2.2 Founding Perspectives of the Wesleyan Methodist Connection

The series continues: "A History of Wesleyan Ideology." What ideological and cultural forces have converged to shape The Wesleyan Church as we know it today. The picture to the left is Orange Scott, one of the founders of the Wesleyan Methodist Connection.

The previous posts have been:

Preface to Wesleyan Ideological History
1.1 Wesley and High Protestantism
1.2 An Archaeology of Wesley's Thinking 

2.1 Methodist Ideology in the Early 1800s

__________________________________

1. It is difficult to know what you would have done or thought if you had lived at another point in time. I know that if the current me was transported back to the 1840s, I would leave the Methodist Episcopal Church to be part of the Wesleyan Methodist Connection (WMC) in 1843. Taking one step back, if you took my current values and transported them back to the 1840s in America, I would support the abolition of slavery. I'm not sure what I would have thought was the best method to go about it.

But so much of who we are is a product of our specific history that I'm not sure how much we can say about what we would do or be in a different time and place. If you were born in India 200 years ago, you would very likely be a Hindu, right? If I were born 180 years ago in Georgia, I would likely be pro-slavery. The bottom line is that, if I were born with the same body in a different time and place, I would just very likely be a significantly different person in terms of what I believed. 

I do think that Orange Scott, Luther Lee, LaRoy Sunderland, Jotham Horton, and Lucius Matlock were perfectly reasonable to withdraw from the Methodist Episcopal Church (MEC) in 1843.

2. Wesley had urged the abolition of slavery in England, although he didn't live to see it. He called American slavery "the vilest that ever saw the sun." The original MEC in the U.S. had opposed slavery. But in the intervening years, the leadership of the MEC had tried to keep the peace by softening its stance toward slaveholding. They also didn't want to put anything in the way of the phenomenal growth they were experiencing.

We've already mentioned that the MEC would split in 1844 into north and south when a southern bishop who owned slaves was asked to step down. Perhaps the WMC would not have happened if that event had happened sooner. In fact, Horton would quickly rejoin the northern MEC. After the Civil War, Lee and Matlock would too, feeling that the WMC had achieved its mission. 

But the 1840 General Conference was particularly offensive to these abolitionists. They were censured for sowing seeds of disunity in the church by speaking out against slavery (while conferences that explicitly stated that slavery was not a moral evil were not addressed). A gag rule was passed forbidding the topic from being discussed at any Annual Conference or General Conference. Black people were prohibited from testifying in church trials in states where they could not testify in state courts. The church officially supported the relocation of slaves to Africa.

There seemed little choice for these men who saw this as the moral issue of the moment but to withdraw and continue the movement elsewhere. One of the mottos of the new WMC was "first pure, then peaceable," and the paper they started was the True Wesleyan (as opposed to the "fake" ones in the MEC). Them's fighting words. This is familiar rhetoric from any group that separates over what they see as a matter of principle to be faithful to the essential values of their tradition. The same language could be used by the Global Methodist Church today.

Indeed, Kevin Watson (Doctrine, Spirit & Discipline 185) points out that the very name "Wesleyan Methodist" was a slam at the MEC. Up to that point, the name Methodist was equivalent to Wesleyan. By taking the name Wesleyan Methodists, they were suggesting that the mainstream Methodists were no longer Wesleyan because of their appeasement on the issue of slavery. 

3. I don't blame them for leaving. The 1840 General Conference more or less said, "If this is a concern to you, shut up or leave the church." By temperament, I think I would have leaned gradualist if I were transported back in time to the north. These were those who wanted to abolish slavery step by step over time. I would have wanted to keep the peace until it just wasn't feasible. 

Lincoln started off that way, but the situation forced his hand. Similarly, the MEC ended up splitting anyway. Sometimes an opposing side is never going to change its mind. Sometimes that ends up in war. Sometimes your opposition wins and you lose. Sometimes you have to make a decision and face whatever the fallout is. If your position is the one with the wind of history behind it, eventually the other side dies off (see Thomas Kuhn).

Gradualism failed. The South just wasn't going to budge on this issue, ever.

4. Orange Scott and later Luther Lee were the key leaders of the new "connection." (The best source of course for the founding of the Wesleyan Methodist Church is Bob Black and Keith Drury's, The Story of the Wesleyan Church.) It was called a "connection" at this point rather than a "church," although for all intents and purposes, it was a church. (It would not be called a church officially until 1891.) 

There were two main issues in its founding. We've already touched extensively on the main one -- opposition to slavery. The other was the Methodist episcopacy. The new church would neither have bishops nor be a purely congregational church. It would use a "middle" structure -- a presbyterian one.

Notice how all three of these structures fit variously well in different cultures. An episcopal structure mirrors cultures with kings and queens, where the leader is there for life and wields immense power. A congregational structure fits American individualism well, where each local church is its own king. The presbyterian model fits the US and Western democracies well, where we have elections for leaders and leaders have significant but not absolute power. 

From a philosophical standpoint, I would argue that this "representational democracy" pattern, with a Constitution to set up the system and appropriate boundaries, has been the most successful in all of history. It has the most checks and balances. It is most likely to play out and preserve Judeo-Christian values in my opinion. 

Those who say, "It's not mentioned in the Bible" are usually unreflective of how biblical structures also were incarnated for their times as well. The Bible gives us principles. It doesn't ever say, "And if you ever get to decide on a governmental or church structure in the 21st century, here's what it should look like." We have to take the principles and play them out in different times and places.

There is a generally unnoticed section in the Wesleyan Discipline called "Elementary Principles." They are an artifact of the founding of the WMC, borrowed directly from the Methodist Protestant Church that split off in 1830. I have never heard anyone refer to them in any significant way. In terms of usage, they are like an appendix or a coccyx that is there but doesn't really do anything. Historical documents sometimes have things like these in them that can suddenly become very important if they somehow come into play in a political moment. They were of great meaning at the time when these individuals were protesting the abuses of power in the MEC.

So the new church would have no bishops. Offices would be elected but would not be held for life. A local church would also vote on whether they wanted a proposed pastor. Church bodies would have a parity between ministerial and lay delegation. There would be the equivalent of a trust clause.

