by Joel V Webb | Oct 5, 2026 | Free Methodism, Methodism, Resources, Theology & Practice
Anyone who has known me for the last few years knows that I am a nerd, especially when it comes to all things liturgical. To highlight this, during the past weekend a pastor friend sent a message asking about why the lectionary readings between the Book of Common Prayer she uses, and the Lectionary readings in her worship planner from Seedbed (Which uses the Revised Common Lectionary) are different. I then proceed to send a 4 minute voice memo about the variances between the ACNA Lectionary and RCL and the developments that brought them to their current forms. So, maybe my knowledge is super specialized and more than I actually need to know; but I enjoy it.
Last week I was very excited that the Global Methodist Church revealed its new draft liturgies for Baptism, Communion and membership/confirmation/baptismal reaffirmation. I knew they were on the way as I am connected to several of those involved in their development and had several inklings as to what they would look like. The liturgies are available for download HERE and they are in a 3-month period of open commenting for suggestions of changes and adjustments.
In the introduction to the document, the Chair of the Liturgy Task Force, Dr. Tesia Mallory who also serves as the Dean of Chapel at Asbury Theological Seminary writes, “At its core, liturgy is the Church’s communal prayer and conversation with God. We believe that our practices of prayer shape what we believe, and what we believe shapes how we live as faithful followers of Jesus. In light of this, we offer this draft resource as a means of honoring Christ in our mission to spread scriptural holiness across the globe through the worship life of The Global Methodist Church”
One of the things we fail to see in our day and age is that worship is formative. Worship is not just the songs we sing, it is every part of our gathered times on Sunday, and every thing we do from the Scriptures we read, the silence we keep, the actions and posture of our bodies, and then the music we sing is a part of worship. This more holistic vision of what worship is, of course includes the summit of it which is celebration of the Eucharist makes how we are formed and give God what He is due a much richer reality than the sickly and myopic picture we often put ourselves in.
In conversations about the liturgies in the lead up to their release, one of the comments concerning them was that they would be the Book of Common Prayer that is contextualized for Methodist worship. And, when you think about it, that is very appropriate. The Methodist tradition gains much when we look back to our Anglican heritage; something that has often been left behind for American Methodists.
I’ll save specific comments about the liturgies for an upcoming podcast episode interviewing some of the members of the liturgy task force. What I will say is that these liturgies have done the solid work of recovery. For anyone familiar with the Book of Common Prayer (especially the 2019 published by the ACNA), there is a lot of material that will feel familiar. The biggest reclamation of these liturgies are the Sacramental elements that have been mostly issued the last several generations in Methodism. The prayer of blessing over the water, anointing of oil/chrism after baptism, What I found to be a wonderful Methodist addition to the baptism liturgy was the Wesley Covenant prayer following the baptism, said by all as a collective affirmation to Christ.
Similarly, in the communion liturgy the use of an explicit epiclesis (invoking of the Holy Spirit upon the elements) and the Prayer of Humble Access (rather than something like a “Prayer for Spiritual Communion”) really land the participant into the gravity and beauty of what happens when we come to the table and encounter Christ as He is revealed in the breaking of bread.
While these liturgies are from the Global Methodist Church, they represent a resource and a sign for the rest of us in the pan-Methodist world as the orthodox core of our heritage is being reconstituted, and the spiritual descendants of Wesley are striving to revive the heart of our movement; a Church that is set on fire by the holy love of God to spread Scriptural holiness across the land.
What should these draft liturgies mean for the Free Methodist Church (my ecclesial home) and other pan-Methodist denominations? We should not delay by our varying capacities to make liturgical adjustments ourselves. This of course is easier said than done, and even ironic in the case of the FMC where liturgy in the same sentence looks like spelling a word with the English “u” in color or something like that.
At this point what is undeniable is the draw for the younger generations is the rooted grounding of liturgy, Sacraments and not being catered to. Something that is sadly confounding to the “boomer generation” who is still seeking to be relevant to the “fellow kids” in the hopes of drawing them. Rather, we need to reclaim as the GMC is doing, not for the sake of loving antiques, but by coming back to the heart of why we gather. Recounting and participating in the ongoing work of Christ in the Gospel which is the power of God.
As of now the Communion Ritual in the FMC Book of Discipline 2023 is a bit like a house originally built in the 1800’s and then has had 4 or 5 additions put on. The Lord’s Prayer is tacked on as an extension of the confession (something very strange, especially considering how Cranmer used the Our Father as a post-communion prayer. Similarly, the language of the “Prayer for Spiritual Communion”takes an almost anabaptist approach to understanding the Real Presence of Christ in the elements.
Supposedly there are big changes coming to the Free Methodist Church. We have no idea what they are because no one in the know has publicly said anything that actually lets us know what is happening. But, I would add to the list of things to adjust or change is revamping our liturgies for baptism and communion to reflect this reclamation of our heritage as we seek to become the Church that is not thrown about by the winds of the time and is rather seen as a steadfast rock (ultimately Christ) that those battered about can cling to.
by Joel V Webb | Sep 24, 2026 | Free Methodism, History, Methodism, Orthodoxy Matters, Sacraments, Theology & Practice
The following article, written by Free Methodist Bishop Emeritus Paul N. Ellis, presents a vigorous historical and theological case for the baptism of infants and young children within the Free Methodist tradition. Ellis argues that parents dedicate their children to God, while the church receives those children through baptism as members of the covenant community and pledges their Christian nurture.
