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.