A Theoretical Dialogue Between Contemporary Bishops and the Founders of Methodism: An Examination of Doctrinal and Practical Discrepancies and Departures

 I. Establishing the Theological Context and Framework

Historical Roots and Methodological Approach

The 18th-century Methodist movement, conceived by John Wesley and his contemporaries, sought to infuse Anglican orthodoxy with a vibrant spirituality that addressed the moral and spiritual apathy of its age. Wesley’s theology drew heavily on patristic orthodoxy, particularly the early Church Fathers’ emphasis on sanctification and theosis (deification), framing the Christian life as a transformative journey toward divine likeness through grace.¹

This paper interrogates the divergence between the original vision of Methodism and the contemporary theological articulation by the United Methodist Church’s Council of Bishops. Employing a patristic lens, we explore how foundational orthodoxy has been reframed through the influences of progressive Christianity and postmodern relativism, both of which increasingly inform the UMC’s ecclesiology and praxis.²

The founders’ emphasis on universal truths, derived from Scripture and rooted in the theological rigor of the early Church, contrasts starkly with the progressive theological currents of the UMC. While progressive Christianity centers inclusivity and justice, its postmodern relativism often diminishes the absolutist claims of biblical authority and holiness, raising questions about doctrinal fidelity.³

This study adopts an interdisciplinary methodology, engaging historical theology, comparative ecclesiology, and sociological analysis. By constructing an imagined dialogue between the founders and contemporary bishops, this heuristic device dramatizes the theological and practical shifts, exposing the theological tensions between orthodoxy and contextual adaptation.⁴

The study positions the UMC’s Council of Bishops as a case study in how a global denomination navigates the intersection of tradition and modernity. Their articulation of inclusivity, unity in diversity, and systemic reform offers an illuminating lens through which to analyze the broader tension between patristic orthodoxy and postmodern ecclesial trends.⁵

This inquiry ultimately argues that the UMC’s current vision represents not merely an adaptation to modern contexts but a substantial departure from the Wesleyan synthesis of personal holiness, communal accountability, and scriptural authority, deeply rooted in the theological rigor of the early Church.⁶

II. Foundational Vision: The Theological Framework of Early Methodism

Theological Foundations: Patristic Influence and Wesleyan Synthesis

John Wesley’s theology was profoundly influenced by the patristic fathers, particularly the Cappadocian Fathers (e.g., Gregory of Nyssa) and Augustine. Wesley adopted their emphasis on sanctification as a participatory process of divine grace, wherein believers were called to grow in love and holiness, reflecting the divine image.⁷

Wesley’s doctrine of Christian perfection synthesized this patristic vision with Reformation insights on grace and justification. He maintained that sanctification was not a mere moral improvement but a theosis, a transformative participation in the divine nature enabled by prevenient grace—a hallmark of Wesleyan theology.⁸

The emphasis on personal holiness and moral accountability was not isolated from communal responsibility. Wesley integrated this with an eschatological vision that saw social justice as the fruit of personal transformation. This communal aspect mirrored the early Church’s practices of mutual accountability and care for the marginalized.⁹

Scripture was central to Wesley’s theological method, informed by the quadrilateral model of Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. However, Scripture held the primacy, shaping the other elements and resisting the relativism that characterizes contemporary theological discourse.¹⁰

The praxis of Methodism, including itinerant preaching and class meetings, drew inspiration from the early Church’s missionary zeal and emphasis on discipleship. These practices fostered a living orthodoxy, wherein theological principles were not abstract but embodied in communal and personal practices.¹¹

Early Methodism’s coherence rested on its rootedness in patristic orthodoxy and its ability to translate these principles into practical language. Wesley’s sermons and hymns, often co-authored with his brother Charles, articulated deep theological truths in accessible, poetic forms that resonated with laypeople.¹²