Readers should approach the essay as a historical document and a constructive theological argument. Its language reflects the concerns and ecclesial debates of its original setting, especially the question of whether Free Methodists should replace infant baptism with child dedication.
The contemporary Free Methodist Church continues to affirm baptism as a sacrament and means of grace, and its Articles of Religion state that infants may be baptized at the request of parents or guardians who promise Christian formation. At the same time, current Free Methodist pastoral practice commonly recognizes parent-led infant dedication as an available alternative. The article below represents Ellis’s argument for recovering a stronger covenantal and sacramental practice of infant baptism.
This article was originally published in The Free Methodist Pastor, Summer 1983. is stored, and was scanned by the Marston Memorial Historical Center. You can read the original scanned article HERE
Parents Dedicate, the Church Baptizes
Paul N. Ellis, Bishop Emeritus
Winona Lake, Indiana
I have in my possession The Discipline of the Free Methodist Church, 1874, published fourteen years after the founding of our denomination. Article XVIII of the Articles of Religion includes the following constitutional guarantee:
“The baptism of young children is to be retained in the Church.”
From the beginning until 1974, this statement concerning the baptism of children was the denomination’s position.
In 1974, a new Constitution was adopted by the General Conference and ratified by the annual conferences. The new Constitution provided a fuller explanation of our historic position. Regarding baptism as a sacrament, Article XVII states:
“We believe water baptism and the Lord’s Supper are the sacraments of the church commanded by Christ. They are means of grace through faith, tokens of our profession of Christian faith, and signs of God’s gracious ministry toward us. By them, he works within us to quicken, strengthen, and confirm our faith.”
Regarding the baptism of young children, Article XVII affirms:
“Baptism is a symbol of the new covenant, and since infants are recognized as being included in the atonement, we hold that they may be baptized upon request of parents or guardians who shall give assurance for them of necessary Christian training. They shall be required to affirm the vow for themselves before being accepted into church membership.”
Accordingly, the bishops have made it clear to pastors that ministers violate their vows of ordination in the Free Methodist Church if they refuse to administer baptism to infants or children upon the request of parents or guardians. This is the historic position of the church.
Wesley’s View
The founders of Free Methodism, who felt called to “return to early Methodism,” agreed with Wesley on baptism.
In his Works, Wesley included “A Treatise on Baptism,” in which he wrote:
“By baptism we enter into covenant with God; into that everlasting covenant, which he hath commanded forever, that new covenant, which he promised to make with the spiritual Israel. . . . And as circumcision was then the way of entering into this covenant, so baptism is now. . . .
“Therefore, it is not only lawful and innocent, but meet, right, and our bounden duty, in conformity to the uninterrupted practice of the whole Church of Christ from the earliest ages, to consecrate our children to God by baptism, as the Jewish Church was commanded to do by circumcision.”
See Burtner and Chiles, A Compend of Wesley Theology (New York and Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1944), 266–68.
Inferences From Scripture
We must not forget that the Church of Jesus Christ from its beginning was—and remains—a covenant church, even as Israel was a covenant nation.
In Jeremiah’s promise of “a new covenant,” the prophet declares:
“Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah” (Jer. 31:31).
The author of Hebrews identifies this new covenant with Jesus:
“Jesus is the mediator of the new covenant” (Heb. 12:24).
There is no dispute that circumcision was, and remains, the sign of the covenant relationship between God and Israel. An adult proselyte entering Judaism must be circumcised. Those born into Judaism, however, are circumcised on the eighth day after birth. The rite acknowledges the ancient covenant among faithful Jews.
In the New Testament, the recorded conversions and baptisms of households strongly imply the inclusion of children. Peter declared:
“The promise is unto you, and to your children” (Acts 2:39).
He did not qualify “children” with the adjective adult. Such a qualification would have seemed unnecessary to the early church, whose members were steeped in the tradition of family unity in matters of religion.
When Paul and Silas were released from the Philippian jail, we read:
“And he [the jailer] took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway” (Acts 16:33).
Given the nature of family life in that day, one might expect a specific exception for “infants and young children” if Paul had intended to exclude children from the sacrament.
The classical statement in our baptismal ritual concerning the church’s acceptance of children in baptism is found in the words of Jesus:
“And they brought young children to him, that he should bless them; and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, he was displeased, and said unto them, ‘Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of God’” (Mark 10:13–14).
A Methodist Scholar Speaks
Addressing the church’s responsibility to receive into its fellowship all those for whom Christ died when they themselves cannot yet make a choice, Olin Alfred Curtis writes:
“The church of our Lord has the right and the duty to claim the helpless. She should take into her atmosphere and association and, if possible, service all people who are unable to make a choice for themselves; not only all irresponsible children, but all the feeble-minded, and all those unfortunate souls who have been mentally wrecked by woes too terrible for human fortitude.”
Curtis describes this group as members “by Christian claim.”
He continues:
“If you ask what infant baptism precisely stands for as a rite, the answer should, I believe, be this: It stands for the sacramental acceptance by the church of the consecration unto Christ of a babe by a home.”
See Olin Alfred Curtis, The Christian Faith (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1956), 420–21, 438.