5. The late Donald Dayton wrote a book called, Rediscovering an Evangelical Heritage that should probably be required reading for anyone becoming a Wesleyan pastor. The title has a story of its own. In the mid-twentieth century, the word evangelical was largely taken over by a movement involving Billy Graham and forces like Christianity Today. It was and remains a heavily Calvinist-centered movement. More on that in three posts down the line.

When Dayton first wrote the book in 1976, he wanted to point out that the line of evangelicalism in the 1800s largely did not run through the academics of Princeton that I call the "Princeton Calvinists." These were individuals like Archibald Alexander, Charles Hodge, and B. B. Warfield. In fact, these individuals never referred to themselves as evangelicals.

The original "evangelicals" in anything like the modern sense were people like John Wesley, George Whitefield, and Jonathan Edwards in the 1700s. Two of these were Calvinists, but what made them evangelicals was the way that they preached widely that individuals needed to have conversion experiences. Wesley used the term in reference to individuals who believed you could have an experience of justification by faith. Bebbington's four-fold definition fails because he doesn't take into account the fact that the referents of language change over time (see earlier post).

In short, the line of evangelicalism ran through people like Asbury, Peter Cartwright, Charles Finney, and D. L. Moody -- the revivalists of the 1800s. In the late 1800s, many of them were holiness folk. The "respectable" founders of neo-evangelicalism in the mid-twentieth century weren't so keen on these "emotional" types. Indeed, George Marsden and Mark Noll basically snubbed them in their treatments, calling them "fundamentalists" rather than true evangelicals. I'll unravel that skew in a few posts.

6. The individuals that Dayton covers in his book -- including the early Wesleyan Methodists -- were radicals for the time. They were abolitionists and champions of women's rights. If they were transported back in time, many Wesleyans today would consider them "woke liberals." They were social activists, "social justice warriors," if you would. Orange Scott and Luther Lee would have supported the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 60s if they were brought forward in time. 

They were post-millennials. That is, they believed that the church age more or less was the millennium. They were optimistic about changing the world to become more and more like the kingdom before Christ returned. The idea of a rapture or a Tribulation as things get worse and worse didn't really exist yet. That comes onto the scene in the late 1800s in the next post.

Some of these Wesleyan Methodists went into the south before the Civil War and preached abolition. Adam Crooks responded to a call to pastor a church in North Carolina in the 1840s, a perilous time. His church was called "Freedom's Hill," which is currently on the campus of Southern Wesleyan University. What a privilege and responsibility SWU has to steward that heritage.

The story of Micajah McPherson is often told. During the Civil War he was lynched and left for dead. But those who lynched him wanted to lynch more people, so they came back for the rope before he was truly dead. He would survive and serve in that church for another thirty years. Daniel Worth would spend the winter of 1859 in a cold cell in North Carolina for preaching abolition. Talk about counter-cultural! Black and Drury point out that Lincoln was too gradualist for these radicals (63-64).

Mark Noll wrote a book on the hermeneutics of this period (Civil War as a Theological Crisis). It is very relevant to debates over complementarianism today. The Princeton Calvinists of this period argued from the household codes that slaves were to obey their masters. They argued that it was unbiblical to be an abolitionist, much as contemporary complementarians are arguing that it is unbiblical to be an egalitarian. 

The Wesleyan Methodists in effect argued that one had to consider first what the overarching principles of Scripture were. Meanwhile, you had to consider the historical context of passages like the household codes and weigh them in the light of the unchanging, overarching core principles of Scripture. The Wesleyan Methodists strongly argued that in Christ there was "neither slave nor free." They saw the trajectory of Philemon as pointing toward the liberation of Onesimus.  

This is an important point. It is common for the person arguing from a clobber verse to accuse others of being unbiblical. In reality, the conflict may be between a verse-oriented hermeneutic versus a whole-Bible hermeneutic. It may be an argument of the letter versus the Spirit. In the end, these are hard debates that various communities of faith just have to wrestle through.

7. Luther Lee would famously preach the sermon at the first official ordination of a woman in the United States in 1853 (although Richard Allen of the AME church had given permission to Jarina Lee to preach in 1819). Lee's sermon is just as relevant today as it was then. Wesleyans also remember that the organizing meeting of the women's rights movement in America took place in a Wesleyan Methodist Church in Seneca Falls, New York in 1848.

The rights in question were primarily the right to vote, something that wouldn't happen until 1920. What was counter-cultural then at the time? The movement for women to be able to vote clearly went strongly against the culture of the time. 

Did all Wesleyan Methodists agree? Almost certainly not. For example, the WM pastor at Seneca Falls did not unlock the church. Oversight? They had to crawl in a window to open it up.

But Lee and others saw the Pentecostal principle. Whether you are a slave or a free person, black or white, a woman or a man, the Holy Spirit fills each person equally. Each person has equal value in God's sight. Experience demonstrates that the Spirit can speak and lead equally through all types of individuals. Doesn't it quench the Spirit to box people in based on such externals? Why not let God decide whom he calls?

8. A couple other tidbits from these early days. Few people know that Wheaton College was actually founded by the Wesleyan Methodists, as was Adrian College. However, the WMs did not succeed with the financial aspects of those schools and so they were sold to other groups.

Another issue of some controversy had to do with membership in secret societies. This was a big deal in the mid-1800s. Such organizations had a strong cult-like flavor to them and expected a person's primary loyalty. It looked very fishy and seemed to conflict with the church being a person's primary allegiance. One of the founders of the WMC would leave (Sunderland) over this issue. I believe he eventually left the faith.

2.1 Methodist Ideology in the Early 1800s

This is a series titled, "A History of Wesleyan Ideology." The goal is to look at the ideological and cultural forces that have converged to shape The Wesleyan Church as we know it today. The picture to the side is that of circuit rider Francis Asbury.

The previous posts have been:

Preface to Wesleyan Ideological History
1.1 Wesley and High Protestantism
1.2 An Archaeology of Wesley's Thinking 

With this post, we begin our journey through the founding and early years of The Wesleyan Methodist Church, which was founded in 1843.

1. It would be easy for Wesleyans to ignore the years from Wesley's death in 1791 to the founding of The Wesleyan Methodist Connection in 1843. But these years were when the Americanization of Wesley began. In these years, American culture began to shape Wesley's founding ideas. How can we fully know what the Wesleyan Methodist Church (WM) was in its beginnings if we do not know what it was reacting to and what it continued from what was before?

