NIV John 14:2 In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you.

GNT John 14:2 evn th/| oivki,a| tou/ patro,j mou monai. pollai, eivsin\ eiv de. mh,( ei=pon a’n u`mi/n o[ti poreu,omai e`toima,sai to,pon u`mi/nÈ

NIV John 14:23 Jesus replied, “If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.

GNT John 14:23 avpekri,qh VIhsou/j kai. ei=pen auvtw/|( VEa,n tij avgapa/| me to.n lo,gon mou thrh,sei( kai. o` path,r mou avgaph,sei auvto.n kai. pro.j auvto.n evleuso,meqa kai. monh.n parV auvtw/| poihso,meqaÅ

I was sitting in church several weeks ago listening to a sermon on John 14, when it hit me. I haven’t ever seen this before. Probably countless other people have, but I never did. We assume in John 14 that Jesus is talking about heaven, “Going to prepare a place for us.” This teaching is not given after the resurrection but before the crucifixion. The text does not even mention eternity. With a fresh reading I am seeing that John 14-16 isn’t about eternity at all. It is about the presence of God in our lives now.

As I was sitting in the service I turned in my bible from John 14:2 to John 14:23. I thought to myself, wouldn’t it be cool, if in the Greek, the word for “rooms” in verse 2 was the same as the word for “home” in verse 23. What a joy to found out that it was. In fact, these two verses are the only times in the New Testament or the Septuagint that the monh.n is found.

Here’s my revised understanding of John 14:1-2:  Jesus is going to be crucified so we can experience redeemed life with God. This effects my understanding of John 14:6. The default generic evangelical understanding is that “the only way to heaven is through Jesus.” With a fresh view I am seeing that the only way one can have life with the Father is through the work of Jesus. That work is an aggressive work, provided by the Father…and the promise is the Father and the Son will come and make their home with all who love them.  This also helps with the flow from Chapter 14 to 15. It isn’t about heaven, it is about the life of God in us.

Nobody likes an imposter because nobody likes to be deceived. When people pretend to be holy instead of living a holy life from the inside out, it is deceptive.  Jesus called it hypocrisy.  It has been a problem that God has dealt with for a long time.  The root of the problem is people are more concerned about what others think of them than they are about their true relationship with God.

An overview of the Law, Prophets and Gospels will draw one to a clear conclusion about God’s view of those who act religiously.  He hates it when people fake a relationship with Him.  We should be able to understand God’s point. One of the things we hate is when someone acts like our friend, but in reality they only want to use us.

This explains why God said what he did to the people of Israel. They wanted to do all the religious things, but did not live justly with one another.  “I hate, I despise your religious feasts; I cannot stand your assemblies.  Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them. Though you bring choice fellowship offerings, I will have no regard for them.  Away with the noise of your songs! I will not listen to the music of your harps.  But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!” (Amos 5:21-24 NIV)

It also explains why Jesus spoke so harshly to those who were “outside-in” followers of God. “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean.  In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.” (Matthew 23:27-28 NIV)

In order to reach a dying world we need authentic Christians who are willing to live their faith from the inside out.  This requires a steady diet of humility, repentance and dependence on God’s Holy Spirit.  I think one of the chief ways God forms us is by using our humiliations. It strips the veneer from the outside and exposes who we are inwardly.

Sometimes complex problems have simple solutions. Free Methodists could double their giving to World Missions with two simple words – “Water, please!” If every time we went out to eat we simply asked for water instead of our favorite soft drink, tea or coffee we could divert those monies to World Missions and more than double our giving.

Many people are familiar with John Wesley’s advice to early Methodists – “Earn all you can, save all you can, give all you can.”  Most people understand the first and third admonitions, but the second is rarely understood. “Save all you can” means to be as frugal as possible. If you can get by with less—do it! This opens the door to greater generosity.

Some older Free Methodists can remember the days when the wearing of jewelry was discouraged. Many of them think it was a sign of being worldly. In one sense it is, but not on appearance, but on losing touch with the mission of Christ. Early pioneer Free Methodists could not see their way clear to spend on themselves what they could give to the poor.

The problem is not that we don’t have the money to give. The problem is we choose to be self-indulgent. Our own appetites serve as an enemy to the gospel. Why not engage in some practical act to decrease self-indulgence? It can be as simple as saying, “Water, please!”

The drumbeat is steady and firm…“Go where God is blessing.”  Why not? It is more exciting to join success than to plod along with few visible results. I read it again today, “Stop asking God to bless what you are doing. Find out what God is doing. It’s already blessed.”