A Presbyterian Scholar Speaks
John Frederick Jansen asks:
“Must a child be outside the church? Does not Baptism rather say that from earliest infancy I am brought into the environment of grace and receive the seal of God’s love? Of course an infant does not feel any effect. But who is to say how soon a child becomes aware of love, and why not divine love?
“What shall the church say to its children? Shall it forbid them Baptism? Shall it assume that there is no such thing as a Christian child? Are children outsiders in the church, or are they members of the household of faith? If the old Israel included its children in the family of faith through circumcision, shall the new Israel exclude them?”
See John Frederick Jansen, The Meaning of Baptism (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1948), 102, 108.
Some Personal Observations
- Baptism does not regenerate either adults or children. For an adult believer, baptism is a sign of the covenant of grace entered into by faith; a public confession that the believer trusts in Christ’s atoning work for salvation; and a means of grace. For an infant, baptism is likewise a sign of the covenant of grace and a confession by the parents and the church that children are saved—not because they are innocent, but, as are all people, because of the universal atonement made by Christ for the human race. I also believe strongly that baptism is a means of grace to the child. Do we not pray for our children? Do we not anoint them with oil for healing? Should we think grace is given only to persons old enough and rational enough to understand fully the sacrifice of Jesus Christ? If so, who may be baptized? Who understands it fully?
- Parents dedicate the child; the church baptizes the child. Dedication is made by the only persons who can give a child to God: the parents. In baptism, the church accepts the child in a formal yet spiritual manner and pledges, in cooperation with the parents, to confirm that child in the Christian faith. It is meaningless for the church to assume that it can dedicate a child whom it has not accepted into the family of God.
- The Free Methodist Church historically stood within the classical catholic tradition of baptizing children. Until comparatively recent years, the Free Methodist Church stood alongside the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Episcopal, Reformed, Presbyterian, Methodist, and other churches of Catholic, Calvinian, Arminian, and Wesleyan traditions in recognizing the baptism of children as a valid sacrament of the Church of Jesus Christ. Today, we are being influenced, to our loss, by Baptistic branches of the church, including the Churches of Christ.
- Replacing baptism with dedication departs from Free Methodist intention and doctrine. In my opinion, Free Methodist pastors who persuade members to have their children “dedicated” rather than baptized turn away from the intention of our founding fathers, fail to transmit the letter and spirit of our Articles of Religion, and miss a significant opportunity to witness to the covenant character of the church.
- The New Testament church was not merely a believers’ church. It was—and continues to be—a covenant church. It receives believing adults into its fellowship, as Judaism has always done, but it also includes the whole Christian family until, if it should occur, a growing child turns away from that fellowship in unbelief, just as an adult may do.
- The nurture of children is therefore of supreme importance. We believe that a child’s confession of Christ as Savior—even at four or five years of age, or perhaps younger—can be valid. Therefore, we have a solemn responsibility to confirm our children in the Christian faith, guide them in Christian love, and bring them to an adult experience of Christ through the revelation of the Holy Spirit. The vows of adult baptism and church membership can become meaningful to a child who is assured that the church has received him or her from infancy into the loving family of God.
by Joel V Webb | Aug 13, 2026 | Free Methodism, Sacraments, Theology & Practice
In the Free Methodist Book of Discipline (2023), the phrase ‘means of grace’ is used 10 times throughout, as it should be as the guiding constitutional document for a denomination in the Methodist tradition. While an actual definition is not found within the BOD (it is presumed into the book), that the means of grace can be understood as, “ a broader category referring to all the ways God has appointed to convey his grace to men and women.”1 Simply put what this means is that God has established ways for those in the Church to receive His divine enablement for Christian love and service.
There are many actions that are conduits of God’s grace to people. Everything from preaching, prayer, Scripture reading, Christian fellowship, singing and the list goes on. All of these things are good and necessary parts of Christian life and practice both individually and corporately. And, they are yet eclipsed in effectiveness2 as a means of grace by the two Sacraments that Christ Himself instituted and commanded; Baptism and the Eucharist.
Paragraph 123 of the BOD states:
Water baptism and the Lord’s Supper are the sacraments of the church commanded by Christ. They are means of grace through faith, tokens of our profession of Christian faith, and signs of God’s gracious ministry toward us. By them, He works within us to quicken, strengthen, and confirm our faith.3
And, if you go to the two subsequent paragraphs, each detailing the specifics of our Free Methodist understanding of Baptism and the Eucharist, the language about God’s work in and through these Sacraments is even stronger. All of this to say is that according to our Book of Discipline, the Sacraments should have predominant place in our theology and praxis.
From this I urge Free Methodist congregations to move toward weekly celebration of the Lord’s Supper as the normative goal, while recognizing that pastoral, logistical, and conference-specific circumstances may require a staged path toward that goal. This is not a call to adopt a particular worship style or to diminish preaching, prayer, Scripture, fellowship, or works of mercy. It is a call for our practice to reflect our confession that the sacraments are Christ-commanded means of grace.
I now ask the challenging question. If we affirm what our BOD states (something ALL clergy must do), as the Apostolic teaching of the Church carried through our Anglican heritage into Methodism and then through to us today, why do we withhold them from our congregations?