When we think of the WM founding, our minds immediately go to the issue of slavery, and that was the biggest factor. But it wasn't the only one. Wesleyan Methodists were just one of several groups that also had problems with the way the Methodist Episcopal Church was led -- including its failure to include non-ministers in its decision-making at that time.

Still, in the end, the Wesleyan Methodists withdrew (and to some extent were pushed out) over the refusal of the broader Methodist Church to take a "Wesley-an" stand against slavery. Instead, the hierarchy tried to smooth over tensions between northern and southern Methodism. Like some efforts on a national level during that period to hold the nation together, Methodism made concessions to slavery in the early decades of the 1800s to try to hold the church together.

It didn't work anyway. Southern Methodism would split from northern Methodism in 1844, the year after the WM Connection was formed. At the 1844 General Conference, a bishop from Georgia was asked to step down for being a slave owner. The result was the biggest split in the Methodist church yet. The ME Church South would remain separate until 1939, when north and south reconnected to form the Methodist Church.

2. The Methodist Episcopal Church was effectively founded in 1784 at the famed "Christmas Conference." John Wesley, who had never intended to form a church, finally recognized that the political separation between Britain and the Americas might require a distinct church in America. He ordained Thomas Coke a "superintendent" in England. Then Coke came to America and ordained Francis Asbury in Baltimore. Both were British. 

Wesley had opposed the Revolutionary War for several reasons. He did not believe Methodists should participate in it. However, Wesley was a realist. What was done was done.

Similarly, Wesley thought it was a mistake for Asbury to take the title of bishop. He preferred for the leadership to be "superintendents." But Asbury preferred bishop, and the Christmas Conference voted him such. 

From where Wesleyans sit today, this was a mistake. The power of the bishopric in the Methodist church has arguably been a constant problem throughout its history. Indeed, the recent separation of the Global Methodist Church has given ample examples of crafty bishops using their power to manipulate congregations and to circumvent the Methodist Discipline.

Bishops in the Methodist Church are elected for life. At the time when the WM Church was founded, there was no lay voice in who was chosen. Bishops had little to no accountability. The WM Church was not the first split that took place in those early decades of Methodism. In 1790, the Republican Methodist Church was founded in part because of a lack of lay representation in church leadership.

In 1830, the Methodist Protestant Church withdrew from the Methodist Episcopal Church over the issue of governance and the failure of several attempts to include lay representation in church governance. When the WM Church was finally founded, its leaders would be superintendents, not bishops, and there would be an emphasis on parity. The concept of parity is that there be equal numbers of ministerial and lay delegates to its conferences on a district and general level.

The Methodist Protestant Church would also be part of the merger in 1939 when north and south came back together.

3. When we think about cultural trends, clearly democracy and individual liberty were key cultural elements in the American culture of the late 1700s and early 1800s. Americans didn't like monarchs. Francis Asbury in the end was British. He was more comfortable with the idea of a king.

So, it is no coincidence that there would be a push within American Methodism for non-ministerial representation and for what we might call a "presbyterian" form of church governance. In this regard, the "congregational" form of governance such as in the Baptist church is consummately American in that regard, where each local church runs its own show. "Freedom of conscience" in the Methodist Protestant Church and "soul freedom" in the Baptist church resonated strongly with American culture.

Nevertheless, the presbyterian form -- where representatives are chosen to conference and leaders are elected to serve for a fixed amount of time -- seems to combine the advantages of other forms of governance while mitigating their weaknesses. This is of course why western representational democracies have been so successful. They build in a balance of power.

The US has a single executive. This has some of the efficiency of a monarch but his or her tenure in office is not permanent. Every four years the leader is reviewed by the people. In much of the history of The Wesleyan Church, it has had multiple General Superintendents. This especially made sense in the age when travel and communication was not so easy. 

The WM church did have a single General Superintendent for many years in Roy Nicholson, but it ground him to a pulp and he strongly advised against it. When the WC recently went to a single General Superintendent in JoAnne Lyon, Lee Haines stood up and advised against it, mentioning Nicholson. Nevertheless, it has worked under Lyon and Schmidt, not least because of a delegation of authority. (I suspect Nicholson was more of a funnel.) These also have been two selfless individuals whose hearts are in the right place.

I personally remain uncertain whether it is ideal to have only one General Superintendent. What would happen if a less godly individual was chosen, someone who was crafty in their wielding of power? We like to think that those the church chooses will always be saintly and wise, but looking back through history, I'm not sure we can always depend on it.

The counterbalance of a strong General Board is thereby important. At present, the collective power of the district superintendents of the church seems rather strong as well as a counterbalance. 

In the end, it's about informed representation as well as proper checks and balances. These are consummately Western cultural values, yes. But they have been proven effective thus far. They are not foolproof but, as Winston Churchill famously said, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others."

In the end, the form of leadership the church takes will likely have a lot to do with the culture in which it is situated. The early church retained some Jewish structures (like groups of elders), but it also had free-ranging charismatic leaders like Paul. These leadership structures fit the first century. It is no surprise that the forms of leadership under different cultures will be different. It fits the incarnational principle. It would be foolish to try to model a form that fit well in the first century but would be self-defeating today.

4. Another feature of some of the early pullouts was the naive hermeneutic that thinks "We're just following the Bible." The early 1800s saw the Cane Ridge revivals and the Stone-Campbell movements that were sick of all the divisions in Christianity and all the different groups that were emerging at the time. Their solution was to go back to the Bible -- "No creed but Christ; no book but the Bible."

This sounds good and is certainly well-intentioned. The problem is that the polyvalence of the Bible stands at the very heart of matter. The fact that the Bible can be interpreted differently by different individuals is the core reason for the endless multiplication of denominations in America. The Stone-Campbell movement is a case in point. It is almost comical how this movement gave birth to so many different denominations that weren't supposed to be denominations but were just following the Bible -- the Christian Church, Churches of Christ (instrumental and non-instrumental), Disciples of Christ, etc. The rate of multiplication for this "no book but the Bible" tradition is a consummate example of the fact that there is always more involved than the Bible. If you don't realize this dynamic, it runs wild and unchecked.