 What if…what God is doing has little visible results? Early missionaries to India labored for more than twenty years before the first church was established. Did they waste their lives in unfruitful fields? The results of their faithfully plodding along have now resulted in thousands of churches.

 What if…our inner motivation is for personal significance? Does seeking to be a part of a visibly blessed ministry validate the work of God? The Lord commissioned Isaiah to a work where people were always hearing but never understanding, always seeing but never perceiving.  Oswald Chambers wrote: 

 Are you willing to sacrifice yourself for the work of another believer—to pour out your life sacrificially for the ministry and faith of others? Or do you say, “I am not willing to be poured out right now, and I don’t want God to tell me how to serve Him. I want to choose the place of my own sacrifice. And I want to have certain people watching me and saying, “Well done.”

 It is one thing to follow God’s way of service if you are regarded as a hero, but quite another thing if the road marked out for you by God requires becoming a “doormat” under other people’s feet. God’s purpose may be to teach you to say, “I know how to be abased . . .” ( Philippians 4:12 ). Are you ready to be sacrificed like that? Are you ready to be less than a mere drop in the bucket-to be so totally insignificant that no one remembers you even if they think of those you served? Are you willing to give and be poured out until you are used up and exhausted—not seeking to be ministered to, but to minister? Some saints cannot do menial work while maintaining a saintly attitude, because they feel such service is beneath their dignity.[1]

 Surely the attitude of Christ is not one that demands to be part of a visible result, nor is it one that chooses fields because of their fruitfulness. There is a higher calling than visible results—a calling to faithful obedience. A quick survey of scripture uncovers countless stories of faithful servants who never saw the results of their faith.

 Jesus directed his disciples to go and bear fruit, fruit that will last. A slight twist of the instructions of Jesus takes the emphasis off of obedience and faithfulness to the task and places it onto the outcomes. This does not excuse laziness or disobedience. It does, however, point out that there may be years of labor invested into a ministry with few visible results.

 Can we rejoice with those who are seeing the fruit of their labors, while at the same time encouraging those who are faithfully serving in places of unseen fruitfulness? Can we encourage those entering ministry to adopt of spirit of sacrificial service that may or may not result in visible effectiveness? All of this can be rather imposing when faced with the realities of many unproductive churches. An extremist would insist on placing all of the emphasis on pastoral integrity, where an appropriate priority on the pastor’s character would be a wiser path.

 The challenge is to find ways in which to strengthen pastoral integrity and properly evaluate church performance. Christ call “to bear fruit, fruit that will last” is not a mere adoption of a vineyard metaphor for church growth. It is a call for growing mature disciples. Our tendency to evaluate a pastor based on how well his church is performing rather than on faithful obedience.

Is the “Open Arms” approach to membership based on the cultural standard of self-actualization or a biblical standard of self-denial?  This was the question that came to me in the middle of Sunday morning’s sermon on Mark 8:34-38.

Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.

What seemed to me like a warning shot across the bow of the ship was the order in which Jesus expressed following him.  First – self-denial, Second – cross bearing, and third – following.  I began pondering the ordo salutis.  Is there significant biblical evidence to call people to Christ in the order Jesus sets out in Mt. 16:24, Mk 8:34 & Lk 9:23?

My first thoughts were of the closing verses in Luke 9.  The call of Jesus to these three disciples was blatantly to self-denial and cross bearing. The call was up front with no apology and with no room for negotiation.

“As they were walking along the road, a man said to him, “I will follow you wherever you go.” Jesus replied, “Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.”

He said to another man, “Follow me.” But the man replied, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.” Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God.”

Still another said, “I will follow you, Lord; but first let me go back and say good-by to my family.” Jesus replied, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God.”       Luke 9:57-62

The calls of Peter, Andrew, James, John and Matthew reveal that they left everything to follow Jesus. 

As Jesus walked beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and his brother Andrew casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen.  “Come, follow me,” Jesus said, “and I will make you fishers of men.” At once they left their nets and followed him.

When he had gone a little farther, he saw James son of Zebedee and his brother John in a boat, preparing their nets. Without delay he called them, and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired men and followed him. Mark 1:16-20

After this, Jesus went out and saw a tax collector by the name of Levi sitting at his tax booth. “Follow me,” Jesus said to him, and Levi got up, left everything and followed him.  Luke 5:27-28

Not only is this seen in the original calls, but it is reflected in the words of Peter, “We have left everything to follow you!” Mark 10:28.

