person should follow the dictates of his own conscience.

Wesley goes much further than I would have expected of an 18th century clergyman in accepting the practices of non-Anglican denominations:

“I dare not, therefore, presume to impose my mode of worship on another. I believe it is truly primitive and apostolical: but my belief is no rule for another. I ask not, therefore, of him with whom I would unite in love, Are you of my church? Do you receive the supper of the Lord in the same posture and manner that I do? Nor whether in the administration of Baptism you agree with me in admitting sureties for the baptised; in the manner of administering it; or the age of those to whom it should be administered. Nay, I ask not of (clear as I am in my own mind), whether you allow baptism and the Lord’s super at all. Let these things stand by: we will talk of them, if need be, at a more convenient season; my only question at present is this, ‘Is thine heart right, as my heart is with thy heart?’”

This, then, is how we recognise out brothers and sisters in Christ. “Is thine heart right, as my heart is, with thy heart?” And, says Wesley, this means to say, “Is your heart right with God and with your neighbours?”

And when we find such a person, what does it mean to say “Give me your hand?” It does not mean, “Accept my opinions”. It does not mean, “Adopt my modes of worship”. It simply means, “Love me as a brother in Christ, a fellow citizen of the New Jerusalem, a companion in the Kingdom of Jesus.”

But it is not always easy to recognise God’s hand at work in people who do not belong to our particular group. Even Jesus’ disciples fell into the trap of thinking that they had the monopoly on the Holy Spirit:

“And John answered him, saying, ‘Master, we saw one casting out devils in Thy name; and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.’ But Jesus said, ‘forbid him not.’”

In A Caution against Bigotry John Wesley uses this text from Mark’s Gospel to justify his opinion that we should judge other people’s actions not based on who they are or what religious group they belong to, but simply by results. “By their fruits shall ye know them.”

He begins by explaining that, in his opinion, the modern equivalent of casting out devils is performing actions that result in radical change for the better in people’s lives. In particular, her talks about preaching, and uses this sermon to justify his practice of allowing non-ordained people to preach. However, I would prefer to widen the scope and to include all “good works”, all “actions in accordance with the Spirit of God”. Indeed, when Jesus replies to the disciples, he includes all works of divine power and not just the casting out of devils:

“You must not stop him: no-one who works a miracle in my name is likely to speak evil of me. Anyone who is not against us is for us.”

Wesley then goes on to consider a number of ways in which someone may be “not one of us”:

He may simply not happen to belong to our particular group. He might, for example, be a member of one of the other Methodist Churches in the circuit.

On a deeper level, he may have different religious opinions or practices – perhaps a member of another Christian denomination.

And Wesley goes further:

“But in a far stronger sense ‘he followeth us not’ who is not only of a different church, but of such a church as we account to be in many respects anti-scriptural and anti-Christian, - a church that we believe to be utterly false and erroneous in her doctrine, as well as dangerously wrong in her practice …”

And he goes on:

“It is nothing more than we may expect, if those who differ from us soon contract a sharpness, yea, bitterness towards us; if they are more and more prejudiced against us, till they conceive as ill an opinion of our persons as of our principles. … They ill set themselves in opposition to us, and, as far as they are able, hinder our work …

Nevertheless, even someone who has set up such barriers between himself and us, may be used as God’s instrument for good. And we should not attempt to prevent him from serving God as the Spirit enables him. On the contrary, we should help and encourage him – insofar as he will allow us.”

Oh dear! Perhaps Wesley is a little too broadminded for me! Now I can no longer be critical of evangelists out of the Billy Graham mould for their simplistic, emotionally-charged appeals to the masses. I should be rejoicing at the unquestionable success of their campaigns, not gloomily forecasting that many of their converts “will not last long once they are back in the real world”!

And if you are tempted to criticise the authors of “The Myth of God Incarnate” for being too liberal, or the Anglican defectors to Catholicism over women priests as too conservative, or the Archbishop of Canterbury for dabbling in politics or politicians interfering in church matters, stop and think. Look for the fruit of their actions. Are they, in some manner, “casting out devils”? Would Jesus say to us, “forbid them not”?

“Are you on God’s side?” says Wesley. “Then you will readily acknowledge the work of God, and confess the greatness of it. You will remove all difficulties and objections, as far as may be, out of his way. You will strengthen his hands by speaking honourably of him before all men, and avowing things which you have seen and heard. You will encourage others to attend upon his word, to hear him whom God hath sent. And you will omit no actual proof of tender love, which God gives you an opportunity of showing him.”

Strong stuff. And it doesn’t stop there. Here is John Wesley’s test by which you may discover whether or not you have fallen into bigotry:

“In order to examine ourselves thoroughly, let the case be proposed in the strongest manner. What, if I were to see a Papist, an Arian, a Socinian, casting our devils? If I did, I could not forbid him, without convicting myself of bigotry. Yea, if it could be supposed that I should see Jew, a Deist, or a Turk, doing the same, were I to forbid him either directly or indirectly, I should be no better than a bigot still.”

There’s a wideness in God’s mercy, like the wideness of the sea.

There’s a kindness in his justice, which is more than liberty.

For the love of God is broader than the measure of Man’s mind,

And the heart of the eternal is most infinitely kind.

It is easy to criticise other people. It is easy to erect barriers to exclude them. It is easy to see why they are not suitable to be members of the kingdom of God – or representatives of God on earth. But who are we to judge? How are we to know whom God will choose as his instrument? Let us strive to be generous in our judgement, remembering that:

“The judgements that you give are the judgements you will get, and the amount you measure out is the amount you will be given.”

References

1. John Wesley's Forty-Four Sermons, Epworth Press, 1944.

2. There's a Wideness in God's Mercy, Frederick William Faber.