American individualism also played a role. Not only was it each group deciding what they thought the Bible meant. In America, it was every individual deciding what the Bible means. The 1800s are a case study in charismatic individuals going off and starting their own church. Most of these would stay roughly within the lines. But then you would also have Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and many others.

5. James Madison called slavery America's original sin. The slave trade started in Europe and was pernicious, but it seemed the hardest to get rid of in America, no doubt because the southern economy was built on top of it.

The founders of the Wesleyan Methodist connection preached against it and lobbied strongly against it in the Methodist Episcopal Church. In this, they were continuing the position that Wesley had taken in England before his death. The leadership of the ME church found them counterproductive, zealots. Just as America had its "gradualists," who wanted to phase out slavery, so many northern Methodists fell into this camp. 

Were the founders of Wesleyan Methodism zealots? I suspect they were. I suspect they would be strongly resisted by most Wesleyans today. More on that in the next post.

There's also an important distinction between being opposed to slavery and looking down on "Africans" as inferior. There were plenty of people against slavery who were racists of a "softer" sort. (Think for example of the American Colonization Society that wanted to free the slaves and send them back to Africa) The founding of the African Methodist Episcopal Church in 1816 and the African Methodist Episcopal Church Zion in 1821 largely resulted from the marginalization of black worshippers in Philadelphia and New York City respectively.

I had a conversation with some of my children recently in which I wondered if there were shades of racism -- blatant, soft, and benevolent. We all get the concept of someone who flat-out hates people of another race. But then there are those who have biases that are more subtle. Maybe someone automatically locks their doors when someone of a different color approaches. I call this "soft racism." Then there are those who try to "help those poor people," in effect demeaning another race by assuming they need help. I've heard this called "benevolent racism." One of my children said, "Nope, it's all just racism." :-)

It's clear that the ME leaders of Philadelphia wanted the black worshippers to be in their place. They didn't want them sitting in good seats in church. They didn't want them owning their own church property or serving as elders. Although he resisted it for a long time, eventually, Richard Allen formed the AME church so that blacks in Philadelphia could worship freely and spread the gospel freely. The AME church would grow much faster than the white congregations in Pennsylvania. 

6. The "trust clause" was also a part of early American Methodism, going back to Wesley himself. This is the idea that the district holds the property deeds to local churches. This has been extremely controversial in the split of the United Methodist Church because congregations that wanted to leave in effect had to get permission from the UM church. There was a window when there was a process for exit, but it was (in the minds of some) abruptly closed at the last General Conference, leaving congregations who were more hesitant to leave at first in an uncomfortable situation.

The Wesleyan Church has inherited this practice. It emphasizes the unity and connection of local churches as one body. It makes it hard for schism to happen, where a charismatic figure leads a local church away from the denomination. It gives a tool for the broader church to stem off heresy in a local body. At the moment, the UM debacle has left many Wesleyans afraid of what would happen if the general church became the heretic.

I have mixed feelings about the trust clause. It made sense in Wesley's day because he helped fund the churches. It made sense in the 1800s when the church was largely uneducated and "go start a cult" was in the water. I think it has been a positive feature of Wesleyan colleges. None of the Wesleyan colleges can split off from the church and go its own way. Balance of power and checks and balances are always the name of the game.

At the same time, we should be aware of the cultural impact of hyper-individualism on us and the cult of freedom that is part of America's culture. For Paul, our freedom is from sin, which entails a slavery to righteousness. In Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8-10, Paul emphasizes that my individual freedom is never an excuse to harm or put a stumblingblock in front of others. The New Testament models a corporate interconnectedness and accountability.

The American impulse is for me (or my local church or my denomination) to do it my way. But that is not the biblical way. Beware the gravitational pull of culture on this one

1.2 An Archaeology of Wesley's Thinking

We finish up our look at Wesley's ideology. Previously in this series:

• Preface
• Wesley and High Protestantism

I was once struck by a book by Harald Lindstrom called Wesley and Sanctification because of the way he shows that there are historical layers to Wesley's thinking. I believe Bud Bence's unpublished dissertation also explored this dynamic (trying to get him to self-publish it). Below let me share some of my sense of a historical "archaeology" of Wesley's thought. 

1. Wesley the Anglo-Catholic

It is well known that, at university, Wesley was part of what they called the "Holy Club" at Oxford. Although it was a nickname given them by others, holiness was also their true aspiration. They read Anglican works like William Law's A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life and Jeremy Taylor's Holy Living and Holy Dying.

From the standpoint of a Lutheran at the time, these books would likely seem to focus too much on "works." They no doubt would have seemed like a lot of "striving" to live a holy life. In short, they no doubt would have felt a little "Catholic" to a high Protestant. Too much "works righteousness," Luther might have said. Thomas a Kempis' The Imitation of Christ was actually written while everyone was still Catholic.

These books also befit Wesley's perfectionist personality. God would use Wesley's perfectionism mightily to bring his organization skills to bear on the Methodist movement. But perfectionism was also a curse to Wesley at times. Wesley's doctrine of Christian perfection has struggled at times under that word, perfection. In his A Plain Account of Christian Perfection, Wesley would work hard to distinguish this doctrine from Adamic perfection and sinless perfection. 

When you have to explain and re-explain a concept, it's possible that you need to take it back to the shop and give it a little more work. Some of the NT passages with the word perfection in them should probably be translated with the word maturity rather than "perfection." Completely different feel. "Go on into maturity," Hebrews 6:1 is better rendered. I might paraphrase Matthew 5:48 to say something like, "Be complete and love everyone just like your heavenly Father loves everyone."

Personally, Wesley's perfectionist tendencies could lead him to write to his brother at one point in 1766, "I do not love God... I've never believed... I am only an honest heathen." Pish posh. I know that devil of perfectionism, the faith of a servant of God but not a son. Snap out of it Wesley.

Similarly, Chris Bounds has called Wesley's view of sanctification as sometimes being "a longer way." There are places where Wesley said it could happen earlier in life. But he also had his pessimistic moments when he thought it might only be a few people and even then late in life or near death. I wonder if this dynamic reflects the fact that Wesley was never able to completely shake the perfectionism of his personality and early days at Oxford.

A final note on infant baptism. As a good Anglican, Wesley practiced infant baptism. It is hard for a lot of Wesleyans today to understand this practice, but this is largely because of our inability to see the hyper-individualist nature of American culture. Luther and Calvin both practiced infant baptism and saw no conflict between it and the doctrine of justification by faith.

