Eschatology

I don't know if you guys were aware of it, but recently there was a big controversy surrounding eschatology in evangelical circles. The controversy arose because of a new book written by Rob Bell, a book entitle "Love Wins" in which Bell addresses the topic of hell. The book, at the time, had not been released and so I do not know exactly what Bell says on the issue, but he was at the least questioning traditional assumptions about eschatology and divine punishment. The response to these questions from many prominent evangelical figures was swift and unforgiving. Because of this recent controversy the topic of Eschatology has been on my mind, so I was very interested to see that the first sermon we read this week was concerned with eschatology.

The sermon itself is kind of unique for Wesley, as noted in the introduction. Wesley is preaching to an unusual context, and his sermon is shaped by his audience (a courtroom setting). More importantly, Wesley seldom indulged in the level of speculation that we see in this sermon. He seems to have preferred more practical matters for most of his sermons, as we have seen in our reading up to this point. I want to look at a few points of interest for me in the sermon "The Great Assize" and what they tell us about Wesley.

First, I think it is important to recognize that even when speaking on a relatively speculative topic, Wesley was extremely practical. He clearly states at the beginning of his sermon and in its conclusion that he believes our understanding of final judgment should provide motivation for holy living in the present. Even Eschatology has a practical connection to holiness for Wesley.

Another point of interest for me in this sermon is Wesley's method of reading Scripture. That the Scriptures are the primary source material for Wesley's reflections on Eschatology can hardly be doubted given the copious amounts of Biblical material cited in the sermon. What I found to be interesting about this, however, was the literalism with which Wesley approached Biblical passages on the Final Judgment. Wesley clearly believes that every person who every lived will be gathered into a single place together and then God will try each case, one-by-one, until every person has given an account of their actions. Wesley goes into some detail describing the logistics of such an event, describing the fast numbers of people involved as well as the long years he supposes will be necessary to complete this event. There is not even a hint of metaphorical understanding of judgment in this sermon. One gets the sense in this sermon that the book mentioned in Scripture is a literal book for Wesley, that people genuinely are divided up to God's left and God's right, and that we will be standing around for thousands of years waiting for our turn on the hot seat. If I'm honest, I find this reading a bit too simplistic, perhaps problematic. I think that a metaphorical reading of these passages may be the more natural way to read them, and I'm afraid Wesley's understanding of Scripture on this point suffers from a certain lack of imagination.

I also found it interesting that Wesley definitely believed in a literal hell of eternal punishment. This understanding of the fate of those who are not saved is understandable. I do not know for sure, but I suspect his understanding was typical for his time period. It also fits well with his literalistic method of reading Scripture on this topic. I think I would also argue that this understanding may best fit Wesley's agenda of encouraging righteous living in the present. Fear is a powerful motivator, even if we would often rather find an alternative. Rob Bell would find no support and little sympathy in John Wesley's sermons.

Two other related issues concerning the content of Wesley's Eschatology. Wesley seems to favor a future eschatology, as well as an eschatology of destruction. There is no sense of continuity between this earth and the new, recreated earth for Wesley. His understanding seems to be that the physical world as we know it will be utterly destroyed by God and a new one will be created in its place. My concerns here are well known in our own day. I worry that a eschatology in which heaven and earth are burned up encourages a certain flippancy and disdain for the creation in which we life. I worry that such a future-oriented eschatology denies something of the power of God in the present (this doesn't fit well with other areas of Wesley's theology, does it?). I suspect I am being slightly unfair, making modern day accusations of an 18th century thinker. Regardless, even with the areas of concern, I thoroughly enjoyed this sermon as an example of something different for Wesley.

I see a good amount of continuity between many of the sermons we read this week. It feels as if Wesley meant for these sermons to be grouped together in order to allow them to be a continuation of thought from one to the other. I see, not progress, but continuation or expansion of his thought between ‘Original Sin,’ ‘The New Birth,’ and ‘On Sin in Believers.’

In ‘Original Sin,’ Wesley begins by describing humans as “atheists in the world” (p330). We are all prideful human beings and bear the image of Satan in our hearts within our self-will. If we somehow manage to leave the image of Satan behind, we run into love of the world. We cannot escape it, even if we think we despise these worldly pleasures. We are, by nature, beasts, and are captive to our sensual appetites. As he moves to the inferences at the end of the sermon, Wesley also notes the differences between Christianity and heathenism. The last of these inferences is Jesus as the Great Physician, who heals our sicknesses and restores our human nature from total corruption. By our faith we are healed. If humankind were not fallen, we would have no need for this. The sermon concludes with Wesley asserting the new birth as the solution to this fallen nature and struggle with our original sin. We are all born into sin, and therefore must be born again.

There is a continuation of the theme of humankind’s fallen nature in “The New Birth.” Wesley explains that humans were made to be immutable, are created to stand but are also liable to fall. In what seems like a very pessimistic and bold statement, Wesley proclaims that in eating the forbidden fruit, humankind ignored God’s command, and therefore died to God, lost the life of God within them, and were separated from God. The knowledge and love of God were both lost in that moment. This was a moment not of bodily death, but spiritual death. Therefore, everyone who comes into the world is spiritually dead, dead in sin, and void of the life of God and the image of God. This emphasizes many of the same themes expressed in “Original Sin.” This original sin, this spiritual death, is the foundation of the new birth. The first sermon lays the foundation for the need for a new birth. With new birth comes an opening of eyes that have been blind, and an opening of ears that were unable to hear. When a person if born of God, there is a total change that occurs. We are now able to hear the inward voice of God and feel the graces of the spirit at work in our hearts. Proceeding from this is an intercourse between God and the person. In this way, the life of God in the soul is sustained.

Lastly, in “On Sin in Believers,” Wesley seems to add some nuance to his understanding of sin. Wesley states that even following justification, there is sin in a person’s heart. He expresses this specifically in relation to Christ, when he explains that Christ can live in the same heart that also contains sin. If a heart contains sin and Christ also lives there, this must be the case because otherwise that heart could never be saved. Where there is sickness, there must be a physician. Where Wesley fully explains this distinction is on p.363, when he says, “Christ indeed cannot reign where sin reigns; neither will he dwell where any sin is allowed. But he is and dwells in the heart of every believer who is fighting against all sin.” When this is the case, when a sinner’s eyes have been opened to their sin and they are thus fighting against it because of their new birth, sin remains but does not reign. This is Wesley’s main point about sin within a believer, that it is able exist, but is unable to reign, because the sinner has been made aware of their sin through new birth and are actively fighting against it.

I appreciate that we read these sermons in conjunction and thus are able to track the progression of Wesley’s thought. I specifically needed to hear his distinction between sin existing within a believer and sin’s inability to reign in order to fully understand Wesley’s picture of sin. Much of his thought as expressed in this week’s reading was particularly informative for my understanding of his overall theology, and also contributed to my own memories of growing up in the United Methodist Church. I hear resonances of what I remember from childhood that are starting to come together and make more sense. Because I continue to go back to my home church and preach, this is important information for me to be clear on, so that I don’t say anything contrary to their theology in my sermons, especially because I am a guest preacher.

The 'ole Mash-Up

Before I begin, I just have to say, I thought Wesley's phrase "of riper years" (p. 343) was brilliant!  I think I actually laughed out loud.  I can definitely see myself using that in the future... hehe :)

On a more serious note, I struggled to find something to write about this week.  I found myself enjoying these sermons more than analyzing or critiquing them.  While there were a few different things that caught my attention, nothing seemed to stand out.  So, my post this week is going to be a compilation of brief thoughts, reflections and questions (a mash-up) pertaining to a few different themes emerging from the sermons for this week.

1.  BAPTISM - In the sermon, "The New Birth" Wesley makes a clear distinction between the sacrament of baptism and the new birth.  Wesley understands baptism to be a sacrament and therefore the outward sign of faith; whereas the new birth is understood as the inward grace effecting inward change.  He further argues that since baptism and the new birth are not the same thing, they do not constantly go together.  Wesley believes it is possible for a person to be baptized, and yet not be 'born again.'  In what follows, Wesley seems to undermine the value and significance of baptism by allowing the new birth to supersede baptism as more important (see esp. pp. 343-45).  While I understand that an outward ritual can be empty and meaningless without some deeper or inward spiritual reality, I remain uneasy with Wesley's implicit devaluation of baptism.

This is not the first time we have encountered this either.  Logan drew our attention to the fact that baptism was completely absent in Wesley's listing of means of grace in his sermon of the same title.  What can we make of this?  What does Wesley really believe about the sacrament of baptism and it's role in the life of a believer?  Is baptism merely outward and symbolic, or is there something more going on?

2.  THE USE OF MONEY - I have long been familiar with Wesley's basic teaching in this sermon.  I grew up hearing this three-point outline: "Earn all you can, Save all you can, Give all you can."  What impressed me most about this sermon was the broader Christian ethics that emerged as a result of these financial concerns.  Issues of developing a healthy work ethic that allows health for self, but also health for others.  Wesley allows no room for extortion and dishonest gain.  Reading this section (section I, pp. 350-53) caused me to see some possible connections and continuities between Wesley's teaching on the proper use of money for Christians and his commitment to the abolition of slavery.  Slavery was not only about human rights, but also about significant economic factors.  The slave trade was extremely lucrative and owning slaves allowed masters the opportunity to increase their productivity.  For a master to gain greater profits through slave labor seems to land in the category of extortion and/or dishonest gain because it is gain that does cause harm to another, in this case, the slave/s.  What do you think?  Is this a viable link or connection to make?

