Very Confused about Wesleyan Church

[jinc1019]

Hi All,

I am trying to better understand the Wesleyan Church...and I'm having some real trouble on the issue of infant baptism.

Their articles of confession seem pretty ambiguous about infants being baptized (infants are never mentioned), and I have read in many places that believers are typically baptized. However, on the Wesleyan website, there is a series on the "core Wesleyan beliefs" and infant baptism is espoused very clearly in those documents! Nucleus 5: THE CHURCH & THE SACRAMENTS | The Wesleyan Church

Can someone from that denomination straighten me out on this one?

-Justin

 

[graceandpeace]

I know folks who attend the Wesleyan Church & I'm former Methodist (Nazarene).

To my knowledge, the Wesleyan Church is very much like the Nazarene Church in its views & practices. If that's correct, then baptism & dedication are likely both options for infants.

Hopefully someone more familiar with the inner workings of the church can provide a bigger answer.

 

[jinc1019]

I know folks who attend the Wesleyan Church & I'm former Methodist (Nazarene).

To my knowledge, the Wesleyan Church is very much like the Nazarene Church in its views & practices. If that's correct, then baptism & dedication are likely both options for infants.

Hopefully someone more familiar with the inner workings of the church can provide a bigger answer.

Thanks for this! And I haven't forgotten about your PM either...I've just been swamped lately!

 

[GraceSeeker]

Though not Wesleyan (I'm UMC) I served several years in a community with a Wesleyan Church whose pastor was a good friend through the ministerial association. There weren't enough theological differences between the 2 UMC churches, the Free Methodist church, the Wesleyan church, the AME church, and the Church of God church in that community to have been able to tell the difference between these congregations or their pastors without the sign over the door.

 

[graceandpeace]

Though not Wesleyan (I'm UMC) I served several years in a community with a Wesleyan Church whose pastor was a good friend through the ministerial association. There weren't enough theological differences between the 2 UMC churches, the Free Methodist church, the Wesleyan church, the AME church, and the Church of God church in that community to have been able to tell the difference between these congregations or their pastors without the sign over the door.

One thing I did want to add that might be pertinent to the OP, before my time in the Nazarene church, I was in the Church of God (Anderson). The CoG does not baptize infants. They only practice "believers baptism" & hold to ordinance theology rather than sacramental.

So on the one end (UMC), baptism & communion are sacramental, & in between (Nazarene, Wesleyan?), there seems to be an effort to appease both the sacramental & ordinance viewpoints, & then the other end with CoG mentioned. Do you think that is a fair assessment?

Thanks for this! And I haven't forgotten about your PM either...I've just been swamped lately!

No worries! I promise I'm not following your threads around CF, LOL, but I thought my experience might help answer!

 

[jinc1019]

Though not Wesleyan (I'm UMC) I served several years in a community with a Wesleyan Church whose pastor was a good friend through the ministerial association. There weren't enough theological differences between the 2 UMC churches, the Free Methodist church, the Wesleyan church, the AME church, and the Church of God church in that community to have been able to tell the difference between these congregations or their pastors without the sign over the door.

Interesting to hear...What was the collective view of baptism?

 

[jinc1019]

One thing I did want to add that might be pertinent to the OP, before my time in the Nazarene church, I was in the Church of God (Anderson). The CoG does not baptize infants. They only practice "believers baptism" & hold to ordinance theology rather than sacramental.

So on the one end (UMC), baptism & communion are sacramental, & in between (Nazarene, Wesleyan?), there seems to be an effort to appease both the sacramental & ordinance viewpoints, & then the other end with CoG mentioned. Do you think that is a fair assessment?



No worries! I promise I'm not following your threads around CF, LOL, but I thought my experience might help answer!

It is very helpful!

 

[GraceSeeker]

Interesting to hear...What was the collective view of baptism?

We recognized one another's baptisms. I believe the Church of God also did infant baptism, maybe not, it's been a few years. Believe it or not, pastors don't spend as much time talking about these issues with other pastors as with lay people. In 30+ years of pastoral ministry, I've never had another pastor ask me about my views regarding baptism, nor have I felt a need to ask them. In general it only comes up if a local congregation refuses to recognize one another's baptisms. But, we don't try to convince the other to change, that ends up being rather futile.