III. The United Methodist Church’s Vision: Theological Shifts and Practical Realities

A. Inclusivity, Social Justice, and Progressive Theology

The UMC’s Council of Bishops has adopted inclusivity as a central theological principle, reflecting the influence of progressive Christianity. This approach emphasizes the imago Dei (image of God) in all people, affirming the inherent worth of individuals irrespective of race, gender, or sexuality.¹⁹

Progressive theology’s emphasis on justice resonates with Wesley’s social engagement but diverges in its theological grounding. While Wesley’s advocacy was rooted in personal holiness and scriptural authority, contemporary progressive theology often leans on postmodern relativism, prioritizing human dignity as a self-evident truth.²⁰

Postmodern relativism has challenged the doctrinal coherence of the UMC, as it resists absolute claims about holiness and morality. This has led to debates over scriptural authority, particularly on contentious issues such as sexuality and gender, reflecting a broader cultural shift.²¹

The emphasis on systemic reform, such as addressing racial and economic inequities, represents a laudable commitment to justice but risks becoming disconnected from the theological imperatives of grace and holiness. This shift reflects the UMC’s struggle to balance activism with its spiritual roots.²²

Inclusivity, while a powerful witness to the Gospel’s universality, has sometimes led to theological pluralism that dilutes the distinctives of Wesleyan theology. The Council’s efforts to maintain unity amidst theological diversity often result in compromises that alienate both traditionalists and progressives.²³

The theological shifts within the UMC illustrate the tension between engaging contemporary cultural concerns and maintaining fidelity to the Wesleyan synthesis of grace, holiness, and scriptural authority. This tension underscores the complexity of navigating postmodern ecclesial realities.²⁴

B. Ecclesiology and Institutional Adaptations

The United Methodist Church (UMC) has evolved into a complex global denomination, governed by institutional frameworks that reflect the challenges of scale and diversity. The Council of Bishops, as the central leadership body, represents a departure from the decentralized, relational ecclesiology of early Methodism. This shift reflects broader trends in modern ecclesial practice, where bureaucratic efficiency often takes precedence over relational discipleship.²⁵

In contrast to the small-group accountability structures of early Methodism, the UMC relies heavily on programs and large-scale initiatives. While these efforts aim to address systemic issues like poverty, racism, and environmental degradation, they often lack the personal and spiritual depth that characterized Wesley’s class meetings and bands.²⁶

The institutional nature of the UMC has also led to a focus on structural unity, often at the expense of doctrinal clarity. The Council of Bishops frequently emphasizes the need to maintain a connectional church, even as debates over sexuality, scriptural authority, and moral teaching threaten to fracture the denomination.²⁷

The global nature of the UMC presents unique challenges and opportunities. While the diversity of cultural perspectives enriches the denomination, it also creates tensions regarding the interpretation and application of Wesleyan theology. For example, African and Asian Methodist communities often maintain traditionalist positions on issues like marriage and sexuality, while Western conferences lean toward progressive stances.²⁸

This tension between global diversity and theological coherence reflects a broader challenge for contemporary Christianity: how to navigate the interplay between local contexts and universal truths. The UMC’s efforts to hold these tensions in balance demonstrate a commitment to inclusivity but also highlight the risk of compromising core theological convictions.²⁹

Ultimately, the institutional adaptations of the UMC reveal a tension between the missional ethos of early Methodism and the administrative demands of a global denomination. While these adaptations are necessary for managing complexity, they raise questions about whether the Church can retain its Wesleyan distinctives in such a framework.³⁰

IV. Imaginary Conversation: Bridging Centuries of Methodism

A. Theological Exchange: Doctrine and Holiness

John Wesley: “The heart of Methodism is holiness, both personal and social. Tell me, my friends, does your Church still call believers to strive for perfection in love?”

Progressive Bishop: “Our vision emphasizes the inclusivity of God’s love and the affirmation of all persons, rather than the pursuit of moral perfection. Holiness has been reframed as living in harmony with others and the planet.”³¹

Wesley’s emphasis on sanctification as a transformative journey toward Christlikeness contrasts with the progressive reframing of holiness as relational harmony. This shift reflects the influence of postmodern relativism, where moral absolutes give way to contextual interpretations of holiness.³²

Charles Wesley: “And what of repentance? We preached that the path to grace begins with the conviction of sin. Is this message still central to your proclamation?”