3.  QUALITATIVE vs. QUANTITATIVE - I am wrestling a little with Wesley's sermon, "On Sin in Believers."  Like I said initially, I enjoyed reading this and found much that I appreciated and agreed with.  Where my concern lies is in Wesley's use of quantitative arguments for the case of sin existing in the life of a believer after justification.  While I fully affirm that sin is present in the life of the believer, I wonder whether using quantitative claims is the best way to go about describing it.  For example, when discussing 2 Cor. 5:17, Wesley says, "Now certainly a man cannot be a new creature and an old creature at once.  Yes, he may: he may be partly renewed, which was the very case with those at Corinth." (p. 365)  It is this idea of being partly renewed that causes difficulty for me.

The trouble I sense is that these quantitative claims seem to confuse and distort/distract from his qualitative claims in this same sermon.  For example, Wesley says, "He is saved from sin; yet not entirely: it remains, though it does not reign." (pp. 365-366)  This statement seems to have both aspects included.  On the one hand, to talk of sin as remaining and not being removed entirely sounds like quantitative-type language.  On the other hand, to talk of sin no longer reigning speaks of a qualitative change that has occurred in the life of the believer - moving from one in whom sin did reign prior to justification, to one in whom sin no longer reigns after justification.

I'm not really sure what to make of this - maybe I'm missing something... (or pursuing another dead-end).  What do you think?  Is there anything here?  If so, what is at stake?

The Law through History

One of the phrases that we have seen over and over again in Wesley’s writing is “the Jewish dispensation” or something similar. Whenever I’ve seen it, I’ve just kind of laughed to myself, picturing Dallas Theological Seminary and modern dispensationalism. During the reading this week, I tried to trace Wesley’s understanding of the history of God’s interaction with humanity, and I was surprised at the results. Since these sermons were mainly concerned with Wesley’s understanding of the moral law, I’ll be using the moral law as the primary means of tracing the various stages of humanity’s relationship with God in history. It is important to note at the outset that Wesley’s understanding of the moral law is that “it is the heart of God disclosed to man.” In some ways, the moral law and humanity’s ability to know it represents humanity’s ability to know and be in relationship with God.

In the Sermon “The Original, Nature, Properties, and Use of the Law,” Wesley lays out a basic understanding of the progression of humanity in relation to God. He begins with God’s creation of the angels, which he supposes are subject the moral law in the same way as humans. The difference between the two is the necessity of faith for humanity, as Wesley explains in “The Law Established through Faith, II.” Then came humans, also under the moral law and able to understand and choose their own actions.

This was the first point of interest for me, because in “The Law Established through Faith, I,” Wesley talks about Adam as the only man to ever be under the “covenant of works”. Adam, for Wesley, represents the only human of which God ever “required perfect, universal obedience, as the one condition of acceptance.” This is interesting because it suggests that, after that fall, humanity was always under a covenant of grace in some ways. I’ll come back to this in a second.

After the fall, humanity enters a new phase of its relationship to God. Fallen humanity, “by breaking this glorious law [the moral law] wellnigh effaced it out of his heart.” So, humanity had lost the ability to know the moral law, at the very least. “The eyes of his understanding being darkened in the same measure as his soul was alienated from the life of God.” So, we now have two distinct phases for humanity: pre-fall humanity was fully aware of the moral law and post-fall humanity is completely unable to know the moral law.

This period of complete ignorance of the moral law seems, for Wesley, to have barely constituted any period of time at all, however. “God did not despise the work of his own hands; but being reconciled to man through the Son of his love, he in some measure re-inscribed the law on the heart of his dark, sinful creature.” This work of “re-inscribing” did not take place at the advent of the Mosaic law, but with Adam and Eve from the very outset. “This he showed… to our first parents.”

Fallen humanity, for Wesley, was given a sort of internal light by which they were supposed to be able to discern the moral law. This third stage is really the second historical stage for Wesley, since it begins just after the fall. I think this is a significant move because it repositions the Mosaic law as a continuation of the larger work and design of God in relation to humanity, rather than as the advent of something new. This is made explicit by Wesley’s next historical move.

The inner light given to people was ignored, “all flesh had in the process of time ‘corrupted their way before him.’” And so, God chose the Jewish people and gave them the Mosaic Law as a “more perfect knowledge of his law.” So now we have three basic stages: pre-fall, post-fall (in which humanity has the conscience but no more), and the Mosaic stage.

The final stage, the one in which humanity now finds itself according to Wesley, is instituted by the life and death of Jesus Christ. Since humanity from the time of Adam and Eve has been “reconciled… through the Son of his love,” it is unclear to me exactly what is different about this stage. Wesley is less obvious in his portrayal of the difference here, which is what initially intrigued me. Wesley clearly has some sense of there being successive dispensations of God’s relationship with humanity, but he also has a robust sense of continuity between dispensations. All of this leads me to ask two questions:

First, if all humanity after the fall has always been under the “covenant of grace” and has been reconciled through the Son in some sense, what is the real difference historically between the period of time before Christ and the period of time which came after Christ? I think that the answer to this question hearkens back to the Maddox and Collins chapters we read for this week: the Holy Spirit. Wesley claims that the Jewish people, even with the law, could not “comprehend the height and depth and length and breadth thereof. God alone can reveal this by his Spirit.” There is a further work needed, only possible through the Spirit, that goes beyond the Mosaic Law. If Wesley retroactively applies the work of Christ in some ways, perhaps the biggest difference after Christ’s coming is the availability and work of the Spirit.

Second, what is the significance of this system for Wesley? I think the answer to this question lies in the project with which Wesley is here concerned. By maintaining that there were various dispensations, a progression of relationship between God and humanity, Wesley can maintain his belief in salvation by faith alone, and all that follows (like the rejection of the ceremonial law, etc.). By retroactively applying the work of Christ and making the moral law the concern of each stage, Wesley is able to position the law as part of the focus of Christ’s work, rather than opposed to it. Wesley gives the law elevated, and still relevant, status in the course of salvation history.

Before I turn to the sermons for the week, I am curious about plenty of Wesley’s understanding of the Holy Spirit, and would like to touch on that a bit first. I am interested to hear what you think about Wesley’s explanation of the Holy Spirit’s work in conviction and repentance. According to Collins, the Holy Spirit plays a leading role in the process of repentance, leading the yet to be justified sinner toward conviction, and then continuing in illumination and teaching (p123). The Spirit plays this vital role in a person coming to repentance and justification. However, once the sinner has been brought to repentance, the Holy Spirit now sets to a different work of conviction, this time not of actual sin but of inbred sin. This is a second work of the Spirit, which is a brand of convincing grace Wesley calls ‘evangelical repentance.’ I don’t think I disagree with what Wesley is saying here, but for some reason I keep coming back to it. Something doesn’t sit right with me here. Perhaps I have not thought enough about this particular understanding of sin and repentance, but I think what is getting me stuck is this idea that repentance and sin are different on either side of justification (except for that obvious part of the before and after sin changing from unforgiven to forgiven). But, this idea that we repent differently before and after we are justified is interesting, and then out of that difference comes these dual roles of the Holy Spirit. It seems to me that convicting people of sin would be the same on either side of justification, so how is the Holy Spirit engaged in two distinct facets of conviction and repentance? I think what I really want to understand is the scriptural backing for this. Is there any, or is this an idea Wesley conveys in order to make other pieces of his theology fit together more coherently? The only component that Collins sites as different between these two difference works of the Holy Spirit is the presence of the moral law in the evangelical repentance, where the use of the law is absent in conviction before justification. Where does this whole idea come from? Any thoughts?

Now to the sermons. I have to admit that I am struggling to find things I really need to dig into this week with Wesley. I feel like we are getting such a good grasp on the themes Wesley seeks to employ sermon after sermon, and thus it is becoming difficult to find a new idea he is exposing that I just need to settle into a bit longer.

The most difficult portion of our reading for this week came in A Caution Against Bigotry. At the very outset of the sermon, Wesley seeks to explain first the work of the devil before then moving on to how we seek to cast out devils. Beginning on p288, he discusses the dominion the devil has over the world. He claims that the devil has absolute dominion over the world, and cites Paul as describing the devil as ‘the god of this world,’ due to the devil’s uncontrolled power over worldly men. I am willing to concede that the devil exists, clearly works in this world, and has power over people. I am not debating the existence or works of the devil here. However, to say that the devil has power that is uncontrolled or has dominion over the world not only seems to overinflate the power of the devil, but also appears to seriously limit the power of God. Wesley claims that those who are not of God live and move in the evil one, in the same way those who are of God live and move in God. What are your thoughts on this? To eliminate the possibility of God’s working or dwelling in people who are of this world is a difficult sell for me. Then, to go so far as to claim that the devil first has a godly status, and second is in any way uncontrolled, this takes so much away from God. Sure, it eliminates those pesky questions of ‘where is God in pain or evil or natural disaster or tragedy’ etc. And as much as those questions are unanswerable, shouldn’t we have to wrestle with those? Isn’t there benefit to trying to find God in our tragedy and sadness? If God isn’t there, I’m not sure I want to be there.