I actually did a joint baptism with the Wesleyan Church pastor. A teen who had grown up in his church, and whose mother still attended there choose to join our church and she had not yet been baptized. So, we did that, and since he had been her pastor for the last 14 years I asked him if he wanted to join me. It wasn't held at out church, but at a local gravel pit because, after we talked about the different options, she choose to be immersed.


One of the things that you may be getting confused by is that theologically for instance the UMC and the Wesleyan Church believe that infant baptism is valid and that baptism by sprinkling or immersions are both equally valid. But traditions as for what is most common develop that become the most repeated practice. In the UMC most parents have their children baptized when still a baby. In the Wesleyan Church they tend to dedicate infants and then they make a decision later when they join the church. Historically, that decision making time for teenagers has been a part of confirmation for the UMC. But, we had no significant difference in theology. Probably the biggest is that a ritual for dedication of a child only came into the UMC when the former Methodist Church merged with the former Evangelical United Brethren church to form the UMC. Most former Methodist pastors would be very hesitant to do a dedication that would look like baptism without water for fear of conflating the two.

 

[jinc1019]

We recognized one another's baptisms. I believe the Church of God also did infant baptism, maybe not, it's been a few years. Believe it or not, pastors don't spend as much time talking about these issues with other pastors as with lay people. In 30+ years of pastoral ministry, I've never had another pastor ask me about my views regarding baptism, nor have I felt a need to ask them. In general it only comes up if a local congregation refuses to recognize one another's baptisms. But, we don't try to convince the other to change, that ends up being rather futile.

I actually did a joint baptism with the Wesleyan Church pastor. A teen who had grown up in his church, and whose mother still attended there choose to join our church and she had not yet been baptized. So, we did that, and since he had been her pastor for the last 14 years I asked him if he wanted to join me. It wasn't held at out church, but at a local gravel pit because, after we talked about the different options, she choose to be immersed.


One of the things that you may be getting confused by is that theologically for instance the UMC and the Wesleyan Church believe that infant baptism is valid and that baptism by sprinkling or immersions are both equally valid. But traditions as for what is most common develop that become the most repeated practice. In the UMC most parents have their children baptized when still a baby. In the Wesleyan Church they tend to dedicate infants and then they make a decision later when they join the church. Historically, that decision making time for teenagers has been a part of confirmation for the UMC. But, we had no significant difference in theology. Probably the biggest is that a ritual for dedication of a child only came into the UMC when the former Methodist Church merged with the former Evangelical United Brethren church to form the UMC. Most former Methodist pastors would be very hesitant to do a dedication that would look like baptism without water for fear of conflating the two.

In regards to your last point...I find your comments very interesting. You are claiming that there is no theological difference between the two groups, but from what I have read about Wesley, he was quite sacramental. He would never have taught that baptism is purely symbolic, at least not that I'm aware of. If that is what he taught, I'd love to read more about that. If baptism is sacramental, I don't see how two groups could have the same theology but have very different views on whether infants should be baptized or not. The only way that's possible is if Wesley's view was purely symbolic...but you're the expert here, not me...I'm just thinking and wondering out loud.

 

[GraceSeeker]

Methodism is a highly pragmatic way of experiencing one's faith. It focuses much more on the walk than the talk. But you may have misheard if you thought I was emphasizing differences.

All of these Wesleyan denominations believe that baptism is rooted in prevenient grace, expressing through the outward sign of water what God is doing inward on a spiritual level. All of them (to the best of my knowledge anyway) practice infant baptism, but none of them do so exclusively. That is, if a parent elects not to have their child baptized they aren't forced to go ahead against their wishes. Some of these parents still want to dedicate their child to the Lord, but don't want to take baptismal vows in their child's name and prefer to allow for the child to go through that experience for themselves. In the UMC we don't dedicate. But the EUB portion of us previously did before the merger. Some still do because that is what they consider their tradition to be. Again, this especially happens where Methodists have become more like their Baptist or Independent Christian neighbors.

 

[jinc1019]

Methodism is a highly pragmatic way of experiencing one's faith. It focuses much more on the walk than the talk. But you may have misheard if you thought I was emphasizing differences.