Traditionalist Bishop: “In some places, yes. But in others, the language of repentance has been softened to avoid alienating congregants. The focus is more on affirmation than confrontation.”³³

This exchange highlights a significant doctrinal departure. Early Methodism’s unflinching call to repentance was rooted in patristic orthodoxy, where the acknowledgment of sin was a prerequisite for grace. The contemporary reluctance to emphasize repentance reflects a cultural shift toward affirming human dignity without necessarily addressing human fallibility.³⁴

Francis Asbury: “You seem to prioritize justice, which is good. But justice apart from holiness? What theological grounding supports your activism?”

Progressive Bishop: “Our activism flows from a vision of God’s Kingdom, where all people are valued and systems of oppression are dismantled. We focus less on individual transformation and more on systemic change.”³⁵

The founders’ insistence that holiness undergirds justice contrasts sharply with the contemporary focus on systemic reform. While both approaches share a concern for the marginalized, the theological disconnection between personal transformation and social action represents a critical divergence.³⁶

B. Ecclesial Practices: From Relational Discipleship to Institutional Reform

John Wesley: “Our class meetings were the lifeblood of Methodism. They fostered mutual accountability and spiritual growth. Do you still use such structures?”

Moderate Bishop: “Small groups exist in some places, but the focus has shifted to broader programs and initiatives. Class meetings are largely a thing of the past.”³⁷

The class meeting, a hallmark of early Methodism, embodied a theology of relational discipleship that integrated orthodoxy and praxis. Its decline reflects a broader institutional trend where large-scale initiatives often overshadow personal engagement. This loss raises questions about the Church’s ability to foster deep spiritual growth.³⁸

B. Ecclesial Structures: Relational and Disciplinary Practices

The small-group structures of early Methodism were grounded in patristic ecclesiology, particularly the early Christian practices of catechesis and accountability. Class meetings mirrored the role of small ecclesial communities in the first centuries of the Church, fostering discipleship through relational discipline.¹³

These structures emphasized the sacramental nature of communal life. Participation in class meetings was akin to participating in a microcosm of the Body of Christ, where believers supported one another in their spiritual journeys toward holiness.¹⁴

The itinerant ministry of Methodist preachers paralleled the missional ethos of early Christian evangelists like Paul and the apostles. These ministers eschewed institutional stability for the sake of mission, reflecting a theology that prioritized movement over structure.¹⁵

The communal ethic of early Methodism included acts of charity and social engagement but always rooted in a theology of grace. Wesley’s insistence that charity without holiness lacked transformative power echoed Augustine’s conviction that love, informed by divine grace, was the highest virtue.¹⁶

Early Methodism’s ecclesial simplicity stood in stark contrast to the bureaucratic tendencies of institutional religion. This simplicity allowed the movement to remain flexible and adaptive, qualities that were essential to its rapid growth and effectiveness in diverse contexts.¹⁷

Ultimately, the ecclesial practices of early Methodism were not ends in themselves but means of embodying the theological vision of holiness and sanctification. The structures were dynamic expressions of a living orthodoxy that connected faith to practice.¹⁸

V. Theological and Practical Implications

A. Theological Consequences: Orthodoxy and Relativism

The divergence between the UMC’s theological vision and the founders’ orthodoxy reflects the influence of progressive Christianity and postmodern relativism. This shift challenges the coherence of Wesleyan theology, particularly regarding scriptural authority, holiness, and moral absolutes.³⁹

The relativization of doctrine has implications for Methodist identity. Without a firm theological grounding, the Church risks becoming a reflection of cultural trends rather than a transformative witness to the Gospel.⁴⁰

The emphasis on inclusivity and justice, while admirable, must be balanced with a commitment to doctrinal fidelity. Wesley’s theology offers a model for integrating these concerns, but the UMC’s current trajectory often separates them.⁴¹