The Wesleyan Methodists practiced infant baptism as well, and it remains a little-known option in the Wesleyan Discipline today. It is no surprise, however, that as Western culture became more and more individualist, it would become difficult for people to see how a corporate body could exercise faith for a child until that child is old enough to exercise faith for him or herself.

In the earliest days of Protestantism, the Anabaptists ("re-baptizers") of Switzerland saw how justification by faith might be correlated with baptism, seeing such a direct connection in the book of Acts. Their new interpretation based in their sense of "Scripture only" would earn them persecution (and sometimes death) by Zwingli.

In America, believer's baptism made perfect sense and would become a hallmark of the American Baptist tradition. It is one of the winds that has blown strongly on the Wesleyan Church. The Reformed Baptist Church of Canada received an assurance that they would not have to baptize infants as part of their agreement to merge with the Wesleyan Methodists in the late 1960s.

2. Wesley and the Moravians

It is hard for us to get our heads around the fact that a good deal of insecurity could attend a Protestant in the 1700s about their eternal destiny. The Roman Church with its sacraments provided somewhat of a guarantee and there was purgatory to get you the whole way if needed. Luther's "justification by faith" made the question of salvation individual. Have you exercised personal faith?

Calvinism taught that salvation was purely a matter of God's choosing. There was nothing you could do to get it. Either you were chosen or you weren't. In Pilgrim's Progress, Christian doesn't know if he's going to make it to heaven until he makes it to heaven. The Puritans lived strict lives in hopes that it meant they were one of the chosen. Someone who lived an ungodly life obviously wasn't chosen.

One of the key features of Wesley, perhaps in fact his greatest contribution, was the notion that you could know that you were saved. Wesley taught an "assurance of salvation." This has become a core feature of American Christianity. You can know you are saved.

Wesley took this concept from the German Pietists. After Oxford, he went to Georgia to be a missionary. But the whole experience caused him to doubt whether he himself was saved. On the way there, some Moravians (German pietists) had a peace in the midst of a storm. Wesley couldn't believe it. How are they so calm? He himself was beset by fear.

It was finally on May 24, 1738 that he had his heart-warming experience on Aldersgate Street. "I felt my heart strangely warmed." It was a moment of assurance. Would Wesley have gone to heaven if he had died before then? I truly believe so. Attempts to align this experience with salvation or sanctification are attempts to make his experience fit our systems. Wesley was filled with the Spirit and given an assurance of his justification. It can happen more than once, but this moment was significant because it was really Wesley's first time. On the other hand, he never mentions the experience again.

This was a key moment in the story of evangelicalism. Assurance of salvation at the moment one is justified by faith is a key hallmark of evangelicalism, and it arguably started here. More below.

I might note that the American Baptist mutation known as eternal security begins here too. The Puritans believed that you would make it to the end if you were one of the elect ("the perseverance of the saints") but they didn't believe you could know if you were one of the elect. The Baptist tradition combined 1) the fact that you could know you were saved with 2) the fact that the elect would persevere. 

Voila! Eternal security. If you are assured of your salvation now, you are elect. And if you are elect, you're going to make it to the end. This is not a biblical concoction but a doctrine shaped in the historical currents of the 1700s.

3. Wesley and Luther

Wesley had his heart-warming experience after attending a Bible study where they had read Luther's Preface to Romans. He probably interpreted this moment as him being justified by faith. Justification has to do with having a right standing before God. It is generally seen at its root as a legal term. It is about being found "not guilty" in the divine court.

Luther himself struggled in the early 1500s with a sense of acceptance before God. He didn't feel like his "works" were good enough. He had a pervasive sense of moral failure before God. God freed him from this bondage by helping him see that Paul taught justification by faith and not by works. God gives us a right standing before him on the basis of Christ's righteousness rather than our own.

Here is the Lutheran layer of Wesley's theology. On the few occasions when Wesley uses the word evangelical, he seems to mean those Protestants who believe in justification by faith.

This, by the way, is a beef I have with David Bebbington's identification of an evangelical as someone who believes in 1) Bible-focus, 2) cross-focus, 3) born-again focus and 4) activism. To beat the dead horse again, what a word means depends on how it is used. Bebbington runs rough shod over five hundred years looking for some universal definition of an evangelical when, in truth, the meaning and emphasis of the term will change over time depending on the context. Evangelical at the moment has a major political component, for example.

Wesley the evangelical focused on getting people to be justified by faith in an experience. The other elements may be true of him too, but they're not what made him an evangelical in the 1700s.

Wesley took the concept of "imputed righteousness" from Luther. When we are justified, we have no righteousness of our own. It is "imputed" to us. However, Wesley would go on to teach that God thereafter imparted true righteousness to us as well. We actually become righteous. 

For Luther, the whole of our Christian life was God looking at Jesus rather than our continuing sin. As Luther put it, we are "both righteous and sinner as long as we are always repenting." Wesley believed that God wanted to do more than this in our lives (and so did Paul).

4. Wesley, Augustine, and Calvin

As a New Testament scholar, I believe that Wesley anticipated some of the insights that came in the late 1900s under what was called "a new perspective on Paul." However, Wesley remained a child of his time. He made modifications to the path of Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and Arminius, but I can't help but feel that he was not able to get out from under them. He would say at one point that he was a "hair's breadth from Calvinism," for example.

This is some of the perceived tension, I suspect, between Ken Collins at Asbury Seminary and Randy Maddox at Duke. Collins largely takes Wesley as he is. Maddox seems to want to construct a Wesleyan theology that is not as bound by Wesley's own categories. I welcome redirection there.

Here are some ways in which I believe it is possible to construct a Wesleyan theology that is truer to Paul and that reformulates some of the "baggage" Wesley retained from this Augustinian heritage:

a. thorough vs. absolute depravity

Roger Olson has gone to great lengths to show that Arminius (and Wesley) were not Pelagians or semi-Pelagians. They did not believe that a person could come to God in his or her own power. It required God's grace, God's prevenient grace that goes before and empowers us to make choices.

That theology makes sense to me. However, it is a connecting of the dots outside of Scripture. Paul does not articulate a full-blown theology on the subject of election and free will. Calvin connected the dots (outside of Scripture) one way, Arminius connected them (outside of Scripture) another way. So we thank you, Olson, even if I'm not too bothered by those who might accuse a Wesleyan of Pelagianism.