All of these Wesleyan denominations believe that baptism is rooted in prevenient grace, expressing through the outward sign of water what God is doing inward on a spiritual level. All of them (to the best of my knowledge anyway) practice infant baptism, but none of them do so exclusively. That is, if a parent elects not to have their child baptized they aren't forced to go ahead against their wishes. Some of these parents still want to dedicate their child to the Lord, but don't want to take baptismal vows in their child's name and prefer to allow for the child to go through that experience for themselves. In the UMC we don't dedicate. But the EUB portion of us previously did before the merger. Some still do because that is what they consider their tradition to be. Again, this especially happens where Methodists have become more like their Baptist or Independent Christian neighbors.

That does clear some things up and confirm some beliefs I already held about the two denominations, but I guess what confuses me is...If baptism is a way that God provides grace, even if that's not the only way he does it, why would anyone wait to baptize their children? Unless you are saying that the baptism is nothing more than a symbol? If you are saying that, I think it does break from Wesley, who definitely seemed to believe God worked through baptism and the other sacraments. They weren't just signs of something God was doing with or without the sign...at least that's not how Wesley described it in many of his writings.

 

[GraceSeeker]

That does clear some things up and confirm some beliefs I already held about the two denominations, but I guess what confuses me is...If baptism is a way that God provides grace, even if that's not the only way he does it, why would anyone wait to baptize their children? Unless you are saying that the baptism is nothing more than a symbol? If you are saying that, I think it does break from Wesley, who definitely seemed to believe God worked through baptism and the other sacraments. They weren't just signs of something God was doing with or without the sign...at least that's not how Wesley described it in many of his writings.

For Wesley, for Methodists, and (I assume) for other Wesleyans as well, baptism does most certainly convey grace. You understand that perfect. What you may not understand is the human condition. When you have a group of people who feel like the most important decision one makes in life is a decision to follow Christ, and especially when one believes in free will, one begins to think that the central actor involved in baptism is the one being baptized. Plus you have parents who grow up with friends who attend other churches and grow up hearing about their wonderful experience on being baptized as a teenager or young adult when they did make a decision. And the result is that they emotionally have a sense of regret that their parents denied them that experience. Plus, they wonder about their other peers who they knew were baptized as babies but lived lives rejecting Christ. And they don't stop to think through it all on an intellectual level, they just know that somehow it doesn't feel right. So, they decide it is better to say what they can say for themselves (i.e. dedicate their children to God), but to let their child make decisions for baptism for themselves.

Of course, that only happens because people don't have a proper understanding of baptism (or at least a Wesleyan understanding of baptism). But churches are made up of people who each have their own unique theology. Sometimes they are very close to the "official" theology of where they attend. Sometimes they are actually more like that of the church down the street where their grandmother or some other significant figure in their life attends. Sometimes their theology is a creation of their own imagination with a theology derived from TV and the rest of the culture in which we live. And pastors have to relate to all of these people. Of course we do our best to educate people with regard to the faith. But I confess to you that if I have a young family in the church who tells me that they have thought about it and decided to let their baby make his/her own decision when the child gets older, I might explain the church's thinking on the subject, but I'm not going to risk alienating them by picking that point as a hill to die on and attempt to argue with them hoping they will change their mind. That doesn't seem like good pastoral care.

Now, United Methodists won't then recommend dedication. But, some other churches do allow for it. And I think that is their own concession to culture, while my concession is to simply not bother to keep pushing baptism as my agenda on them.

 

[circuitrider]

Justin,

What you may be struggling with is personal practice of individual Christians versus the beliefs of the denomination. United Methodist churches don't try to force all its members to believe and practice all things as the denomination officially believes and teaches.

As Graceseeker said in another way, we are far more into living the Christian life than arguing about the theology of the Christian life.

We don't expect 100% agreement. We aren't creedal. We don't believe human formulations of doctrine are ever final or perfect. So we usually (I say usually) don't try to force our views on others.

I think recently in some of the debates on sexuality that line has been crossed and we have folks on both sides of the issue who want to force the rest of the denomination to accept their view. But that really isn't going to happen because Methodists ultimately won't be pushed into that kind of uniformity.