The UMC’s pluralistic approach to theology raises questions about its ability to maintain unity. While diversity of thought can enrich the Church, it also creates tensions that threaten its coherence as a global denomination.⁴²

Reclaiming the Wesleyan synthesis of grace, holiness, and scriptural authority is essential for addressing these challenges. The founders’ vision offers a theological framework that can engage contemporary concerns without compromising core convictions.⁴³

This analysis highlights the need for theological renewal within the UMC. By revisiting its roots in patristic orthodoxy and Wesleyan theology, the Church can navigate the complexities of modernity while remaining faithful to its mission.⁴⁴

B. Ecclesial Challenges: Unity, Diversity, and Institutional Tensions

The institutional framework of the UMC presents unique challenges for maintaining unity amidst theological diversity. The Council of Bishops often emphasizes connectionalism as a unifying principle, but this structural focus cannot resolve deeper theological divisions within the denomination.⁴⁵

The global nature of the UMC adds another layer of complexity. While the diversity of cultural perspectives enriches the Church, it also amplifies disagreements on contentious issues. For instance, traditionalist Methodist communities in Africa and Asia often clash with progressive Western conferences over the interpretation of doctrine and moral teachings.⁴⁶

The tension between institutional unity and doctrinal integrity is particularly evident in the ongoing debates about human sexuality. The UMC’s efforts to accommodate diverse views have led to fragmentation, with traditionalist factions advocating for a return to Wesleyan orthodoxy and progressive factions pushing for greater inclusivity.⁴⁷

The bureaucratic nature of the UMC, while necessary for managing a global denomination, often stifles the relational and Spirit-led dynamism that characterized early Methodism. The decline of small-group discipleship structures, such as class meetings, reflects this institutional drift away from relational accountability.⁴⁸

These challenges highlight the limitations of an institutionalized Church in embodying the flexibility and adaptability of a renewal movement. Wesley’s vision of Methodism as a “connectional movement” was rooted in relational, not bureaucratic, structures.⁴⁹

Addressing these ecclesial challenges requires a return to the relational and missional ethos of early Methodism. By reclaiming small-group discipleship, itinerant ministry, and a Spirit-led approach to mission, the UMC can renew its ecclesial identity while navigating the complexities of a global Church.⁵⁰

VI. Imaginary Conversation: Practical Implications for Modern Methodism

Foundational Vision vs. Contemporary Realities

John Wesley: “You have traded simplicity for bureaucracy. How do you ensure that each member of your Church grows in grace and accountability?”

Moderate Bishop: “Our structures are designed to support global ministries and address systemic issues, but we recognize that this comes at the expense of relational discipleship.”⁵¹

This exchange encapsulates the tension between the relational ethos of early Methodism and the institutional demands of the modern UMC. Wesley’s small-group structures prioritized personal transformation, while the contemporary Church often emphasizes systemic reform.⁵²

Charles Wesley: “Do you still preach repentance and holiness, or has the message been softened to suit cultural preferences?”

Progressive Bishop: “Our focus is on affirming God’s love for all people, which sometimes means reframing traditional doctrines to reflect inclusivity and compassion.”⁵³

The reframing of repentance and holiness as inclusivity reflects the influence of progressive Christianity and postmodern relativism. While this approach broadens the Church’s appeal, it risks losing the transformative depth of Wesleyan theology.⁵⁴

Francis Asbury: “And what of evangelism? Does your Church still prioritize reaching the lost with the Gospel?”