This question specifically applies to our practice of the Lord’s Supper, as there is not usually a question about the importance of Holy Baptism (even if many hold a more anabaptist view). John Wesley himself felt very strongly about this matter as well. We might go straight to his sermon The Duty of Constant Communion (which I encourage all to read), but rather point our attention to Sermon 26, on the Sermon on the Mount where he said,
“It was the judgment of many of the ancient Fathers, that we are here to understand the sacramental bread also; daily received in the beginning by the whole Church of Christ, and highly esteemed, till the love of many waxed cold, as the grand channel whereby the grace of his Spirit was conveyed to the souls of all the children of God.”4
The grand channel of his grace. This is important and we should not miss it. Wesley is not saying that there are no other means of grace, there certainly are. But what is being claimed, as affirmed in both Scripture and the early church, is that the Table is the primary place that God gives His grace to the Church. This claim likewise is bolstered by the fact that the early Methodists in England were namecalled as sacramentarians for their insistence on frequent celebration of the Lord’s Supper.
So I pose the question again for effect. If this is our Methodist belief and understanding of the Lord’s Supper, as affirmed in Scripture, through Wesley and in our BOD; why do we so constantly withhold it from our churches?
I do not mean that Free Methodist clergy are indifferent to Christ or careless toward their people. I mean that, as a denomination, we have tolerated a pattern of sacramental neglect that can deprive congregations of regular access to a means of grace Christ has commanded and our Discipline commends it. The FMC pastors I have met and know, faithfully preach the Word to their congregations to the churches every single week. And I praise God for that, and commend them for that. Yet, that is only the job. We are stewards of both Word & Sacrament. And if a job is only half-done, is it truly done?
One contributing factor is the way broad evangelical, anabaptist inclined and excessively revivalist habits have shaped many non-mainline Protestant churches, sometimes more deeply than their own confessional and theological inheritances. Congregations understandably observe practices that appear to produce engagement, growth, or visible response and seek to adopt them. Yet such borrowing can become uncritical when we ask only whether a practice appears effective, rather than also asking what theology of grace, conversion, the church, and worship that practice assumes.
A related concern is a significant shift in the way worship is understood and ordered. In some settings, the regular pattern of Word, prayer, praise, and the Lord’s Table has yielded to a service structured chiefly around musical affect, preaching, and an invitation for an immediate response. Contemporary worship music is not itself the problem, nor is an earnest call to conversion. Both can serve the church well. The danger arises when emotional intensity or a visible response becomes the expected climax of worship, while Christ’s instituted means of grace, particularly the Table, are treated as occasional additions rather than a regular act of the gathered church.
This pattern bears resemblance to the revivalist logic associated with Charles Finney’s “new measures,” including the anxious bench: practices designed to elicit an identifiable, immediate decision. The concern is not that people should not respond to the gospel. They must. The concern is that the church may come to measure worship chiefly by the response it can produce, rather than by whether it faithfully gathers the people of God around Word and Table, through which Christ has promised to minister his grace.
My purpose is not to stir indignation against or to accuse faithful pastors and churches. It is to call my Free Methodist brothers and sisters, from laypeople to bishops, to receive afresh and to faithfully and regularly use the means of grace Christ has entrusted to his church; especially the Lord’s Supper. Those of us ordained for ministry are charged not only to proclaim the Word, but also to administer the sacraments; we should therefore seek to order the church’s worship in a manner consistent with that charge.
The regular participation of the table is not just for liturgical churches. While the church I serve, as well as several others such as those in Rochester, NY and Boise, Idaho are irregular expressions for our denomination; there are a growing number of churches that are both contemporary and everything in between that are becoming more sacramentally minded and celebrating communion weekly. This call is not about a specific style or formula of worship, it is rather a call to pursue the things Christ has given His church, and that we as Methodists have from the beginning said are important.
I am so appreciative of our denomination’s pursuit of seeking Christ as to how the Free Methodist expression of the Church is called to impact the world. Our desire to seek together, become a reignited Spirit-fueled movement, to see the living giving holiness of Christ made in each person, and the justice of the Gospel be wrought by our churches in our communities. I am moved by, and love who we feel God is calling us to be. Now, how do we enact it?
It is at the table, primarily that we encounter Christ. We wish to encounter the life giving power of the Holy Spirit, that makes us holy and into the express image of Christ Himself. What better place than where Jesus has promised to encounter us as we eat and drink in faith! We desire justice to flow like a river, as we love mercy and walk humbly before our God. What a better place than where justice was served. Where God Himself gave Himself freely for others as we are called to do likewise! We seek for holy moments where people meet with and do business with the Lord. What a better place than where, again, we know He is. In the breaking of bread that we know He is there, where there is a participation, a koinonia5, with Jesus Himself!
We are looking for answers and solutions to what we see as the problems facing the Church, especially the Church in the West. Yes, these are very real issues we must grapple with. And what if the answer has been before us all along? What if, as we come, truly in faith to the place where Jesus is, at the altar in the bread and the cup that we receive the grace and power of Christ in the Holy Spirit.
So what are the next steps?
Pray and read.
First, pray. Pray that the Holy Spirit opens your eyes to the work that He desires to do in you and your congregations as you come around the Table. Celebrating the Sacrament does not do anything on its own. His power is there when we come in faith, knowing that He is working as He has promised. If you are laity, pray as well. Pray that your pastor comes to see the immense power that Christ promises to endow to His Church through His instituted means.
Second, read. Do a study first of all in Scripture. Look at the pattern of the Passover feast, and how much worship elsewhere in Scripture meant actual consumption of food. Then in the New Testament look at how central the Table is to the identity to the life and practice of the Early Church. Then from that foundation look at the Church Fathers, Scholastics, Reformers, Wesley and others like Thomas Oden and see how essential and central the Table is to not just out practice as Christian, but our identity6.
