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?