 

[jinc1019]

For Wesley, for Methodists, and (I assume) for other Wesleyans as well, baptism does most certainly convey grace. You understand that perfect. What you may not understand is the human condition. When you have a group of people who feel like the most important decision one makes in life is a decision to follow Christ, and especially when one believes in free will, one begins to think that the central actor involved in baptism is the one being baptized. Plus you have parents who grow up with friends who attend other churches and grow up hearing about their wonderful experience on being baptized as a teenager or young adult when they did make a decision. And the result is that they emotionally have a sense of regret that their parents denied them that experience. Plus, they wonder about their other peers who they knew were baptized as babies but lived lives rejecting Christ. And they don't stop to think through it all on an intellectual level, they just know that somehow it doesn't feel right. So, they decide it is better to say what they can say for themselves (i.e. dedicate their children to God), but to let their child make decisions for baptism for themselves.

Of course, that only happens because people don't have a proper understanding of baptism (or at least a Wesleyan understanding of baptism). But churches are made up of people who each have their own unique theology. Sometimes they are very close to the "official" theology of where they attend. Sometimes they are actually more like that of the church down the street where their grandmother or some other significant figure in their life attends. Sometimes their theology is a creation of their own imagination with a theology derived from TV and the rest of the culture in which we live. And pastors have to relate to all of these people. Of course we do our best to educate people with regard to the faith. But I confess to you that if I have a young family in the church who tells me that they have thought about it and decided to let their baby make his/her own decision when the child gets older, I might explain the church's thinking on the subject, but I'm not going to risk alienating them by picking that point as a hill to die on and attempt to argue with them hoping they will change their mind. That doesn't seem like good pastoral care.

Now, United Methodists won't then recommend dedication. But, some other churches do allow for it. And I think that is their own concession to culture, while my concession is to simply not bother to keep pushing baptism as my agenda on them.

I think your assessment here is very accurate.

 

[jinc1019]

Justin,

What you may be struggling with is personal practice of individual Christians versus the beliefs of the denomination. United Methodist churches don't try to force all its members to believe and practice all things as the denomination officially believes and teaches.

As Graceseeker said in another way, we are far more into living the Christian life than arguing about the theology of the Christian life.

We don't expect 100% agreement. We aren't creedal. We don't believe human formulations of doctrine are ever final or perfect. So we usually (I say usually) try to force our views on others.

I think recently in some of the debates on sexuality that line has been crossed and we have folks on both sides of the issue who want to force the rest of the denomination to accept their view. But that really isn't going to happen because Methodists ultimately won't be pushed into that kind of uniformity.

All good points...and I very much appreciate them!

 

[iambren]

I've attended the Wesleyan church and then subsequently the Nazarene church. My initial pastor said their doctrines were the same.

 

[jinc1019]

I've attended the Wesleyan church and then subsequently the Nazarene church. My initial pastor said their doctrines were the same.

I think they are very similar, yes.

 

[Maid Marie]

In regards to your last point...I find your comments very interesting. You are claiming that there is no theological difference between the two groups, but from what I have read about Wesley, he was quite sacramental. He would never have taught that baptism is purely symbolic, at least not that I'm aware of. If that is what he taught, I'd love to read more about that. If baptism is sacramental, I don't see how two groups could have the same theology but have very different views on whether infants should be baptized or not. The only way that's possible is if Wesley's view was purely symbolic...but you're the expert here, not me...I'm just thinking and wondering out loud.

Nazarenes and Wesleyans were also influenced by the American Holiness Movement plus some other religious groups. So you'd find Nazarenes who are more like Baptists in this regard than Methodist. The Nazarene Manual very clearly states that we baptize infants as well as infant dedication with believer's baptism done later on in life. I don't know what Wesleyans' views on Infant Baptism are.

 

[jinc1019]

Nazarenes and Wesleyans were also influenced by the American Holiness Movement plus some other religious groups. So you'd find Nazarenes who are more like Baptists in this regard than Methodist. The Nazarene Manual very clearly states that we baptize infants as well as infant dedication with believer's baptism done later on in life. I don't know what Wesleyans' views on Infant Baptism are.

Thanks for this!

 

[GraceSeeker]

Nazarenes and Wesleyans were also influenced by the American Holiness Movement plus some other religious groups. So you'd find Nazarenes who are more like Baptists in this regard than Methodist. The Nazarene Manual very clearly states that we baptize infants as well as infant dedication with believer's baptism done later on in life. I don't know what Wesleyans' views on Infant Baptism are.

So you like to have your (infant) sprinkling baptism and dunk them (when adults) too. Is that 1 or 2 works of grace?