As these things come together; prayer, study, renewed teaching, and faithful practice, we will more fully receive the grace Christ has promised to give his church at the Table. The Lord’s Supper is not an empty ritual or a technique for producing spiritual results. It is a Christ-commanded means of grace, the “grand channel” through which the Holy Spirit strengthens his people in faith, holy love, and service.
As we come regularly in faith, we are continually reminded of Christ’s saving work and receive its benefits anew. Our identity is more deeply rooted in him; we are formed as one body, nourished for holiness, and sent to love our neighbors in the power of the Spirit.
by Joel V Webb | Jul 7, 2026 | Free Methodism, History, Methodism, Orthodoxy Matters, Theology & Practice
Recently a friend of mine, David Wiesner wrote a fantastic article titled “The Wesleyan Quadrilateral Need to Go”, detailing past and current voices in the Methodist movement, along with his own arguments as to why the term coined by Albert Outler should cease to be a framework for theological discernment in the Methodist-Wesleyan tradition. I think he has a very compelling argument, and there are certainly points that I agree with him, and his sources on. Yet, I have my own reasons that I think support the notion that the Quad should stay as the framework for discerning theology and consensus in our pan-Methodist world.
To lay the groundwork, I will quote from Wiesner’s article concerning the origin and definition of the quad, and take specific note of the historic foundations of this framework that Wesley would have derived from his Anglican heritage:
“Outler created the phrase “Quadrilateral” as a way of trying to describe how Wesley came to his theological conclusions and thus as a means for Methodists to likewise do the same. Outler selected scripture, reason, tradition, and experience as the four “legs” of the Quadrilateral based on his understanding of Wesley’s writings and his perception of how Wesley thought, not from anything explicit that Wesley said. Insofar as Wesley remained a devoted Anglican his entire life, it’s more than fair to say Wesley was familiar with the use of scripture, reason, and tradition because (as noted in the quote above) that was and remains the Anglican Trilateral formulation (or Triad) for discerning theology, and adding experience to the mix certainly reflects the importance Wesley placed on spiritual or converting experience within the Christian life.”
There are two arguments of the seven made in Wiesner’s article that I wish to address, and in the order that he did as well. The first, and what I think is the most compelling of these arguments is the misuse of the Quadrilateral. One of the most obvious realities to anyone with eyes is that the United Methodist Church abused and bastardized the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. I am not mincing my words here because there is no way around it. The theological desolation and rejection of Christian orthodoxy that has been seen in the last generation is a result of theological liberalism abusing the quadrilateral to bend orthodox interpretation of Scripture using experience.
Because of this, the Global Methodist Church (GMC) has taken steps away from the quad. This is witnessed in the sourcing of David Watson and others in Wiesner’s article. And I totally and completely understand this move. To see how Outler’s synthesis was abused to allow for everything it did (something Outler himself admitted and regretted towards the end of his life), it makes sense to want to separate from that synthesis and move to a different framework.
That being said, the abuse or misuse of something does not delegitimize the value or goodness of that thing. Just like people blame the Church for the ills and wrongs done to them presently and historically, that in very many cases is true, does not make the Church bad. But it does show the need we have for Christ. And, I would argue the same is true for the quad. The misuse of it by the UMC and others does not negate the need and goodness of it. As we examine its misuse and abuse, we see how its wrong application has wrought the fruit we see now.
The primary problem was how Scripture was relegated to the same level as the other elements of tradition, reason & experience. To understand the quad with Scripture as equal is to not understand the Protestant theological framework, nor is it to understand how Wesley would have understood how to come to the right understanding and doctrine.
I am not in the Sola Scriptura camp. To be of the Anglican heritage, having the synthesis of theologians such as Robert Hooker in his Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, which would have been foundation to Wesley and his framework (thus the three-legged stool) is to know that the issue is not the truth and reliability of Scripture. The place of diversion comes down to the interpretation of said Holy Scriptures. Hooker at the time of his writing was primarily locked in a theological back and forth with the Puritans who were dogmatically grounded in Continental European Calvinistic theology, and thus if it wasn’t plainly in Scripture then it was wrong (a simplification, but fundamentally true).
Rather, Hooker wrote, “What Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that the first place both of credit and obedience are due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after these the voice of the Church succeedeth.” (Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity). He also wrote, ““It sufficeth therefore that Nature and Scripture do serve in such full sort, that they both jointly and not severally either of them be so complete, that unto everlasting felicity we need not the knowledge of any thing more than these two may easily furnish our minds with on all sides.” In providing this framework, we see that the issue is not the authority of Scripture, but what we do with interpretation, and with things that scripture does not expressly address.
The reason we must have an avenue of theological synthesis is because heretics use the same Scripture we do. If you listen to the Road to Nicea podcast, or go deeper down the rabbit trail and actually read the Church Fathers (something I think EVERY pastor should be required to do), you see how the argument of the heretics such as the Arians, Gnostics and the like have their root in Scripture. As wrong and faulty as their theology is, it is the interpretation of Scripture that leads to the wrong theology.