You may regularly see in these pages the remnants of my Pilgrim Holiness sentimentalities. I am not bothered too much by the old controversies of church history. I am open to the Spirit bringing new and fresh insights. As I recall, we didn't even emphasize the Trinity very much growing up. We prayed "in Jesus' name." To this day, it feels a little Catholic for me to say, "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." 

It seems to me that Paul expresses a thorough depravity in Romans 3 rather than an absolute depravity. We are morally flawed. You might even say every aspect of who we are is affected. But Paul never says that every bit of us is depraved. Indeed, our Augustinian heritage makes more of Adam than Paul himself does on balance. I am told that the expression "total depravity" can be interpreted in this thoroughgoing way as opposed to an absolute way.

Wesley's sense of the image of God as the 1) natural, 2) moral, and 3) political also goes well beyond anything the biblical text says. In Genesis 1 the image of God is largely political -- it refers to humanity's rule over the creation as God rules over all. In other places, it simply is used to suggest that we should treat other humans with respect because they are a reflection of God. 

So while Wesley's thoughts on the image of God can bring insights into our human condition, they are extensively extra-biblical, going way beyond anything the biblical texts actually say.

b. sin "like" Adam rather than "in" Adam

Augustine's misinterpretation of Romans 5:12 is notorious. (He couldn't read Greek, after all.) He took it to mean that we all sinned in Adam. Thus we have the guilt of original sin before we ever commit an act of sin in this life.

This is not what Paul teaches. Paul does not teach that we have guilt from Adam's sin. Rather, we have guilt because we sin like Adam. One of Wesley's justifications for infant baptism was to be cleansed of original sin. Completely extra-biblical. 

The original sin was the sin of Adam and Eve, but Paul never taught that we have original sin.

c. Sin power vs. sin nature

Wesley inherited Augustine's sense that we have a sin nature. Our human nature is corrupted and our desires are malformed. But this is not what Paul actually teaches. In fact, in Romans 7, the "I" wants to do the good. It is not malformed into desiring the bad (see Krister Stendahl). 

Paul expresses the sinful human condition in terms of a conflict between our spirits (where our "I" resides) and our "flesh," our bodies under the power of Sin. In Romans 7, the person Paul is dramatizing wants to do the good in their spirit, but they are foiled by the power of Sin over their flesh. Receiving the Holy Spirit is the antidote. Now a person's spirit has the power to do the good they want to do.

You'll note that the NIV2011 withdrew its previous language of "sinful nature" for the more accurate term "flesh." My flesh is my "skin under the power of Sin." For Paul, Sin is a power over me. It is not a feature of a corrupted nature inside of me. It is an "accidental" property of my default humanity rather than an "essential" one that is fundamental to our nature.

This distinction solves a lot of rabbit trails in Wesleyan debates over sanctification over the years. Is our sinful nature suppressed (Keswick) or eradicated (holiness)? Wrong question because it is based on an Augustinian sense of human nature. We are set free from the power of Sin by the Spirit. Yet if we do not continually walk in fellowship with the Spirit, "sin lieth at the door" to come back over our skin. 

d. general satisfaction vs. penal substitution

Wesley inherited from medieval Catholicism the doctrine of penal substitution. Paul taught that Jesus was an atonement for our sins. That is, he satisfied the need for justice. Less developed in Paul is the idea that Jesus took our place. Rather, we get "in" Christ when we receive the Spirit. We participate in his death and resurrection. This is different from a straightforward substitution. Verses like 2 Corinthians 5:21 and Galatians 3:13 seem a little more profound than a simple substitution.

The doctrine of penal substitution in its current form especially goes back to Anselm in the 1000s. He makes it a virtually mathematical equation. You 1) take the total amount of "sin units" that humanity has and will commit that need forgiven and 2) you shoot Jesus with exactly that much punishment on the cross (or when he dips his toes in hell) and, voila, Jesus has substituted for our precise punishment (penal).

Funny how none of this is in the Parable of the Prodigal Son. Apparently, the Father has the authority to simply forgive on the spot! So while the satisfaction of justice is in Paul and our participation in his sacrifice is there too, the more precise version of penal substitution that Wesley inherited is not really expressed in the New Testament and probably has more to do with Anselm.

5.  Wesley and the Enlightenment

One of the biggest currents in Wesley's day was the Enlightenment, an emphasis on human reason and objectivity. As needed as it was, the Protestant Reformation had destabilized a sense of security about what was true. This led thinkers like Descartes to ask the question of how we could know what was certain. His famous answer was, "I think; therefore, I am."

A quest for objectivity ensued in European culture. Reason and experience were the two competing paths to truth. A group known as "rationalists' emphasized reason as the path to truth. Another group known as the "empiricists" emphasized gathering evidence (e.g., the scientific method).

The so-called Wesleyan Quadrilateral has reason and experience as part of the equation, although situating them under Scripture and including tradition. Notice how the quadrilateral balances all the historical forces of Wesley's day. It grounds knowledge on Scripture in keeping with the Reformation. It does not reject tradition, revealing Wesley's Anglican roots. And it incorporates the two new emphases of "modernism": reason and experience.

There have been recent voices in Methodism (like Billy Abraham) who have tried to purge Methodism of the quadrilateral. They see the elevation of reason and experience at the root of the liberalism of the Methodist Church. Many of them are what I might call "post-liberals." These are postmodern forces within Methodism that want to reclaim faith by doing an end-run around reason, returning to some sort of pre-modern Shangrila. (Alistair MacIntyre's After Virtue and Charles Taylor's Sources of the Self are also important works in this discussion.)

Wesley lived on the cusp of the pre-modern/modern transition. We therefore have to be careful when we quote him in favor of one or the other. He was both. Billy Abraham and others are right to point out that the quadrilateral was a term coined by Albert Outler in the twentieth century, not a term that goes back to Wesley.   

However, it is my conviction that modernism needs to be chastened and reformed, not abandoned. The American Constitution is an artifact of the Enlightenment, and it's pretty good if you ask me. Wesleyan-Arminianism has a good deal of Enlightenment in it as well. The concept of individual freedom over determinism would be a case in point. In my opinion, critical realism is a great approach to knowledge and reality -- but it is in the end a chastened modernist approach.