The Law Established Through Faith

My reflection this week is going to focus on Wesley’s two discourses, “The Law Established through Faith” (1750).  My thoughts fall neatly into two parts – the second part being entirely dependent upon acceptance of Wesley’s initial assumption (part I): (1) Wesley insists upon the necessity of the Law for Christian faith and practice; and (2) if we are to accept Wesley’s role, what does it look like to “preach law” in our current context?  These two parts follow the basic thesis for each of the two discourses.  Discourse I in essence lays out Wesley’s argument for the necessity of the Law, whereas Discourse II is Wesley’s suggestion as to how one might appropriate and establish the Law for Christian faith and practice.

The crux of Wesley’s argument for needing the law is to convict people of their sin.  Wesley claims that the gospel does not convict of sin.  That is not its role.  It is for the law to convict people of their sin. (p. 270) In other words, Wesley seems to be saying that the law is needed in order to convict and convince people of their sinful state before God and their need for redemption (gospel).  He even goes so far as to suggest that it is by preaching the law that we are reminded how powerful and life giving the gospel really is. (p. 272)

I understand the point that Wesley is making, and on some level it makes a lot of sense to me.  Of course it is important for people to be convicted and convinced of their sin.  I have no problem with that.  Where I question Wesley is his insistence upon the law as having to play that role, in light of the gospel’s inability to serve such a function.  This sounds almost like a foreign language today where “preach the gospel” (at all times, in all ways) is the message that dominates the arenas in which preachers are being taught and trained – seminary classrooms, local churches, preaching conferences, books, and articles.

How much of this issue is culturally captive?  What would Wesley say if he were alive today – would he maintain his insistence on needing to preach and establish the law?  It seems that concern (even anxiety) for the eternal state of one’s soul was a far more common preoccupation in the 18^th century than it is for the average person today.  How might this affect or influence Wesley’s response to the context that we live in?

If I am completely honest, I wonder if Wesley might offer an important warning or correction to us in ministry and preaching today.  Whether it comes through preaching law or some other means, I think that Wesley’s insistence on the need for people to be convicted and convinced of their sin is worthy of our attention.  The truth of the gospel certainly rings with piercing clarity when heard in relation to sin and our need for redemption.  The cognisant sinner more readily appreciates the power and beauty of the gospel than one still ignorant to their fallen state.  The gospel is received as truly life-giving by one who recognizes that they are spiritually dead.

Have we perhaps over-reacted to the abuses and extremes of “hellfire and brimstone” preaching dripping with judgment by refusing to talk about human sinfulness?  Perhaps the real challenge lies in finding how to do this in our day and age.  What might it look like to “preach law” in healthy ways today?  How might we convince people of their sin and need for a Saviour without being dismissed as being judgmental or preaching condemnation?

Wesley’s response to these questions in Discourse II is threefold: (1) We establish the law by preaching ‘our doctrine’ – in its whole extent, to explain and enforce every part of it in the same manner of Christ.  (2) We establish the law by preaching a faith that produces holiness, not one that supersedes holiness.  And most importantly, (3) we establish the law by establishing it first in our own hearts and lives.  As Heitzenrater suggests in his introductory comments, I think that the real value of Wesley’s response here is the notion that “faith is in order to love.” (p. 277)  Faith leads to love; the desired end is love, not faith.  Faith is in order to produce a holy love for God and others.

Love is central to Wesley’s understanding of holiness.  And yet, this kind of holy love is only possible through faith.  It is faith that fuels righteousness and true holiness.  It is faith that fuels loving God and loving others.  Holiness is no longer pursued as an obligation, but willingly and from a grateful heart of love toward God.  Loving others is neither an obligation laid upon the Christian, but a willing and grateful response that is grounded in faith and the love of God.  And this response is no simply outward, but this faith works inwardly by love to purify the heart, cleansing it from all vile affections.  Therefore, Wesley completely redefines our understandings of both faith and the law.

I think this may prove a helpful way forward.  Words or actions that are intended to awaken people to their spiritual condition that are motivated by both an inward and outward love are likely to be well received.  This love is not pity, it is not a pious sense of “feeling sorry” for someone.  It is not any kind of conditional love, it is not loving them so long as they repent of their sin.  It is a genuine concern for their well-being.  It is an extension of God’s love for them.  It is sharing life with them.

One concluding question that I have for Wesley is: “Why not talk about the role of the Holy Spirit in convicting and convincing people of their sin?”  This seems like a pretty major oversight to remain missing from these sermons.  My hunch is that Wesley would affirm that it is only the work of the Holy Spirit that ultimately convicts people.  Any words or deeds that we might offer toward such an end are only effective as the Holy Spirit addresses them to the hearts and souls of the receiver.

What do you think?  Do you agree that we ought to “preach law” today?  If so, how would you “preach law” in ways that might be healthy?

After all of that wrestling, this week Wesley gets a high five

As we continue to read on, I am amazed by all of the themes which are frequently appearing in Wesley’s sermons. There are patterns to his thinking and familiar phrases of his which keep cropping up from sermon to sermon. The phrase ‘the one thing needful,’ or variations on the phrase, keeps appearing in sermons from week to week, which draws me back to the sermon of that title which was so intriguing to me. Wesley also continues to emphasize the difference between what is external and what is internal, drawing on these concepts to illuminate not only the goal of our actions but also of our inner thoughts and the direction in which our heart is aimed. So much of Wesley’s teaching seems to rest on the differences between the internal and the external, which I continue to see since our reading of ‘The Almost Christian.’ It seems that a great many texts in scripture point Wesley to this distinction, which I find intriguing. In addition to holy love, I can see this contrast between the internal and the external as a signature of Wesley’s.

I particularly appreciated what a different form these sermons on the Sermon on the Mount took. Whereas in other sermons, Wesley loosely references a Scripture to start and then often ends up far away from that beginning text, these four sermons hang closely to the text at hand and are very specific in their analysis and exegesis of Christ’s words. I liked this side of Wesley, and wonder if we will see more of this technique as his ministry evolves and as we move through the anthology of his sermons. I can only hope!

While I found the reading this week very interesting and enlivening, I didn’t come away with nagging issues as I have the last several weeks. This is perhaps the first time I have NOT needed to wrestle with Wesley, which is a nice feeling. I did, however, find myself very convicted by the fourth look at the Sermon on the Mount that we read, Discourse VIII. As Wesley digs into what it means to store up treasures on earth, he clearly explains what is acceptable in terms of wealth and possessions, and what is not acceptable, standing in opposition to God and God’s love. Below is the passage which particularly struck me, in a way that takes my breath away because of its clarity, its bold indictment, and its courage.

“May not this be another reason why rich men shall so hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven? A vast majority of them are under a curse, under the peculiar curse of God; inasmuch as in the general tenor of their lives they are not only robbing God continually, embezzling and wasting the Lord’s goods, and by that very means corrupting their own souls; but also robbing the poor, the hungry, the naked, wronging the widow and the fatherless, and making themselves accountable for all the want, affliction, and distress which they may but do not remove. Yea, doth not the blood of all those who perish for want of what they either lay up or lay out needlessly, cry against them from the earth? O what account will they give to him who is ready to judge both the quick and the dead!” (p251)

It is one thing to claim that the reason not to store up treasures on earth is because it is indicative of greed or lack of concern for others. But to say first that this is robbing God and embezzling from God is an incredibly strong statement which leaves a greater sting than just a proclamation against greed. What Christian can say that they are okay with the idea of robbing or embezzling from the saving God, from the God who loves us so profoundly? Who would sign on for this? But then also that in this same act of hoarding we are robbing the poor, the widow and the orphan? How can anyone continue to stand and let worldly possessions matter after hearing this take on treasures on earth? This makes one serious stewardship sermon, not to manipulate or entice people to give to the church, but rather to turn our human understandings of possession and wealth on its head. It is not simply the acquisition of goods which is problematic to our lives of faith, but what this external acquisition indicates of the inner workings of our faith. If we are willing to rob God and turn a blind eye to the poor and the orphan, how could we possibly expect to possess and to demonstrate the love of God which is so essential to Wesley’s understanding of faith? Storing up treasures on earth is like a tattoo on our foreheads that proclaims ‘I don’t get it! I have no idea what the love of God looks like!’

And yet…this is all easier said than done, as we all know. There are few ideas or statements more countercultural than this proclamation to steer clear of acquiring too many things. I am thankful for Wesley’s boldness here, because it reminds me and it stings me. It leaves me floundering and yet refreshed, because it gives such a strong reason and account for renouncing this worldly need for things. Few commercials are convincing enough to make me want to rob from God. No advertising or cultural pressure can withstand such a strong image. Thanks be to God. And to Wesley, for smacking me around a little.

Wesley - A Missional Theologian?

This week, I decided to trace a theme throughout Wesley’s sermons based on Matthew 5-7, Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount. This picks up on a theme I mentioned in a previous weeks’ reflection – that of Wesley’s understanding of mission and witness and the believers’ role in God’s redemptive plan for the world. I will make reference to Discourse IV, VI and VIII (please forgive the excessive quoting of Wesley as I trace this theme). Initially, it appears that Wesley has a solid missional foundation that grounds his understanding of personal holiness, the individual Christian life, even eschatology. However, there are some gaping holes that emerge later in these discourses that continue to raise questions for me.

