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?
No comments:
Post a Comment