Wesley's activism fits well within the Enlightenment focus on individual rights as well. The child in the coal mine matters. The slave matters. The same forces that would lead Jeremy Bentham to formulate utilitarianism and Adam Smith to formulate capitalism were driving Wesley to jump on board with social reform in England.

Wesley's relationship with women was somewhat uneven. One of the commitments of the Holy Club was for the men to remain unmarried in keeping with 1 Corinthians 7. They all abandoned this commitment but Wesley's brother Charles unfairly wanted him to keep it. Wesley got driven out of Georgia over a woman. He missed out on love a second time because of his brother. Then he secretly mismarried without telling his brother. That marriage was not a success story.

Nevertheless, in his later years Wesley recognized the giftings of some women in his groups and he gave them the authority to preach and disciple others. This was a major move forward. Wesley often did things that went against his early intuitions. Preaching outside of a church, for example, did not come naturally to this formerly Anglo-Catholic. Empowering women to minister was probably another example of his yielding to the Spirit rather than the biases with which he grew up.

6. Wesley the Organizer

Although it had less to do with ideology, we should mention that Wesley was organized. George Whitefield, the famous evangelist, once noted that his own followers were a "rope of sand" because he did not set up any organization. By contrast, the organized Wesley set up his followers in societies, classes, and bands. He made accountability a key feature. 

The result is that Methodism continued long after his death. For more on leadership lessons we can learn from Wesley, see Mark Gorveatte's Lead Like Wesley. And if you want a more playful overview of Wesley's life and ministry, you can see my biography of Wesley through the voice of his horses: A Horse Strangely Warmed: The Life of John Wesley as Told by His Horses.

1.1 Wesley and High Protestantism

Earlier this week I started a journey through the history of Wesleyan ideology. Today the journey looks to where Wesley was situated in relation to the Protestant Reformation before him. [The image to the side is that of Thomas Cranmer, perhaps the most formative thinker in the formation of the Church of England (or Anglican Church).]

Previous posts:
Preface

1.1 Wesley and High Protestantism

1. Wesley wasn't a heretic, but you might get that impression sometimes. I heard a story once about someone President Barnes of Indiana Wesleyan University (IWU) brought in to evaluate where IWU was ideologically. Apparently, the person's greatest suspicions ended up being about Bud Bence, who is often considered a Wesleyan's Wesleyan. I am sometimes considered a heretic for believing in women in ministry. 

The Wesleyan tradition often looks a little "off" when viewed from what I might call "high Protestantism." Here I chiefly mean the heirs of Martin Luther and John Calvin in the 1500s. Of course, they would no doubt have a similar perspective on any number of other groups like Pentecostals and charismatics as well. Today, America's theology is Baptist more than anything else -- historical Wesleyans can look pretty fishy to them too. 

I would say that Wesley looks a little askew among high Protestants for two chief reasons. First, he was an Anglican, and Anglicanism was a "middle way" between Protestantism and Catholicism. In other words, Wesley can seem a little too Catholic. Second, he was an Arminian, In simple terms, he believed that God gives us some degree of free will. A good deal of Christianity considers that a heresy called "Pelagianism" or "semi-Pelagianism."

2. First, Wesley was an Anglican. The Church of England did not start the way Lutheranism did. In the beginning, Luther opposed the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) because they were taking people's money and promising them years off of purgatory. This flashpoint cascaded into Luther's other positions. So, he rejected the "Apocrypha" as part of the Bible because 2 Maccabees was thought to give support to the idea of purgatory. Similarly, salvation must purely be on the basis of faith not works because good works (like paying money to the church) couldn't help save your soul. 

As is often the case, Luther's ideology directly followed a concrete, practical situation rather than being some purely biblical or theological discovery. Life led him to focus on certain passages and he almost certainly took them beyond what they actually said.

The Church of England started differently. King Henry VIII disagreed with Luther's theology. In fact, he wrote a treatise against Luther and his "Protestants." BUT Henry wanted a divorce, and the RCC wouldn't grant one because Spain was breathing down the Pope's neck -- and the wife Henry wanted to divorce was the daughter of the king of Spain. 

So after England's separation from the RCC, the Anglican church still had more of a Catholic flavor than the Lutheran or Reformed churches did. Its original theologians would ironically burn at the stake at the hands of "bloody Mary" for being too Protestant (even though they still had a lot in common with Catholicism). Meanwhile, those who resisted the withdrawal would burn at the stake for being too Catholic (even though they were very sympathetic to some of the reforms it made to the RCC).

In the end, the Anglican church came to see itself as a kind of "via media" or "middle way" between Catholicism and high Protestantism. It adopted justification by faith, but in its sacraments and church structure it often still looked a bit Catholic. It continued to use the Apocrypha in worship, and it was more open to works in the life of a believer than Luther by far.

The fact that Wesley was a child of Anglicanism rather than of high Protestantism has probably contributed to some of the "otherness" of Methodism and Wesleyanism within Protestantism. 

3. If you know your history, high Protestantism had four or five "solas" (the Latin word for "only"). 

• Luther's biggest one was 1) sola fide or "by faith alone." Luther taught that "works" play no role in being "justified" before God. We attain a right standing with God based on faith alone. 
• Similarly, our salvation is purely a matter of 2) grace alone (sola gratia). No one can earn or merit salvation.
• Salvation is based on 3) "Christ alone" (solus Christus). There is no other path to God. 
• Everything we must believe is a matter of 4) "Scripture alone" (sola scriptura), and Scripture is clear enough in itself for anyone to see the way (the "perspicuity" of Scripture). You don't need the church to explain it to you or a priest to intercede for you. 
• Finally, a latecomer was the idea that everything is for 5) "God's glory alone" (soli dei gloria).

Of course, it is not enough to say that Wesley affirmed sola fide as Luther and Calvin did. We have to ask how Wesley used those words. For Luther and Calvin, "by faith alone" meant that any effort on our part ("works") plays no role in our salvation whatsoever. For them, this extended to the act of faith itself. For them, we have no part at all in the exercise of faith. God does it for us in us. We are his sock puppets, and he says through our mouths, "I believe" for us.