“Upon our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, IV” (1748)
When discussing Matthew 5:13, “You are the salt of the earth,” Wesley says:
“It is your very nature to season whatever is round about you. It is the nature of the divine savour which is in you to spread to whatsoever you touch; to diffuse itself on every side, to all those among whom you are. This is the great reason why the providence of God has so mingled you together with other men, that whatever grace you have received of God may through you be communicated to others; that every holy temper, and word, and work of yours, may have an influence on them also.” (p. 198)

The reason this caught my attention is due to my initial reflection and question for Wesley. I was asking, in relation to Wesley’s understanding of holiness, what the end or purpose was? Here I think we can gain a little traction. In this passage, Wesley makes it clear that personal holiness is not an end in itself. Instead he shows that it is a means to a greater end – that of God’s mission for the world – so that the grace of God might be expressed to others through our holy living (in attitudes, words, work), and may have an influence on them also. Similar themes continued to appear throughout this sermon.

In reference to Matthew 5:14-15 (being the light of the world, a city on a hill, an uncovered lamp on a stand), Wesley says:
“… it is the design of God that every Christian should be in an open point of view; that he may give light to all around; that he may visibly express the religion of Jesus Christ. Thus hath God in all ages spoken to the world, not only by precept but by example also. He hath ‘not left himself without witness’ in any nation where the sound of the gospel hath gone forth, without a few who testified his truth by their lives as well as their words… And from time to time they have been the means of enlightening some… They have led a few poor sheep out of the darkness of the world, and guided their feet into the way of peace.” (pp. 200-201)

Here Wesley seems to take things even further by stating that it is the very design of God that our Christian lives and holiness point beyond ourselves to Christ and His grace. In living this way, Wesley believes we are serving as a witness to the world as both “precept and example,” and may even play a role in guiding some others toward the loving grace and forgiveness of Jesus Christ.

Wesley concludes this sermon by exhorting the readers/hearers to, “Be ye artless and simple to all mankind, that all may see the grace of God which is in you. And although some will harden their hearts, yet others will take knowledge that ye have been with Jesus, and by returning themselves ‘to the great Bishop of their souls’, ‘glorify your Father which is in heaven’. With this one design, that men may ‘glorify God in you’, go on in his name and in the power of his might… Let the light which is in your heart shine in all good works, both works of piety and works of mercy.” (p. 206)

By using such language as “with this one design,” Wesley seems to be saying that this is God’s ultimate goal and purpose for God’s people while living on earth. In other words, personal holiness is in service of God’s redemptive plan for the world. We live holy lives here and now so that we might be an example of God’s grace to others, but also the channel through which God’s grace might be expressed in loving deeds toward others.

This seems like a significant move or development from what we have previously read from Wesley. I even re-read sections to make sure I understood him correctly. So, it was comforting for me to see this same theme re-emerge in Discourse VI – treating Matthew 6:1-15, in particular as part of his exposition on the Lord’s Prayer.

“Upon our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, VI” (1748)
As Wesley begins to expound on the six petitions within the Lord’s Prayer, this missional theme appears again:
“In praying that God, or his ‘name’, may ‘be hallowed’ or glorified, we pray that he may be known, such as he is, by all that are capable thereof, by all intelligent beings, and with affections suitable to that knowledge: that he may be duly honoured and feared and loved by all in heaven above and in the earth beneath; by all angels and men, whom for that end he has made capable of knowing and loving him to eternity.” (p. 230)

Central to Wesley’s understanding of this prayer is the notion that we are praying for God to be known, “such as he is” to every intelligent being. God’s nature is that of love, grace and therefore we pray that God’s grace be made known to everyone.

Moving to the next petition, “Thy kingdom come,” Wesley says:
“We pray for the coming of his everlasting kingdom, the kingdom of glory in heaven, which is the continuation and perfection of the kingdom of grace on earth. Consequently this, as well as the preceding petition [‘Hallowed be your name’], is offered up for the whole intelligent creation, who are all interested in this grand event, the final renovation of all things by God’s putting an end to misery and sin, to infirmity and death, taking all things into his own hands, and setting up the kingdom which endureth throughout all ages.” (p. 231)

Here we get a glimpse of Wesley’s eschatology: “the kingdom of glory in heaven, which is the continuation and perfection of the kingdom of grace on earth.” However, this is where things begin to unravel slightly for me. By insisting on an eschatology like this, that God’s kingdom of grace on earth being continued and perfected when Christ returns, we must assume some serious missional implications. For example, if we accept this eschatology then we must assume that what we do here and now on earth will have eternal affects – even if imperfectly. It is therefore quite surprising to me that Wesley does not seem aware of what these implications might be (at least not in this sermon). So, I find myself asking, where else does Wesley talk about eschatology? And, how (if at all) does his understanding of eschatology shape his understanding of Christian discipleship and the nature/role of the Church?

As we move to the next petition in the Lord’s Prayer, “Thy will be done on earth, as in heaven,” Wesley develops this primarily in terms of the human response to God’s will – i.e. that they do it willingly, continually, and perfectly. What is lacking here is any discussion as to what God’s will might actually be or involve. If Wesley were to be operating upon a missional foundation, surely this would factor in here. This would be an ideal occasion to remind the hearers/readers of this sermon that God’s will is always connected to God’s redemptive plan for the world. There is even the perfect opportunity to tie this petition together with the two preceding petitions where Wesley did allude to the missional theme. However, this is lacking and we are left asking, “What is God’s will?” Wesley gives no definitive answer at this stage.

“Upon our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, VIII” (1748)
This sermon is packed with some great teaching on stewardship. However, the focus is primarily upon the individual’s soul and the state of one’s soul before God. We have seen this is an important and dominant theme throughout Wesley’s sermons. Even Wesley’s concluding exhortations to “give plenteously” (p. 252) are primarily tied to the healthy effects on the soul of the giver. Wesley gives little attention to the effects the gift might have on the receiver. The focus is clearly on the giver “storing up treasures in heaven,” and there is no mention of how giving plenteously might express the love of Christ and bear witness to God’s grace.

What about the missional and witness implications of living by these commands? What is the true purpose of living this way in Wesley’s mind – individual salvation and eternal benefits, or the means through which God is on a redemptive mission for the whole world? Perhaps after all of this I am simply imposing my own wishes and hopes on Wesley only to find that they do not fit… What do you think?

Wesley's Optimism

Growing up in the Wesleyan Church, I was treated to a fair amount of discussion surrounding Wesley's views on sanctification.  I heard all the objections, from the pragmatic to the theological.  One of the most common objections that always comes up, in some form or another, is that entire sanctification sounds nice in some ways, but its just overly optimistic.  Humans are not actually capable of achieving that which Wesley proposed.

In the past, I've always wanted to argue with that accusation from the standpoint of humanity.  Sin and failure is not an essential part of what it means to be human.  Otherwise, for instance, how could we call Jesus fully human and yet also say that he did not sin?  I must confess that I sort of cringe inside whenever I hear the oft-repeated phrase "well, what you expect, I'm only human," or one of its many derivations.  Sinfulness is not humanity's natural state, it is a disease, a perversity, with which we are affected.

What I realized in reading this week is two things.  First, John Wesley is more optimistic, at least at times, than even I am willing to be.  I am thinking particularly of his sermon "Marks of the New Birth" here.  He fully expects that one of the marks of the new birth, of true conversion, is victory over sin.  This is not even the highest mark, it is the most basic one!  His language in this sermon (and elsewhere) is so optimistic at times that it is startling.

The second thing that I realized, however, is that his optimism is all centered on God's action and not human ability.  I am thinking here primarily of the sermon "The Great Privilege of those that are Born of God."  Wesley describes the life of faith like this: "a continual action of God upon the soul, and re-action of the soul upon God; an unceasing presence of God, the loving, pardoning God, manifested to the heart, and perceived by faith; and an unceasing return of love, praise, and prayer, offering up all... our body, soul, and spirit, to be an holy sacrifice, acceptable unto God in Christ Jesus."  This is a beautiful picture, I think, of what Wesley means by sanctification.  He does not have any faith in humanity to achieve holiness.  What he does believe is that God, who is loving, gracious, and active, is able to overcome our weakness.  Without negating the need for humanity to respond to God's action, he places the focus at every moment, in every right action, on the work of God within us.  If Wesley is to be accused of over-optimism in the power of God, then I think I can accept that charge.

The question remains, though, how to account for and deal with sin in those who truly seem to be believers.  At times, Wesley seems very harsh on this topic.  In "The Great Privilege", Wesley talks about how a believer who sins must in some sense lose their faith before sin is even possible.  This is a scary direction in which to go, because you run headlong into the issue of eschatological destiny.  The question of who is "in" and who is "out" and how often you can flip between the two becomes pressing.

That is why I was surprised to see how Wesley dealt with the issue in "Upon our Lord's Sermon on the Mount, IV."  First, it was interesting to see the concessions Wesley made to human weakness.  His point in the sermon, in part, is to suggest that Christians must be out among the world, doing good.  He discusses at some length, however, the necessity of avoiding any real friendships with non-believers, since we would inevitably be drawn into sin.  "It [friendship with non-believers] must necessarily expose him to abundance of dangers and snares, out of which he can have no reasonable hope of deliverance."  This is a significant concession to human weakness for Wesley.  Up to this point, I don't remember him ever acknowledging a situation in which a true believer would succumb to sin.

He goes on to discuss Hebrews 6:4 in relation to the salt that has lost its saltiness.  He makes a sort of typical Wesley claim by saying that those who have been saved and then turn from the Lord's commandments are rightfully tossed aside.  He then quotes the Hebrews 6 passage as further evidence of this phenomenon, but he is very careful to qualify his meaning.  "The falling away... which is here spoke of... is an absolute, total apostasy.  A believer may fall, and not fall away."  Wesley here explicitly makes room for the possibility of a true believer sinning and yet not stepping outside the bounds of salvation.  We see again a concession to human weakness.

