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?
No comments:
Post a Comment