So again, the issue is not Scripture itself, but how we come to understand what Scripture is teaching. Because if you have talked theology with someone with aberrant or heretical theology (like I have), they quote Scripture left right and center until their faces are blue. The diversion is that what they believe is not found in the Grand Deposit of faith, handed down to the saints by the saints who have come before, ultimately found in the teaching of the Apostles. That is why we need the Quadrilateral.
It is with this understanding that our conception of the Quadrilateral needs realignment. Scripture must be the unrivaled head of the quad. Yes, tradition, reason & experience are used in the synthesis of what Scripture is saying, but they can never go against what Scripture plainly teaches. And so my encouragement for both David, and those in the GMC (I have both family and dear friends apart of it), is that the problem is not the quad in and of itself, it is the abuse of the tool. Correct the imbalance in the framework of interpretation, don’t jettison the baby with the bathwater (don’t get me started on the paedobaptism discussion, I’m always ready to defend this Scriptural and historic Christian practice!).
Then we come to the second main augment that Wiesner makes, “The reality of how the Church determines theology is a collective and Spirit-infused enterprise, and we should encourage that corporate method instead of the implicitly-individualized method of the Quadrilateral”. My biggest contention with this is that I feel this is a category error. Wiesner commits a category error if he assumes the Quadrilateral’s purpose is to describe exactly the procedural forms the apostles used in Acts, rather than to articulate a method that makes the Spirit‑infused and corporate enterprise of the church intelligible and applicable today.
Again, the concern of this argument is the over individualization of the process that I believe is corrected by right weighting of Scripture as the highest authority, and then I would even posit that experience is the bottom of the pile, with it needing to be ultimately subject to Scripture first, then tradition & reason, before we interject what our experience says.
Part of the reason I am so ardent about this is because I grew up in a theological landscape that had no real and discernable process for making or synthesizing theological decisions outside of the personal experiential authority of a few key leaders. It was not a process or a framework that anyone would be held to if they deviated away from it. Just like how every Sunday in my church’s liturgy we declare the Nicene Creed following my sermon. And, I have explicitly told my congregation the purpose of doing so is that if I preach something contrary to the truths we are declaring, I am to be held to it and corrected.
The quad, I believe, is supposed to function as such for us in the pan-Methodist world. It is a framework that we run ideas, concepts and theologies through to see if it is in concert with true Christian doctrine. As an example, I can take the new Social Standards that the UMC passed just a few years ago following the mass disaffiliation to the new GMC and other similar denominations (like my own parish!). We don’t actually have to go any deeper in the quad than Holy Scripture to see how what was passed is in direct violation of the clear teachings and passages (granted, when you buy into process theology and open-theism, anything is possible). But let’s explore the other elements if we correctly use the quad as intended. As soon as you look at tradition, you will then see that the changes are in clear and direct violation of what the Church has ALWAYS taught, with no grey areas or equivocation. Then with reason and experience, the same conclusion remains: these revisions do not represent a deeper or more faithful reading of Christian truth, but a departure from the settled witness of the Church, the moral logic of Scripture, and the lived moral discernment of the Christian tradition. In other words, when the Quadrilateral is used properly, it does not become a license to baptize novelty; it becomes a means of testing whether a proposed teaching can actually stand within the whole Christian inheritance, and in this case it cannot.
It should be acknowledged that the Church has never discerned theology in a vacuum. Councils, synods, and canonical processes are all legitimate expressions of the Church’s corporate, Spirit-led judgment, and they provide an essential check against purely individual interpretation. The point of the Quadrilateral is not to replace those ecclesial realities, but to give them a coherent theological grammar: Scripture remains the final authority, while tradition, reason, and experience serve the Church as shared and accountable means of discernment. In practice, then, the Quad works alongside the Church’s conciliar life rather than against it, helping to ensure that theological judgments are not merely private opinions, but conclusions tested within the common witness of the body of Christ.
Part of my concern is what is the alternative if the Quadrilateral is done away with? My argument is that the Quadrilateral represents how the Holy Spirit works collectively to bring us to the true doctrine of Christ’s Church. There is a lot of uncharted water if we go a different direction. I have been on the Charismatic/generic Evangelical side of the aisle, where if it process was written down honestly, it would look a heck of a lot like the Quadrilateral. Just like in the Church we need structures and frameworks to operate (like the episcopate), we likewise need to same for discerning how the Holy Spirit is speaking and working in the life and belief of the Church. And I believe the Quadrilateral best represents that vision.
And so, as Methodism in the 21st Century is seeking to figure out who we are, we need the Quadrilateral more than ever. Correctly contextualized and utilized as we seek to determine and define the truth of “the faith entrusted once for all to the saints.” (Jude 1:3 BSB).
by Joel V Webb | May 22, 2026 | Free Methodism, Theology & Practice
One of the hallmarks of corporate style leadership is the ability to take a question, and then use so many words you forgot what the actual question was. Yet, enough was said in that period of time it is assumed that the question was actually answered. When in fact nothing substantial was actually said, but the person answering feels they did so. Sure this is fine in the business world where shareholders need assurances (even though they can see right through it). But what happens when it happens in the Church?
Good Spiritual leadership requires more than just love for Christ and good intentions. I heard that phrase this morning as I listened to Jeffrey Rickman on his PlainSpoken livestream talk about the issues that led to the separation of the UMC, and not wishing to repeat those mistakes in the GMC. While I don’t always agree with Jeffrey on everything, I will always applaud and appreciate his goal of having plain conversation with people, especially those who are in positions of leadership.