I wonder if this was not a function of his continuing experience in ministry.  I don't think Wesley lost his optimistic faith in the power of God, at least not at this point.  He still believes that God is able to overcome our weakness, to impart grace in our lives in such a way that we are engaged in a never-ending cycle of God's gracious action and our own loving response.  He seems more willing to make concessions for lapses, however, as we start reading later sermons.  I'll be interested to see how he continues to develop.

"The Witness of the Spirit, I" (1746)

This week I have found myself reflecting on Wesley’s sermon, “The Witness of the Spirit,I” (1746). This sermon addresses the doctrine of Christian assurance, which was a central concern for Wesley’s theology, but a controversial one at that. Because of his insistence upon assurance and the inner witness of the Holy Spirit, Wesley was often accused of ‘enthusiasm.’ While Wesley seems aware of the dangers associated with these critiques, he is equally concerned with the opposite extreme – ‘rationalism. Thus, Wesley attempts to pave a middle way by avoiding both extremes and incorporating both the inner witness of the Holy Spirit (objective) and the believers’ own conscience or consciousness (subjective) as the grounds for Christian assurance.

Wesley spends a lot of time discussing the “marks” or evidence of true faith in Christ from scripture. He argues that there are both inner marks (humility, repentance, fruit of the Spirit) and outward marks (obedience to God’s commandments, loving others, holy living). The inward marks are the ascribed to the work of the Holy Spirit in one’s soul, whereas the outward marks are the grace-enabled actions of the individual in obedience to God’s will. Ultimately, Wesley suggests that these marks are the best way to distinguish and discern the witness of God’s Spirit – as opposed to the witness of our own spirit, or that of the Devil.

As I reflected upon this sermon, I was drawn to a couple of general themes – the role of the Church in discerning God’s Spirit, and the pastoral/practical implications of this doctrine of assurance. First, I was surprised that at no point throughout this sermon does Wesley appeal to the affirmation of the Church (or Christian community) as playing a role in discerning God’s Spirit. Wesley seems to only have the individual in view. It may just be my own assumptions feeding into this, but I expected that since Wesley encouraged the Methodists to participate in classes and bands (to study scripture, pray and talk about their spiritual growth), that he would also acknowledge the Christian community to play a vital role in discerning the Holy Spirit, and thus, in affirming assurance for the individual. This seemed somewhat inconsistent. Why would this be lacking in Wesley’s treatment on the witness of the Spirit? Does this appear in his later work? I’ll be looking for it as we continue in the course…

Second, I found myself asking the question, “Why is this doctrine of assurance so important to Wesley?” We know that much of Wesley’s theology is developed with pastoral and practical circumstances in mind. We also know that this sermon was developed in response to the critiques he was facing. This tells me that since Wesley was not willing to refrain from teaching assurance in light of these challenges that it was important to him. There was something causing him to insist on the doctrine of Christian assurance in spite of criticism. What were those things? What is at stake in the doctrine of assurance – for Wesley, and for us today? What are the pastoral and practical implications of this doctrine?

Wesley does not address these questions explicitly in this sermon, so we are forced to infer what we can. Toward the end of this sermon, Wesley suggests that without the assurance that one is an adopted Child of God, they will continue to live “in fear of the wrath of God.” (p. 152) Thus, we might infer that pastorally the doctrine of assurance shifts the grounds upon which we relate to God. No longer do we approach God in fear or guilt. Christian assurance means that we can approach God boldly and in confidence that we are God’s adopted sons and daughters. I see this reshaping the motives for living a life that honors God. No longer are we motivated by fear and guilt, but motivated to serve God willingly out of gratitude for God’s mercy and grace. Clearly this is important for Wesley’s theological commitment to holiness. Anytime the pursuit of holiness is motivated by fear or guilt, it will likely result in legalism. Having assurance of one’s salvation might rather result in the grateful and loving response of children to their gracious Father.

This is one way in which we see the doctrine of assurance as really important for Wesley’s theology – going right to the heart of the pursuit of holiness. What are some other ways? What else is at stake (theologically and pastorally) here for Wesley? For us today? I would be interested in discussing this and developing a response to these questions with the group.

Means of Grace

In doing our reading this week, I focused specifically on the sermon "The Means of Grace".  I think that this topic, especially concerning Sacraments, is difficult and often misunderstood in my own tradition and among the wider Christian tradition.  The connection between the "means" and God's grace is important, but the topic is often rather messy.  I'm going to list some of my observations, kind of bullet-point style.

1) Wesley is concerned with grace primarily as it relates to "salvation".  Wesley, at least in this sermon, speaks about God's grace and the means by which grace is communicated almost exclusively in terms of those who are seeking to make the move from almost Christian to altogether Christian.  Wesley talks extensively about and to persons "waiting" for God's saving grace.  Prayer, Scripture, and even Communion are all explained in terms of their ability to facilitate God's salvific action.  I think it is safe to assume that Wesley didn't understand grace in only salvific terms, since he claims that he himself will continue to make use of the means of grace until his death, but it is interesting that Wesley's focus remains on the moment of deep, inner conversion.  I don't think many in my tradition would construe the means in this way.

2) Wesley forgot a Sacrament.  Where did Baptism go, dude?  I suspect that Wesley's reason for not speaking about baptism relates to my first point.  If Baptism is something which the converted undergo, then it need not be spoken about as a means of grace for those seeking conversion.  The fact that baptism finds no place in this discussion of the means of grace seems to point to a weakness in Wesley's discussion of grace in this sermon.  Surely it is important to recognize and discuss the sort of grace received by those who have been converted, as well as the means by which that grace is received.  Baptism is such a huge topic in the Christian world that it is jarring for Wesley to leave the topic out all together.

3) I think that what Wesley does well in this sermon is the maintenance of the tension between God's free action in giving grace and human responsibility and freedom in seeking God's grace.  Wesley is very careful to say that both things are true.  It is true that God can give grace whenever and however He would like, and that nothing done by humans somehow obligates God to give grace.  At the same time, however, Wesley is clear to say that any person who truly seeks God's grace, especially by making use of the ordained means of grace, will not be disappointed.  This is not a conferral of power upon the means of grace, it is a robust affirmation of God's character as loving.  Wesley simply trusts that God loves His people enough to give grace to all who seek it.  He may give it before they even ask, and he is not obligated to give it whenever anyone might ask.  He will, however, because He is the God of love, always extend grace to those who seek Him.

4) Wesley's understanding of the salvation process is still a bit strange to me.  He very clearly lays out his understanding of a normative salvation experience in this sermon.  It begins with a realization of one's sinfulness, usually by hearing from someone.  That person may then be prompted to read the Scripture, which only further convinces of sin and prompts the sinner to turn to God.  This person is then prompted to speak to others and to God about this predicament, i.e. prayer.  Wesley seems to suggest that this person might also partake in the Lord's Supper as a remembrance of Christ's death at this point, prior to conversion.  After all these things, God may, "in a manner that pleases him, speak to his heart". (This is all on page 168-9 of the Outler text).  What is the role of grace in the entire process leading up to true conversion?  How much of the initiation and continuance of that process is up to God and how much up to the sinner?

I think Wesley's sermon has a lot to offer those in my own theological tradition.  We have often relegated the means of grace, other than Scripture, to a lowly place and they are in need of a reframing and renewal.  There is still part of this discussion lacking, however, particularly the nature, means, and purpose of grace after conversion and the role and purpose of baptism.  I greatly appreciate Wesley's general position regarding the means of grace, but I would like some more clarification on the particulars.

A wrestling match with Wesley...

I wrestled most this week with Wesley’s sermon ‘Justification by Faith.’ I think the sermon very clearly outlines his views of justification, so in that sense, I appreciate it. However, I was struck by a few notions which kept creeping into my thoughts after I read them. Even after reading all of the other sermons, I found myself unable to engage them as well because I so wanted to dig into this sermon alone.

After explaining the general ground of the doctrine of justification, Wesley begins to explain who it is that is justified. Up to this point, I have been with him all the way. I agree that Christ came to save the lost, or as Wesley would call us, the ungodly. But as he moves into his understanding of good works in light of justification, I started to do some questioning. Wesley believes that all truly good works follow after justification. Everything that is good and acceptable to God and Christ is so because it springs from a true faith. All works done before justification, even if they are good, are not truly good works because they do not come out of a faith in Jesus Christ. No works are good unless they have been willed and commanded by God. As he moves through his thought process on this, he ends on the belief that no works done before justification are good.

There are a few things within this that I can’t let pass by without some discussion. Perhaps you all can enlighten me as to what I may be missing or misunderstanding. That there can be good works that are not good in the sight of God, because they come from an unjustified person, is difficult for me. I certainly want people who are not Christians to be engaged in good works, and find myself deeply hoping that God loves the world, even the unjustified, and therefore could love their attempts at good works as much as God can love my meager attempts at good works as well. Would a loving God be able to not love good works, especially in light of all people as God’s children? This seems to limit the scope of God’s love, if God only sees the good in the good works of the justified. I also feel like this would set up a strange relationship between Christians and non-Christians, if I assume that my works are good because they flow out of faith, but see others’ good works as useless in the eyes of God because they are not justified. What reason is there for non-Christians to do good things? Is it a complete waste of time?

