A Quarrel Over Bones

 In the Chinese tradition the burial of ancestors has a long term effects on their descendants. Elaborate grave sites are developed to insure that the remains of the deceased are properly located through “Fung Shui,” the art of necromancy, so that “chi” forces flowing around the decomposing corpse pool and flow onward to the benefit of future generations. 

In some traditions when the body has decomposed the bones are put in ceramic jars and relocated on mountain tops to gain an even greater effect. In the case of families that have migrated to other countries the bones are actually removed from the grave and taken along to the new family home. In Malaysia I’ve seen the opened, and now abandoned tombs of the migrant dead myself. 

In the past these traditions resulted, at least in the region around Hong Kong, in numerous lawsuits. Different branches of the same family claimed that the location and orientation of the bones was advantaging one side of the family and disadvantaging another. This was most unfortunate and difficult for the courts. Such cases are terribly difficult to decide given that the supposed science of Fung Shui is both complex and contested in its principles and lacking in rigorous testing with regards to its results. Talk about problems with expert witnesses!

If only it were a passing traditional culture that was deeply interested in positioning the bones of ancestors for its present benefit. 

These days United Methodists are as busy as the Feng Shui experts of Hong Kong laying out their cases for the lay of John Wesley’s metaphorical bones. Each wants to place them like macabre pointers across the wasteland of modernity so that they lead Wesley loyalists to their particular campsite on the way to. an ecclesial promised land.  

It started with a quarrel between the “Love Alike” Centrists and the “It Doesn’t Say That” Traditionalists arguing over Wesley’s sermon Catholic Spirit. The latter sent those of us long out of seminary (or who had never been) off their dictionaries to look up “antinomianism;” the highest form of treason for Traditionalists and the one thing they rejected out in any reading of Wesley. (https://wesleyancovenant.org/2019/02/07/love-unity-and-catholic-spirit-what-does-wesley-say/) In the meantime the Centrists, accused of using fancy linguistic footwork to avoid the clear teaching of scripture became Wesley literalists: "Let all opinions alone on one side and the other: only "give me thine hand.” (https://umaffirm.org/cornet/catholic.html)

In the meantime the Love Prevails Progressives staked out the counterpoint to the Traditionalists, finding that the “love” of which Wesley speaks cannot co-exist with any rejection of LGBTQ full participation in marriage and ordination. “Is thine heart right with my heart as my heart is right with thine?” they asked. And they answered “No!” You can’t hide hatefilled transphobia and homophobia behind the smokescreen of theological differences. https://loveprevailsumc.com. 

Now the battle to claim Wesley’s bones has heated up even more with conflicting claims over the so-called Wesleyan quadrilateral of scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. Traditionalist Thomas Lambrecht reiterated his charicature that Progressives and Centrists use the quadralateral to distort the authority of scripture. Ultimately, he claims, it isn’t representative of the real Wesley. (http://tomlambrecht.goodnewsmag.org/primary-reasons-for-separation/) Needless to say, others disagree with both the caricature and the claim. (https://www.logosish.com/blog/reason-tradition-and-thomas-lambrecht and etc.)

Yet for all this fighting over Wesley’s teaching, I suspect the real issue isn’t about who can claim it as their own. The real question is whether it will retain its potential to guide emerging generations of Christians. Unlike the works of Luther and Calvin, or in the 20th century Bultmann and Barth, Wesley’s writings have never commended themselves outside the Methodist world. And with the movement he started started both in decline and deeply divided over who he was and what he taught it hardly seems likely that he’ll inspire anyone outside the fractured fold with a vision of the way forward. 

Since 1964, when Albert Outler began his work bringing into focus Wesley’s heritage there has emerged an impressive monument of published works to the man, his work, and his thought. Outler himself influenced generations of pastors, including myself. Yet I fear that monument now stands over a tomb emptied of meaning by a quarrel over bones. When the descendents fight over the legacy, you know the old man is truly dead.