In my own world of the Free Methodist Church we have a lot of potential changes on the horizon. Denominational restructuring, merging of conferences, job description changes and the ever growing pressure that people feel we need to change. The desire for change is not unfounded. We live in a very hard time for denominations. At least at this current moment they still seem unpopular, with loose networks of churches and independent church bodies seeming to be the thing in vogue, there is an inherent feeling that we need to adapt, and I don’t think that is totally wrong. The issue comes when we don’t know who we are, and the changes happen in obscurity and there is almost no clarity.
The first issue at hand is we don’t know who we are. If I decided I wanted to renovate my house, but I had no end design in mind and go at the project hoping for something to work out in the end. I would not call that vision. I would call that demolition.
And that is precisely the danger before us. You can tear down walls, move things around, and make constant adjustments, but without a clear telos—without a defined understanding of what the house is supposed to be, you will eventually create something unlivable. It may be new. It may even look impressive for a moment. But it will not be coherent, and it certainly will not be stable.
The same is true for the Church. If we do not have a clear theological, ecclesiological, and sacramental identity, then every proposed “change” becomes reactive rather than purposeful. We start responding to pressures instead of being guided by convictions. And when that happens, leadership begins to rely on language that sounds meaningful but avoids saying anything concrete, because clarity would require commitment.
And commitment, in a moment like ours, feels costly.
But clarity is not only needed in what we say, it is needed in how we develop what we say. One of the deeper issues we face is not just unclear outcomes, but unclear processes. Decisions appear to be formed somewhere “upstream,” and by the time they reach the broader body, they are presented as nearly finished products. At that point, feedback is not truly formative; it is cosmetic.
That is not how a healthy church discerns.
Development takes time. It requires patience. It requires creating real space for pastors and laity to wrestle with ideas, to ask hard questions, and yes, even to disagree. If we rush that process in the name of efficiency, what we gain in speed we lose in trust. And once trust is eroded, no amount of polished language can restore it.
This is where our gatherings, especially our annual and general conferences must be reexamined. Too often they function as inspirational talking sessions, where vision is cast in broad terms, testimonies are shared, and energy is generated. There is certainly a place for that. But if that is all they are, then we have misunderstood their purpose.
Conference should be, in part, an open mic. Not in the sense of disorder or endless debate, but in the sense that there is real, structured opportunity for the body to speak. For questions to be asked plainly. For concerns to be voiced without fear of being dismissed. For leaders not only to present, but to listen and to do so in real time, not through filtered summaries after the fact.
Because if we cannot speak honestly in our own councils, where can we? This kind of openness will slow things down. It will feel messier. It will expose disagreements that are easier to ignore. But it is also how clarity is formed, not imposed, but discerned together under the authority of Christ.
And that is the key distinction. The Church is not a corporation optimizing for efficiency. She is a body seeking faithfulness. Those are not the same thing.
There is another issue that must be named plainly: the increasing reliance on what can only be called “word salad.” By this I mean language that sounds important, full of talking points and polished documents but ultimately says very little. Phrases like “strategic alignment,” “adaptive vision,” and “contextual responsiveness” are repeated until they feel substantive, even when they avoid concrete meaning.
These documents, talks and podcasts are carefully constructed, yet when you ask, “What is actually being proposed?” or “What does this mean for the life of the Church?” the answer is often unclear. And that is the problem.
Word salad does not create unity; it obscures reality. It allows people to nod along because nothing is actually being committed to. It gives leaders cover, but it gives the Church no direction. When clarity finally becomes unavoidable, the underlying disagreements surface with greater force because they were never addressed honestly.
This is not a call for oversimplification. The Church’s work is complex, and careful language matters. But there is a difference between care and evasion. One seeks to illuminate; the other seeks to protect. If a proposal cannot be explained plainly, it is not ready. If a document cannot be understood by those it affects, it has failed its purpose.
Plain speech is not a lack of intelligence. It is a sign of integrity. In a moment where trust is fragile and clarity is desperately needed, the Church cannot afford to communicate in ways that obscure more than they reveal.
So what does it look like to move forward rightly?
It begins with naming things honestly. Who are we as Free Methodists? Not in vague aspirational language, but in concrete theological terms. What do we believe about the Church? About the sacraments? About authority? About holiness? About connectionalism? These are not secondary questions. They are the foundation upon which every structural decision must rest.
From there, we must commit to a process that reflects those convictions. One that allows time for development. One that invites participation rather than managing perception. One that treats clarity not as a threat, but as a gift.
And alongside clarity must come transparency. If changes are necessary, and some likely are then they must be communicated in a way that is direct, accessible, and rooted in shared conviction. Not every detail needs to be broadcast at all times, but the direction, the reasoning, and the theological grounding should never be hidden behind layers of institutional language.
The Church does not need more carefully worded ambiguity. She needs shepherds who are willing to say, “This is who we are, this is where we are going, and this is why.” And just as importantly, shepherds who are willing to say, “Speak, we are listening.”
That kind of leadership will not always be comfortable. It will not always be widely applauded. But it will be faithful. And in the end, faithfulness, not cleverness, not adaptability for its own sake, not institutional survival is the measure by which spiritual leadership is judged.
Why do I say all of this?