Additionally, to say that no works done before justification are done as God has willed or commanded is troubling to me. Does this limit the power of God, to assume that God could not or would not surprise us in this way? I wish Wesley had further developed this point, because I need further explanation of his thinking. If we hold onto Wesley’s doctrine of God and believe that he saw God as all-powerful, then how could we entirely eliminate the possibility that God might use an unjustified sinner for God’s glory or purposes? God’s power is far greater than our ability to know God, so how can Wesley claim to know that God would never will an unjustified person to good works? Does this speak to Wesley’s understanding of free will, so I should be able to understand this more fully if I dig there?

Maybe I am just spinning my wheels here. Maybe there is some semantic difference I am missing or some grounding to this view of justification that I have looked over which would enlighten me. I don’t disagree with many of Wesley’s understandings of justification. I think the significant part of justification for Wesley is the centrality of faith and the trust that falls out of faith that God has indeed justified us. I am completely on board with this, and can jump into Wesley’s views of justification as he starts them and as he ends them, however this middle piece of his understanding of justification troubles me. If we allow ourselves to limit God or to place ourselves on a pedestal above non-Christians, this causes me to pause and fear how this doctrine could be misused. I don’t want to have grounds for thinking my works are better than any others. And I certainly don’t want to limit the magnitude of what the almighty God can do. Is this what is happening here, or am I reading too much into this?

Emulating Wesley's Practical Theology

John Wesley, as Albert Outler and several following along behind have said, was a "folk" theologian.  He was interested in Christianity, "not as it implies a set of opinions, a system of doctrines, but as it refers to men's hearts and lives." (Scriptural Christianity, Paragraph 5)  After reading this week's sermons, I found myself asking what concrete concerns drove Wesley to write these sermons, and what affect he hoped they would have.  In trying to answer this question, I'm going to look primarily at "The Almost Christian" and "Scriptural Christianity".  "Awake Thou that Sleepest," unless I totally misunderstood, was a sermon written and preached by Charles Wesley, and so it is of less interest to me.  Undoubtedly Charles shared similars concerns and motivations in his preaching, but his sermons cannot be used to answer questions about John, at least not reliably.  Also, "Christian Perfection" strikes me as almost a tract rather than a sermon.  The introduction claims that it was written in response to a request from a Bishop that Wesley make his teaching clear, and it was never preached.  As such, I don't think its character is quite as raw as the other two.

"The Almost Christian" and "Scriptural Christianity" strike as two nearly opposite approaches to the same topic.  In trying to understand the purpose of these sermons, I tried to imagine the audience to which Wesley would have spoken.  "The Almost Christian," it seems to me, was preached to that group of people described as "almost" Christians.  These were people who outwardly performed the actions of a Christian without the inward convictions and affections that define a true Christian.  Wesley makes it very clear that these "almost" Christians are not lacking in their outward adherence to Christian morality. They do the law, and they even want to do the law.  The definition of a "real" Christian, in this sermon is the love of God and of the corresponding love of neighbor that if definitive of faith.  There is something more to Christianity, something more fundamental, than doing the right thing or even having right desires.  Christianity is ultimately about God's love for the believer, and the believer's love of God and neighbor in response.  The hoped for affect of this sermon seems to have been a realization that works and striving can never make one truly Christian.  One is only "saved" (made a Christian in the fullest sense; I think this is an important notion in Wesley, salvation means something like the Christian ideal, not entrance into heaven) through this faith which is love.

Almost the opposite seems to have been the case for "Scriptural Christianity."  Wesley, especially in the last section, absolutely destroys the hearers of his sermon, suggesting that they aren't half as Christian as they think they are.  He makes this claim on the basis of both heart and action, making his particularly on the basis of actions which don't align with Christian love of God and neighbor.  He asks repeatedly whether his hearers are maintaining a Christian standard of living, and strongly suggests that they are not.  He does not here abandon his notion of love as the definitive measure of Christianity, but he clearly expects and emphasizes a certain type of action from real Christians.  His purpose in this sermon seems to have been to make his listeners realize that they weren't half as Christian as they professed.

I think the juxtaposition of the two sermons nicely illustrates Collins' notion of "holy love".  Wesley clearly emphasizes love as the definitive aspect of Christianity, especially in "The Almost Christian" but even in "Scriptural Christianity".  He begins his definition of early Christianity in that sermon by speaking about God's adoptive love, felt by the individual, as the initial constitutive fact of Christian life. It is this fundamental experience and realization of God's love that Wesley wishes to invoke in his hearers.  And yet, there can be no escaping Wesley's expectation that this kind of love would absolutely rule out sin in one's life.  How could one love God and continue to sin?  Impossible.

For myself, I think Wesley's twin emphases in these sermons, described by Collins as holy love, are vital to church life.  If we are to be true to Wesley, however, we cannot simply repeat what Wesley himself said.  The question for us today, as practical theologians following Wesley's example, is how we speak about these things in such a way that our audience today will be moved to Wesley's admirable goals.  How do we speak about a genuine experience of God's love as distinct from the variety of religious experience we encounter?  How do we speak about the type of living and action that is a natural consequence of this type of love?  How do we define and speak about holiness in a way that does justice to difficult situations without giving up the hope of restoration?  How does our audience today differ from Wesley's audience, and what difference does that make for our proclamation?

One last observation/question.  I find myself curious about Wesley's classification of the Christian journey.  He seems to collapse several steps into one, or perhaps two.  When speaking about "real" Christians, he seems to identify two separate types:  "baby" Christians who are freed from all outward sin, at the least, and "mature" Christians who are freed from all sin, outward and inward. (Christian Perfection)  He identifies several other groups (almost Christians, those who are "asleep", etc.) but falls short of calling any but these two "real" Christians.  What exactly is the state of these others?  I know Wesley does not construe salvation in terms of eternal destiny, but it seems impossible to ignore the issue.  At what point is someone "saved" in the way we often speak of it today, for Wesley?  Is it possible to be "saved" without being a "real" Christian?  Are there stages one necessarily goes through before becoming a "real" Christian?  Perhaps most unnervingly of all, how would Wesley classify most Christians today?

Week 2 (original title, eh?)

I enjoyed Wesley’s sermons this week more than those we read last week, but found myself struck by the emphasis, at least in the first three sermons, on the presentation of opposing dualities. The almost Christian stands in opposition to the altogether Christian, a person is either asleep or awake to God’s grace, and everyone must conquer inward sin and outward sin in order to attain perfection. Obviously, the most clearly examined of these dualities is found in Almost Christian, which I think is communicated very clearly and well. However, I wonder what is lost by assuming that there are two categories for existing as a Christian. Wesley’s understanding of an almost Christian is, at least in my mind, not far from what is happening in plenty of churches/Christians in my experience. Living correctly should be enough, they think. What else do I need? The love portion of life with God, the faith that makes grace real, these may be lost when appearing to live a certain way becomes the nexus of our experience. But even this almost Christian lifestyle is more than many people can give. What falls below an almost Christian? Would these people be deplorable to Wesley? And how damaging is it for people existing in this paradigm to hear that they are, in fact, almost Christians, in spite of their best efforts and intentions to serve God well? It may sound like I am disagreeing with Wesley, but really I am trying to parse out what it means to proclaim this message of ‘almost Christianity’ from the pulpit. Can parishioners handle this kind of news? Are people ready to hear that there is more required of them? Or rather, that there is a richer and deeper Christianity open to them? Ultimately, I resonate with Wesley’s distinctions between almost and altogether Christians. I find them to be honest, and fairly accurate in their portrayals of the types of faith you find in churches these days. I can’t help thinking about Kenda Creasy Dean’s book Almost Christian, which applies Wesley’s ideas to youth ministry and the faith lives of teenagers. What ‘almost Christianity’ proclaims to me is an indictment of church leaders, who are allowing people to live a story that says works are enough, or external faith is enough. If members of our church communities are living this way, and missing out on the love of God, the love of neighbor, and the confidence that our faith saves and redeems us, what are church leaders not doing that they should be doing? What are we not saying from the pulpit that allows this brand of Christianity to continue? Wesley’s proclamation is right on, as bold and aggressive as it seemed to me at first, because it forces all of us to consider where we stand in this duality. Am I only almost a Christian? Am I getting this right?

After reading this, I went back to my notes from both Maddox and Collins, and I think Collins reads Wesley particularly well on this sermon. Collins talks about the importance of the love of God for Wesley, not only as the source of holiness, but also as the source of justification. Wesley understood the dangers of holiness apart from the love of God, as this could lead to legalism, the loss of fellowship and community, all at the hands of self-preoccupation and narcissism (Collins, 9). This helps me understand what is at stake for Wesley, and for us, in this notion of ‘almost Christianity.’ It isn’t just that we are missing out on the chance for a more enriching or enlivened relationship with God. If we leave out the piece of faith that centers on the love of God, we aren’t just living a shallow version of Christianity; we are messing with our source of justification, according to Wesley. There is much at stake if we allow fellow Christians to live under the incorrect assumption that ‘almost Christianity’ is enough. I do, however, think there is a danger in telling people that you must do all of the things listed in Wesley’s sermon in order to be only ‘almost Christian.’ I agree with Wesley that it is terribly important to remind people that the center of faith, the most important piece of the puzzle, is the love of God. But, I think that should come before all of the examples of a pious or righteous life Wesley gives in Almost Christian. The love of God, the love of neighbor, and a faith that brings forth love, good works, and repentance should come before the lengthy list of examples of ‘almost Christianity.’ The love of God speaks louder than our attempts at righteous living.