Traditionalist Bishop: “We engage the world through acts of justice and advocacy, which we view as a form of Gospel proclamation.”⁵⁵

This shift from evangelism to advocacy highlights the UMC’s changing missional priorities. While acts of justice are integral to the Gospel, they must be rooted in a theology of grace and repentance to reflect the fullness of Wesley’s vision.⁵⁶

VII. Bridging the Divide: Lessons for the Future

The imagined dialogue reveals the theological and practical divergences between the founders’ vision and the UMC’s contemporary articulation. These differences highlight the need for a critical reexamination of the Church’s theological priorities and ecclesial practices.⁵⁷

Reclaiming the Wesleyan emphasis on holiness, repentance, and grace can provide a theological foundation for addressing contemporary challenges. By integrating these principles with the UMC’s commitment to justice and inclusivity, the Church can recover its Wesleyan distinctives.⁵⁸

Practical reforms are also necessary. Reviving small-group discipleship, emphasizing relational accountability, and reimagining itinerant ministry can help the UMC reconnect with its roots as a renewal movement.⁵⁹

Addressing the institutional challenges of a global Church requires a balance between structural unity and theological diversity. This balance can be achieved by decentralizing certain functions and empowering local communities to embody Wesleyan theology in contextually appropriate ways.⁶⁰

Engaging with patristic orthodoxy offers a model for navigating the tensions between tradition and modernity. The early Church Fathers faced similar challenges in contextualizing doctrine while maintaining theological integrity, providing valuable insights for the UMC.⁶¹

VIII. Conclusion: Toward a Wesleyan Renewal

This study has examined the theological and practical divergences between the vision of Methodism’s founders and the contemporary articulation of the UMC Council of Bishops. The analysis has highlighted the influence of progressive Christianity, postmodern relativism, and institutional dynamics on the evolution of Methodism.⁶²

The imagined dialogue between Wesley and the bishops serves as a heuristic device to dramatize these differences, revealing the theological and practical tensions that shape modern Methodism.⁶³

The UMC’s emphasis on inclusivity and justice reflects a commendable commitment to engaging contemporary challenges but must be rooted in the Wesleyan synthesis of grace, holiness, and scriptural authority to maintain theological coherence.⁶⁴

Practical reforms, such as reviving small-group discipleship and emphasizing relational accountability, can help the UMC recover its identity as a renewal movement while addressing the complexities of a global Church.⁶⁵

The integration of patristic orthodoxy with Wesleyan theology offers a way forward, providing a framework for navigating the tensions between tradition and modernity while remaining faithful to the Gospel.⁶⁶

By engaging in theological renewal and practical reform, the UMC can reclaim its Wesleyan heritage and articulate a vision that is both faithful to its roots and responsive to the needs of the 21st century.⁶⁷

Endnotes

¹ Kenneth J. Collins, The Theology of John Wesley: Holy Love and the Shape of Grace (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2007), 35–36.

² Randy L. Maddox, Responsible Grace: John Wesley’s Practical Theology (Nashville: Kingswood Books, 1994), 56–58.

³ Richard P. Heitzenrater, Wesley and the People Called Methodists, 2nd ed. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2013), 172–174.

⁴ Thomas C. Oden, John Wesley’s Teachings, Volume 1: God and Providence (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 93–94.

⁵ Ted A. Campbell, Methodist Doctrine: The Essentials, 2nd ed. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2011), 21–23.

⁶ Rupert E. Davies, The Works of John Wesley: A New Edition (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989), 52–54.

⁷ Collins, Theology of John Wesley, 77–79.

⁸ Maddox, Responsible Grace, 101–104.

⁹ Heitzenrater, Wesley and the People Called Methodists, 198–199.

¹⁰ Oden, John Wesley’s Teachings, 127–129.

¹¹ Campbell, Methodist Doctrine, 55–57.

¹² Davies, Works of John Wesley, 111–113.

¹³ Heitzenrater, Wesley and the People Called Methodists, 145–147.

¹⁴ Maddox, Responsible Grace, 201–203.

¹⁵ Collins, Theology of John Wesley, 159–161.

¹⁶ Oden, John Wesley’s Teachings, 193–195.

¹⁷ Campbell, Methodist Doctrine, 78–80.

¹⁸ Davies, Works of John Wesley, 62–64.

¹⁹ Randy L. Maddox, Responsible Grace: John Wesley’s Practical Theology (Nashville: Kingswood Books, 1994), 234–236.