Because I love being in the Free Methodist Church. As someone who did not grow up in the denomination, I have grown to deeply love the calling and mission that the FMC historically has had, and I believe God is not done with the FMC. I want to see us be a thriving denomination that is surely grounded in our theological inheritance of Wesley, and confident we are faithfully proclaiming the Gospel. I would like to one day retire in the FMC. But all of this will only happen if we are clear and concise. If we remain faithful as members of the Body of Christ…the Church
by Joel V Webb | Apr 28, 2026 | Free Methodism, Holy Orders, Theology & Practice
The Free Methodist Church, like many Methodist denominations rooted in the historic orders of the Church, has the offices of Deacon, Elder (Pastor/Priest) & Bishop. These roles of servant leadership are seen instituted by and through the Apostles in the book of Acts, and through the epistles of the New Testament to see Christ’s Church function.
The role of Elder (presbyter from the Greek presbyteros) is the role we see most spoken of by St. Paul is his pastoral epistles as he is often writing to churches in need of issues resolved. Through his writings we see the outline of the role, and the qualifications needed for such a role (1 Timothy 3). We also see elders working in conjunction with the Apostles in Acts 11:30.
The next role that is often closely associated with elders is that of the overseer, from the Greek word episkopos, which is where we derive the term episcopal, and the title Bishop from. In the New Testament this term seems to be used interchangeably. What we do see early in Church history is this role being that of the chief elder selected to oversee a given church of a city, and would have been selected from among the elders of that city. This has been carried on through Church history to this day where the Bishop oversees a collection of churches, often in a geographical area providing oversight to the elders, deacons and parishioners within, sometimes called the chief pastor.
The final role is that of a deacon. Which arises very quickly in the narrative of Acts 6:1-4, “In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Hellenistic Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. Brothers and sisters, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.”
This role of deacon, created from the need for service in the Church, like the others has been carried on through the Church in a variety of ways to serve the body. Historically the diaconate is a role that seems to be a stepping stone for those pursuing elders orders, but otherwise is a position that is dedicated to the long-term care of the congregation, especially in polity situations where there is frequent rotation of clergy. (see my previous post on deacons).
This then brings us to the question of deacons in the Free Methodist Church.
You might be surprised to find out that they do actually exist!
Found in our Book of Discipline, ¶6600: Consecrated Deacons are members in good standing in the Free Methodist Church. They are persons of good reputation, full of wisdom and the Spirit, whose spiritual gifts from God have been confirmed by their societies. In response to God’s call on their lives, Consecrated Deacons offer servant leadership in particular areas of congregational life, according to the gifts and graces God has given and they have developed. Complementing the work of elders, Consecrated Deacons serve the Society by assisting and leading the membership to carry out its ministries to one another and the world.
There is more the BOD says about the role, particularly this: Consecrated Deacons remain members of the local Free Methodist church with no official standing in the annual conference. Consecrated Deacons may therefore serve as lay delegates to annual conference and General Conference.
Historically the role of Deacon has been a Holy Order along with being an Elder and Bishop. Ordained as such for ministry, a foot in both the world (congregation), and as clergy in their own way. In keeping with the Scriptural work deacons were created to fulfill, this is very often kept up in traditional expressions of the Chrisitan faith.
All that being said. I have never met a Free Methodist Deacon. (If you are one, I’d love to meet you!!)
What’s unfortunate is that as a denomination, we are missing a core Scriptural role and position that Christ, in His wisdom through the Apostles has blessed us with so that those who serve as Elders can focus on their distinct roles to serve the Body of Christ.
We in the Free Methodist Church need a revitalization of the diaconate. Why? Not only because it is found in Scripture and in the long tradition of the Church, but I believe it is one of the solutions to the clergy burnout crisis. Pastors are often saddled with so many tasks which may include visits and other elements of ministry of mercy and presence. And that’s not to say those of us with Elders Orders shouldn’t do that, we need to. But in some cases, there are pastors who are saddled with a large load of the work that Christ intended for Deacons to take.
Another aspect we might not be considering is in regards to the involvement of our laity. How many people do we have in our churches who feel a call to some kind of ministry, but all we really have to present them is to “become an ordained pastor”. But what if that’s not what they are called to, but rather feel the pull into the diaconate, but we are unaware and are not making use of this so important but unused role?
A final note I will make is I feel we have done a disservice in removing the diaconate from its historic placement in the ordination process of clergy. Historically, as it is also done in traditional expressions of the faith today, those pursuing Elder’s orders, as a part of the process, actually become deacons. It is during this time they serve in that role in serving the flock as they continue the process towards becoming an Elder.
In our current Free Methodist situation, the role of deacon has been seemingly separated from this historic track unless someone feels otherwise called or can’t carry on pursuing Elder ordination for some reason (see the rest of ¶6600 in the BOD). I’m not sure when or why this change was made in our polity, but I have a feeling it had subtle but noticeable detrimental effects. One possible suggestion would be to simply keep the process we have for ordination (LMC to CMC to Elder), but simply rename the CMC title to Deacon, to bring us back into historical alignment with the role, and modify the track to allow those to stay at that level if they feel it is their calling to ministry. And if someone then feels the call to remain in the diaconate, their membership can remain at the local level.
While some of this discussion may seem life insignificant squawking, we don’t often realize how changes from how things have been, even if they don’t seem important, can actually have major impacts down the road. And while the question of the diaconate seems like a small problem in a world gone mad, maybe the role Christ has given the Church to help serve the flock would help bring back some of our sanity to keep us going until He one day comes again.