Christian Perfection (1741)

This will be a long one, friends. I included a section from Kinghorn's introduction to this sermon that I found helpful in clarifying the reasons why this doctrine of Christian Perfection is so easily misunderstood. I hope you find it helpful. I look forward to our discussion on Friday!

This is perhaps Wesley’s most distinctive, yet misunderstood and misinterpreted doctrines. Here are three key factors that contribute to misunderstandings of Wesley’s doctrine of Christian Perfection (from, “John Wesley on Christian Practice: The Standard Sermons in Modern English” (vol. III, 34-53) by Kenneth C. Kinghorn, pp. 123-25):

1. CONTEXT – The Protestant Reformers (16th C) faced the challenge of understanding Christian faith as something attainable by human merit and corrected that by emphasizing justification by grace through faith alone. Wesley faced a different challenge to the gospel in the 18th C, namely that faith cancels the need for good works or personal holiness. Thus, Wesley felt the need to elevate the doctrine of sanctification – growth in grace throughout life, even after initial justification (salvation).

2. TERMINOLOGY – Most Western theologians (i.e. Reformers) understood the Latin word perfectus (“perfect”) in static terms. The word perfectus means an absolute perfection that is finished and complete – a “perfected perfection.” By definition, this perfection cannot be improved. Understood in this way, it is obvious that perfection can be ascribed only to God. John Wesley, however, by no means taught absolute perfection. He was aware of the early church fathers who wrote in Greek and Latin, and he read them in the original languages. He was especially familiar with the ante-Nicene writers who wrote in Greek. They used the New Testament Greek word teleiosis (“perfect”), which is not static, in contrast to the static Latin term perfectus. Teleiosis is a dynamic term that implies continuing growth and ongoing movement toward an ever-greater maturity… Because many in Wesley’s day understood the term perfect in its Latin meaning rather than in its Greek meaning, we can understand how Wesley’s theological opponents and even some of his followers could have easily misunderstood him. The perfection that Wesley taught was not a stationary or completed perfection. It was a relative perfection – a perfection of love that leads to ever greater and greater degrees of holiness.

3. WESLEY’S UNDERSTANDING OF THE WORD SIN – The Protestant Reformers defined sin as any act that falls short of the absolute perfection of God. Given that concept of sin, we can understand why they insisted that Christians sin continually in thought, word, and deed. John Wesley, however, understood sin as a wilful transgression of a known law of God. He did not regard unintentional or involuntary transgressions as “sin properly so called.” (Even so, he taught that unintentional transgressions and human errors of judgment needed Christ’s atonement.)

In reading this sermon, the question I found myself wrestling with is, To what end? What is the end goal, or purpose (telos) for the pursuit of Christian Perfection? Why is it so important that Christians seek perfection in this life?

It seems that, for Wesley, he tends to make Christian Perfection an end in itself. In this sermon, his primary purpose is to describe and justify his understanding of personal holiness (a term synonymous to Christian Perfection for Wesley). Therefore, we might understand the intended function of this sermon is to cause people to think differently about sanctification and the necessary growth in grace following salvation. It seems implied that if we think differently about holiness, we might begin to act differently as a result. In other words, the implicit assumption behind this sermon is that if people to change what they think (or believe); it will result in changed behavior. I think this makes sense on several levels, however it does not adequately address the initial question. A change in thinking or belief that shapes Christian life and practice is good, but the question is just pushed further – to what end is this Christian behavior (both personal and social) directed?

The words of Prof. Darrell Guder ring in my ears. Guder would argue that holiness must always be understood within the context of the Christian vocation of witness. This is developed in response to what Guder calls Paul’s definition of holiness, “walking worthy of our calling” (Eph. 4:1-3). This is not a one time appearance in Paul’s writings, it functions more like a pervasive theme as we observe Paul urging these early Christian communities to walk worthily, praying that they would walk worthily and giving practical suggestions as to how they might walk worthily (see also: 1 Thess. 2:10-12; 2 Thess. 1:11; Col. 1:9-10; Philippians 1:27). Paul understood the life and conduct of these communities as the continuation of the apostolic witness – which was the very reason for their existence in the first place!

Dr. Guder’s caution is that if we remove the holiness discussion from this context, we wind up with a distortion and reduction of holiness thinking. We make it into something it was never intended to be. It seems that one of the most common reductions is to consider holiness in terms of the individual alone and the benefits/privileges afforded those adopted as God’s children (and Wesley seems to leave this interpretation wide-open in this particular sermon). However, Christians are defined by more than simply receiving such benefits. God’s calling is not solely for the benefit of the called, not solely for the individual believer, but for God’s saving purposes for the world. For God so loved the world, that He sent His Son, Jesus to reconcile the world (Jn. 3:16). Jesus was sent for the sake of the world, and it is for the sake of the world that God’s calling creates, forms, equips, commissions and sends the church to carry out the witness for which it exists. (Eph. 3:10)

Therefore, I think we can go a long way by understanding the Christian calling is to a life and service of witness – witness to the resurrection, salvation and greatness of Jesus Christ. The way that the Church carries out it’s calling is to walk worthily of it – and that has implications for us individually, as families, even for the Church as a whole. I wonder if this might be a constructive step toward answering the question of the end goal and purpose of Wesley’s call to Christian Perfection. Rather than presenting it as an end in itself, we can understand it in service of God’s redemptive plan for the world – namely, as walking worthy of our calling as witnesses to Christ. Our personal holiness is for the sake of bearing faithful witness to the work of God in our own lives, and our pursuit of social justice is for the sake of bearing witness to the cosmic scope of the salvation provided in Christ’s death and resurrection.

I guess that some people would argue that even mission is not the ultimate end that we should pursue. They might argue for God’s glory as the ultimate pursuit of Christian faith and practice. Perhaps this is the ground upon which we might understand our worship of God as the chief purpose of God’s people. Thus substituting worship for mission. What is at stake if we head this direction? What are the implications for God's people individually and corporately? My fear is that we can easily land back with a narrow (reduced) view of Christian faith and practice that focuses primarily on the individual privileges and benefits gained for the believer. The tendency may even be to slide into a self-focused and self-serving approach to faith and practice.

How would Wesley respond to this question and these thoughts? In Wesley’s mind, what is the end (telos), or goal, or purpose of Christian Perfection? What do you think?

Week 1

I apologize for my late post – I won’t let it happen again!  This week continued to develop as somewhat of an “orientation” week for me… getting orientated to Wesley, his sermons, his background.  Therefore, much of my reflection is focused on general themes and observations.  I offer some of them here, not as developed thoughts and ideas, but more as planting seeds for future discussions and potential connections.  It will be interesting to watch if/how these things continue, change or disappear throughout the course of our study.

I appreciated Maddox’s portrayal of Wesley as a “folk theologian” and as someone worth paying attention to.  Maddox shows Wesley’s theological development emerging from practical ministry context/s rather than a more academic and systematic approaches to theology.  I found myself really resonating with this sentiment and am interested in learning how to work through biblical and theological issues in concrete settings as opposed to these discussions occurring in the abstract and remaining primarily theoretical.  This is not to say that Wesley does not value education and rigorous thought.  Wesley was well-educated himself at Oxford University and the sermons we read this week show evidence of deep thought, wrestling, and study.

It seems that Wesley reframes the theological task by allowing concrete situations to set the agenda for theological reflection rather than creating a systematic agenda for study and reflection.  Prompted by a specific situation I can imagine Wesley devoting time to prayer, study and theological reflection upon the issues raised.  The result of this work is a developing Wesleyan theology that emerges through sermons, liturgy, catechisms, hymns etc. 

This reordering would also fit with Vicker’s claim that for Wesley, a robust doctrine of divine providence is in the background of all his life, words and actions.  Vicker’s suggests that, “Wesley could detect the guiding voice or hand of God in almost anything” (Wesley: A Guide for the Perplexed, p. 109).  It makes sense to me that theology emerging directly from practical ministry settings being more likely to be guided and directed by God.  In this case, there seems less likelihood of the theological agenda being set than in a systematic, academic approach to theology where our own logic and reason can dictate the agenda.  Obviously this is not an airtight claim.  God can just as easily orchestrate and guide the theologian through systematic study of scripture and doctrine.  I will be interested to watch and note the ways in which Wesley senses or discerns God’s prompting and bringing certain issues to the fore – rather than advancing them himself (based on his own logic and reason).  In light of these practical considerations, I’m also interested to learn something of what sermon preparation usually looked like for Wesley?  What were his primary concerns when crafting a sermon?  What drove the agenda?

I was interested in Wesley’s use of scripture throughout the sermons we read.  While they were not particularly expository-style sermons, they seemed closely tied to scripture (usually one verse).  That one verse seemed to set the scope and agenda for each sermon.  I was surprised with the amount of scriptural quotes or allusions.  Scripture permeates Wesley’s sermons.  I am interested to watch Wesley’s use of scripture over the course of this study to see if and how it might change or develop.

I had always assumed (or heard from somewhere) that Wesley always spoke in “plain English” using simple terms and was easily understood.  With this in mind, I was surprised by the extent to which Wesley used complex theological language in his sermons.  And, while he often uses descriptive language that is full of imagery, I was surprised by what seemed (to my prior expectation) a lack of illustrations, metaphors and analogies.  I expected those to occur more frequently.  Is my surprise simply the effects of the gap in time and culture between 18^th century England and today?  Was the theological language used in Wesley’s sermons widely known and commonly used in that cultural setting?