In the Free Methodist Church, during recent years the prevailing thought has been that our “Code of Christian Conduct” has served as a fence to define who belongs. While this may be true of those who slipped into legalism, it surely was not the original intention of either John Wesley, or of B.T. Roberts. Classes were formed to “separate the precious from the vile.” This was not done as a means of keeping the people from joining the societies. It was to make a clear distinction between those who were leaving all to follow Christ, and those who were half-hearted in responding to Christ’s call. The intention was to keep people of one mind in following Christ from being infected by those who were apathetic. It was exclusive in function, but only as it served to help those who were committed to following Christ (see “A Plain Account of a People Called Methodists”).

My concern today is not that we are exclusive – hardly a doctrinally or practically exclusive FM church could be found in North America today. In my observation of the church the problem has not been an exclusive spirit. On the contrary, I have observed not only hundreds of our people who don’t know our distinctive characteristics, (primarily the doctrine of entire sanctification and a mission to reach the poor and disenfranchised) but a growing number of clergy who have a soteriological praxis that rarely reflects the reality of Jesus’ practice (denial, cross-bearing and following).

Recently the chorus has been, “We do not want to make entrance into the FM church more difficult than entrance into the body of Christ.”  The corresponding unasked question is, “Do we want to make is less difficult?”  The obvious answer is “no,” but is that what the current trend signifies?  It is not uncommon in our churches today for people to be “converted” by raising their hands or signing a card. Too often we call for a commitment without explaining the cost.

Since prerequisites for following Jesus are self-denial and cross bearing, how does a practice of easy entrance into membership reflect this? When in the current membership scenario does the pastor call for greater commitment? When do we promote a significant “cost” factor to following Christ? What the FM current membership covenant appears to assume is that discipleship is preceded by salvation.  What is the scriptural foundation for the assumption? How do reason, experience and tradition support it?

Sometimes it seems we have adopted a sales pitch approach to following Christ. We show all the benefits and hide the cost. Not only does this not seem to fit the pattern of Christ, it seems to lack basic integrity. Jesus didn’t have a hard time with tough requirements for entrance into the kingdom. How do the difficult sayings of Jesus fit into our current membership practice?

“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.”

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’”

“Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

Historic Methodism viewed the high accountability of the classes not as fences to keep people out, but as “method” to lead people to Christ. It was in fact a form of self-denial and cross bearing that preceded conversion. It was a matter of order that flowed from the gospel.

While the 1995 General Conference change to an open membership did not change the fact that for years there has not been a system of accountability in the FM church, it did take away the remains of what was once the heart of Methodism.  “Self-denial first.”  This was in fact, the reason for the derogatory name, “Methodist.”

In light of (1) our lack of practicing high accountability, (2) our officially accepted view of membership without self-denial, and (3) our addressing the minor issues of membership while overlooking the major issue of accountability, it might be appropriate that we drop the “Methodist” from our name, as in fact, many of our churches are doing.

What we have attempted to do is to address a spiritual problem with a structural fix. We might be more effective (and scriptural) if we structure for self-denial. At least we will be following the example of Jesus. Instead of using “Methodism” (by that I mean the structured system of accountability) for the advancement of the kingdom, we have abandoned the methodology.

I personally do not mourn the shift in focus on membership. I mourn that we are not addressing the real problem, a problem that has existed for several generations…salvation without discipleship, membership without accountability, and grace without cross bearing.

One rationale for the shift in our membership is that it was time we moved from being an order to being a church. Conclusions have been drawn from the history of Methodism as an order within the Church of England. Many consider John Wesley to have died an Anglican priest. In fact, I have been in Episcopal churches that celebrate John Wesley’s impact on the church on England. Wesley, however, was not afraid to start little groups (called Societies) for those who were sincere to follow Christ. Entrance into those societies not only required a desire to flee the wrath to come, but an adherence to a very specific code of conduct.

My fear is that while Free Methodism is “growing up” out of an order and into a church, we are not sufficiently poised to allow the formation of Methodist societies again.  I fear we will fall deeper into the pit of bifurcating salvation and discipleship.  We are in need, not only as a church but also in the larger culture, of the sectarian influence of historic Methodism. Are we afraid to carry that banner – the banner passed onto us from our founders? If we are, then surely God will raise up another people to do His work.

You will find in this book the doctrines and form of government of the Free Methodist Church. We do not wish any to subscribe to it unless they believe it will be for the glory of God and the good of their souls. We have no desire to build up simply a large church; but we do hope that our societies will be composed, exclusively, of those who are in earnest to gain heaven and who are determined, by the grace of God, to live up to the requirements of the Bible. It is of the greatest importance that those who come into this organization shall be of one heart and one mind.

Free Methodist Book of Discipline

1862-1969

May we, by the blessing of God, be enabled to hold inviolate the heritage received from the fathers. Amen!

E.P. Hart – Reminiscences of Early Free Methodism – p. 259