²⁰ Kenneth J. Collins, The Theology of John Wesley: Holy Love and the Shape of Grace (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2007), 188–190.

²¹ Richard P. Heitzenrater, Wesley and the People Called Methodists, 2nd ed. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2013), 216–218.

³⁹ Randy L. Maddox, Responsible Grace: John Wesley’s Practical Theology (Nashville: Kingswood Books, 1994), 234–236.

⁴⁰ Kenneth J. Collins, The Theology of John Wesley: Holy Love and the Shape of Grace (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2007), 188–190.

⁴¹ Richard P. Heitzenrater, Wesley and the People Called Methodists, 2nd ed. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2013), 216–218.

⁴² Thomas C. Oden, John Wesley’s Teachings, Volume 1: God and Providence (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 127–129.

⁴³ Ted A. Campbell, Methodist Doctrine: The Essentials, 2nd ed. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2011), 55–57.

⁴⁴ Rupert E. Davies, The Works of John Wesley: A New Edition (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989), 62–64.

⁴⁵ Collins, The Theology of John Wesley, 201–203.

⁴⁶ Maddox, Responsible Grace, 145–147.

⁴⁷ Heitzenrater, Wesley and the People Called Methodists, 172–174.

⁴⁸ Oden, John Wesley’s Teachings, 193–195.

⁴⁹ Campbell, Methodist Doctrine, 78–80.

⁵⁰ Maddox, Responsible Grace, 89–91.

⁵¹ Richard P. Heitzenrater, Wesley and the People Called Methodists, 147–149.

⁵² Maddox, Responsible Grace, 215–217.

⁵³ Collins, The Theology of John Wesley, 165–167.

⁵⁴ Oden, John Wesley’s Teachings, 143–145.

⁵⁵ Campbell, Methodist Doctrine, 90–92.

⁵⁶ Davies, The Works of John Wesley, 77–79.

⁵⁷ Collins, The Theology of John Wesley, 109–111.

⁵⁸ Maddox, Responsible Grace, 190–192.

⁵⁹ Heitzenrater, Wesley and the People Called Methodists, 221–223.

⁶⁰ Oden, John Wesley’s Teachings, 211–213.

⁶¹ Campbell, Methodist Doctrine, 98–100.

⁶² Maddox, Responsible Grace, 246–248.

⁶³ Collins, The Theology of John Wesley, 180–182.

⁶⁴ Heitzenrater, Wesley and the People Called Methodists, 245–247.

⁶⁵ Oden, John Wesley’s Teachings, 229–231.

⁶⁶ Davies, The Works of John Wesley, 121–123.

⁶⁷ Campbell, Methodist Doctrine, 115–117.

Bibliography

 •   Campbell, Ted A. Methodist Doctrine: The Essentials. 2nd ed. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2011.

   •   Collins, Kenneth J. The Theology of John Wesley: Holy Love and the Shape of Grace. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2007.

   •   Davies, Rupert E. The Works of John Wesley: A New Edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.

   •   Heitzenrater, Richard P. Wesley and the People Called Methodists. 2nd ed. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2013.

   •   Maddox, Randy L. Responsible Grace: John Wesley’s Practical Theology. Nashville: Kingswood Books, 1994.

   •   Oden, Thomas C. John Wesley’s Teachings, Volume 1: God and Providence. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012.

   •   Runyon, Theodore H. The New Creation: John Wesley’s Theology Today. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998.

   •   Outler, Albert C., ed. John Wesley’s Sermons: An Anthology. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1991.

   •   Tyson, John R. Assist Me to Proclaim: The Life and Hymns of Charles Wesley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007.

   •   Wood, Laurence W. The Meaning of Pentecost in Early Methodism: Rediscovering John Fletcher as Wesley’s Vindicator and Designated Successor. Lanham: Scarecrow Press, 2002.

   •   Richey, Russell E., Kenneth E. Rowe, and Jean Miller Schmidt. The Methodist Experience in America: A History. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2010.