One question I have for Wesley is related to his portrayal of the image of God, human depravity and saving grace.  From what we have seen (especially in “The Image of God” from 1730), the imago Dei is a dominant theme for Wesley.  Wesley also has a firm stance on the effects of the fall.  It seems to me that Wesley would have no problem affirming the doctrine of total depravity.  He talks of the imago Dei being completely effaced and destroyed so that all natural human affections (understanding, will etc.) are vile, corrupt and detestable to God.  He says, “there is nothing we are, or have, or do, which can deserve the least thing at God’s hand” (from “Salvation by Faith” [1738]).  Therefore, I am interested to know why Wesley uses language like “renewal,” “recover,” and “restore” when referring to the effects of Christ’s saving grace.  Does this not lead one to assume that the imago Dei is not completely destroyed or removed, but is simply diseased and corrupted?  If so, then the critique can be made that Wesley allows room for human involvement in salvation.  That there is something innately good remaining in humanity after the fall and what is needed is a cleansing, a renewal and restoring of the imago Dei (which has not been destroyed, but simply corrupted) as a result of the fall.

I don’t know if I’m making much sense here, but I am wondering if Wesley’s use of language here poses this inconsistency?  Is that intentional – is this an accurate reading of Wesley’s beliefs and theology?  Or, is this an example of imprecise language leaving interpretational “cracks” that were not originally intended?

Finally, Wesley’s insistence on the “inner witness of the HS” is distinctively Wesleyan.  While I appreciate this and find myself drawn to affirming it, this also raises questions for me and I am interested to see how Wesley will address these (I’m not entirely satisfied with his response so far).  My concern is with leaving this wide open to “subjectivity” and “relativism.”  How do we determine authoritatively whether this is truly the HS or something else (some other spirit)?  My guess is that Wesley would appeal to the “Quadrilateral” – Scripture, Reason, Tradition and Experience – but I am also interested to see what the role of the Christian community might be for Wesley.

Theological Methodology

We're off!  I was struck this week primarily by the Maddox text.  I know that this may be a little outside the rules of the class, and I promise I'll stick more closely to the sermons in the future, but Maddox's portrayal of Wesley was so refreshing to me.  In his introduction, Maddox talked about Wesley's fundamental orientation toward theology, and his status as a "real" theologian.  Maddox called Wesley a "folk theologian", but tried to make this into a positive move, rather than a negative one.  He locates Wesley among the practical theologians, but also suggests that academic theology should not be elevated above practical theology.  I have often felt this tension between academic and practical theology in my own life.  This tension is why I haven't really picked a career path yet.  I know that I have a love for theology, but I also feel a disconnect between theology and the church.

Maddox (or rather, Wesley) attempts to reframe the task of the theologian.  Rather than seeing the theologian as someone to seeks to search out and organize knowledge about God, the theologian shapes the underlying commitments which inform and empower Christian living.  Theology, in this sense, is not concerned with knowledge for its own sake.  Theology is interested in enabling people to truly live as God intends for them to live.  I love this.  I long to be a theologian in that vein, a theologian who is immersed in the church and whose theology is a service to the church.  I have long felt that my theological studies have helped empower my spiritual life, and that there is a serious need for this type of "intellectual enabling" in the church today.  The way people act, feel, and love is not separated from their beliefs and thought patterns and the church has so much to offer in this area, if only we could connect and communicate our academic theology to real people in real situations.  Maddox seems to equate this theological method with the way it was employed by Wesley (sermons, hymns, liturgy, etc.), but I wonder if this is a necessary connection.  Is there room for some sort of middle ground between Wesley (pastor-theologian) and the academic theologians in their ivory towers?  Might career theologians occupy this secondary space, or should theology always be done by those in active, ordained ministry?

I was also interested to read about Wesley's theological method.  I grew up with the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, and so I was interested in Maddox's re-interpretation.  I quite like the idea of the "source" of theology being always located in God's gracious self-revelation (primarily in Scripture/Christ, but also in nature) and the other three (reason, experience, tradition) as a kind of hermeneutical triangle.  The question of natural theology and theological epistemology has been much on my mind of late, as I have recently read Feuerbach.  It seems to me that Wesley's appeal to God's gracious self-revelation is the only possible source for theology which avoids Feuerbach's critique, but I also appreciate that he doesn't completely reject the validity of reason and experience.

I will be interested to see the extent to which Wesley appeals to the "spiritual senses" that Maddox identifies.  You can already see evidence of this internal sense of spiritual realities in "Circumcision of the Heart" when Wesley discusses faith.  Wesley is clearly a good pietist, even this early, for faith in this sermon is an internal conviction and feeling, a sort of intuition of Christ's love for us personally.  My question for Wesley is how we are to discern this feeling.  What constitutes authentic experience of God?  I suspect that Wesley would suggest a testing of experience by Scripture, reason, and tradition.  In that sense, I think Wesley's method is wonderfully circular (perhaps holistic would be a more positive word).

One last thought.  I am usually a systematic thinker.  I like to see the big picture and seeing how everything fits together.  Is that the best way to read Wesley's sermons?  Maddox, and Collins, provide a sort systematized whole that seeks to make sense out the entirety of Wesley's corpus.  My natural tendency would be to take each sermon and try to fit it into the whole somewhere, but I wonder if maybe I should take each sermon on its own terms.  I almost feel like I've read too many textbooks, systematic theologies, and analytic philosophies, and so I'll read Wesley unfairly.  I'd like to talk about it on Friday, how you guys approach and engage each sermon.

I think its also an interesting question for our own preaching.  Do we seek to create something larger than an individual sermon?  Do we seek to build something in our congregation over time, always adding layers and filling it out with each individual sermon contributing to the whole?  Or, do we determine our "one thing" as DeeDee pointed out, and then let each sermon sort of stand on its own, allowing our underlying concern to provide whatever level of continuity is necessary?  Maddox seems to suggest that speaking to a context demands this second approach, that coherence is somehow impossible for the "folk theologian".  Do we agree?

Week One

Hi gents. Since this is the first round of our reflections, I am interested to see what form these take. I was uncertain at first where to go with this and what approach to take. Your feedback on Friday will help as I figure out exactly what we are looking for/working towards with these reflections. See you then!

As I read Randy Maddox’s assessments of John Wesley, I cannot keep myself from pondering what it means for the preacher to be the practical theologian. Maddox points out that Wesley is not a theologian if we confine the term to people systematically and academically laying out their stances and doctrines. Rather, another category must be created for Wesley as the folk theologian. This meant using his sermons, hymns, and liturgies to simplify and communicate the vital teachings of the Christian gospel to congregants, rather than using his energy to craft so-called academic theology. Wesley’s theology was proclaimed practically, through his work as a pastor rather than an academic. Defining Wesley in this manner has a great impact on my own understanding of theology, as I am about to move from the academic world to the parish, which will require me to do exactly as Wesley has done. My theology will be lived and spoken, rather than precisely crafted with footnotes and bibliographies. The theology I seek to proclaim must be done through my sermons, my teaching moments, my liturgies, and hymn choices. Wesley as a practical theologian resonates deeply with my own sense of call to ministry.

Consequently, as I read the summaries of Wesley’s theological ideas pulled from his sermons, as well as the sermons themselves, I cannot help but reflect on my own sermon writing and the theology which could be pulled from what I have previously preached and what I will continue to preach as I move from seminary to the parish. What do I want my basic orienting metaphor or perspective to be that holds my moving and maturing theology together, regardless of the changes in context that must impact my preaching? Just as Wesley faced arguments about what would give his moving theology some consistency, so I must find the orienting perspective that will provide continuity to the contextualization of sermons. For Wesley, it was maintaining the tension between God’s grace as the source of our salvation and our own willingness to accept God’s grace as an essential component of that salvation (responsible grace). This tension was wound up in much of his writing and was the lens through which he viewed texts and the proclamations that resulted from them.

I was particularly struck by Wesley’s sermon “The One Thing Needful.” It is a beautiful sentiment to think of the one thing needful and to chase after attaining it. However, I question his choice of the renewal of our fallen nature as the one thing needed. I wonder how possible it is to renew our fallen nature. In my reading, I found myself waiting for Wesley to tell me how to go about this task. Is it through upright living and the process of sanctification that Wesley means for us to renew our fallen nature? Is it in fighting off the chains of darkness holding us down that we are to reorient ourselves to our original state? Or is it the enjoyment and love of God which is the key to renewing our fallen state? If that is the case, how do we love enough to pull ourselves out of sin and toward renewal? This entire proposal feels impossible to me. Perhaps I am simply too Presbyterian, and see humankind as fallen and unable to overcome the sinful aspects of our humanity. Christ has redeemed us, so perhaps faith in Christ is what it takes to renew our fallen humanity for Wesley. But even then, is this renewal something we can attain while we remain stuck in a sinful world, or is this something we must wait for and secure only in death rather than in life?

What then would I proclaim as the one thing needed if I were to preach this sermon? Surely Wesley spent a great deal of time reaching his conclusion that renewing our fallen nature is the one thing needed. So, this is my question for our time together and for each of us. Perhaps our answers will help me move in the direction of understanding what I see as the one thing needed. If you are to proclaim the one thing needed, what would it be for you? It seems to me that deciding on this is an essential move for preaching, because in determining the one thing needed, you are deciding on a recurring theme which will appear as you step into the pulpit each time. How does our interpretation of the one thing needed affect how we approach the preaching moment and seek to move and enliven the faith of our parishioners?