Works played a much larger role in the equation for Wesley and the Anglicans (e.g., 2 Cor. 5:10). Technically, Wesley believed that works are a result of our justification by grace through faith. They are not the cause of our justification or salvation. But, unlike Luther and Calvin, Wesley believed your works could disqualify you from the prize (1 Cor. 9:27; Wesley, "A Call to Backsliders"). Such a concept played no role in the high Protestantism of Luther or Calvin.  

4. Wesley was thus a "synergist" rather than a "monergist." He believed that our wills worked together with God's will toward salvation. Luther and Calvin were monergists, believing that God alone did all the work. In short, Wesley was an "Arminian."

Arminius was a Dutch theologian who died in 1609. Before he died, he suggested a few tweaks to Calvin's theology. 

• For example, he suggested that God's choosing of us -- our election -- was conditional upon our response. By contrast, "election" was unconditional for Calvin. 
• Arminius believed that Christ died for everyone, while some Calvinists had concluded that Christ only died for the elect ("limited atonement"). 
• While Arminius believed in the "total depravity" of humanity (as did Wesley)...
• ... he taught that the grace of God went before us ("prevenient grace") to make it possible for us to open ourselves to his saving grace and thus cooperate with God's grace. For Calvin, God's grace was "irresistible."
• And for Arminius, it was similarly possible to "fall" from God's grace (Jude 24). Calvinists saw God's grace as irresistible, and if God had chosen you, you would definitely make it to the end.

After Arminius died, the Synod of Dort codified orthodox Calvinism in the TULIP that we have alluded to above, which Arminius (and Wesley) mostly rejected:

• Total depravity -- We can do no good in our own power.
• Unconditional election -- God alone decides who will be saved. We play no real role.
• Limited atonement -- Christ only died for the elect.
• Irresistible grace -- If God has chosen you, you will receive his grace.
• Perseverance of the saints -- If you are chosen, you will make it to the kingdom no matter what.

It is no surprise that Wesley modified the 39 Articles of the Church of England in keeping with his "Arminianism." For example, Wesley removed Article 17 on predestination. Most of his other edits had to do with church structure and toning down the "let's burn them at the stake" feel of others. He passed on 25 of the 39 Articles to the Methodists.

5. In the twenty-five doctrines that Wesley retained, several were in direct continuity with the high Reformation. For example, Article 5 retained Luther's sense of sola scriptura, "Scripture only." Nothing was to be required of a believer that could not be demonstrated in Scripture. Wesley famously aspired to be a "man of one book" (homo unius libri).

Again, if we look to his actual practice, however, Wesley regularly brought into conversation tradition, reason, and experience with Scripture. Scripture was primary, but it was clarified by these other sources of truth, an approach sometimes called prima scriptura. Although the Wesleyan quadrilateral is not a term that Wesley himself coined (it comes from Albert Outler in the twentieth century), it is a fair reflection of his actual practice. The four sides of the quadrilateral are Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience.

I am not aware of a place where Wesley directly engaged Luther on the concept of the "perspicuity" of Scripture. The idea of perspicuity is the sense that Scripture is clear and plainly understandable on matters pertaining to salvation. Wesley may have. Here's how Luther put it in his Bondage of the Will in 1525: "The perspicuity of Scripture means that everything necessary for salvation and regarding faith and life is taught in clear language in Scripture." 

The Westminster Confession of 1647 put it this way: "All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them."

Wesley did not pass these sorts of statements into Methodism, and there is no statement of this sort in the Wesleyan Discipline today. However, I think Wesley agreed with them (Arminius did), and I welcome input from those who might know "chapter and verse" in Wesley's works. 

Notice the focus of perspicuity. It does not consider every passage in Scripture to be clear to us. Rather, the path of salvation is clear. The driving force for Luther was again his reaction to Roman Catholicism. His doctrine of Scripture's clarity was meant to indicate that we do not need a priest or the church in order to be saved. Scripture alone is a sufficient enough guide to lead us to salvation.

6. In the Preface, I suggested that Luther's understanding of Scripture was two-dimensional -- primarily literary without historical depth. Unreflectively, he thought the words could be separated from the historical contexts that gave them their first meaning. Like Melanchthon after him, he largely treated meaning as inherent and fixed in words rather than as functions of how they are used at a particular time and place.

He also underestimated the fact that I as a reader ultimately construct the meaning I see in a text. A text can come to have almost as many meanings as the minds that read it. "Meaning is in the eye of the beholder." Paul Tillich in the twentieth century would speak of the Protestant Principle -- the fact that each individual reader is free to interpret the biblical texts suggests that the interpretations of the Bible will multiply endlessly as reader after reader interprets them.

Martin Marty once suggested that there were 20-30,000 different Protestant denominations, almost of all of which think they get their beliefs from the Bible alone. A little reflection suggests that sola scriptura has not resulted in anything like a common understanding of the meaning of most of the Bible. There are three reasons for this multiplicity of interpretations:

• There is the "polyvalence" of individual words and sentences -- words are capable of taking on more than one meaning.
• There is the need to integrate the thought of multiple books together. The Bible does not tell us how to connect James and Paul or Mark and John. Hebrews may tell us what to do with Leviticus, but we may end up overriding Leviticus in the process of listening to Hebrews. The process of integrating the books of the Bible together of necessity takes place outside the biblical texts themselves. In other words, it requires a scaffolding that is outside the Bible alone.
• There is the need to appropriate the ancient meanings of these texts to today. The books do not tell us how to do this. 1 Peter doesn't say, "Here's how to apply these instructions to persecuted believers in the first century to twentieth century America." We have to connect the dots outside the biblical texts. In other words, appropriation requires work that is beyond Scripture alone, work that we have to do ourselves.

The fact that most interpreters of the Bible are unreflective about the role that they (and their traditions) play in integrating and appropriating Scripture sneaks in the chaos that is the myriad conflicting interpretations and applications of the Bible.

And, living before Descartes' epistemological turn in the 1600s, Luther was largely unaware of the fact that when I read a text, it is inevitably my mind that constructs the meaning of that text for me. He saw the meaning as "out there" with little appreciation for the chaos that is our minds inferring meaning.

We can thus see some important clarifications that need to be made to Luther's sense of sola scriptura and the perspicuity of Scripture. For one, the fact that there are tens of thousands of denominations with varying beliefs and interpretations of the Bible suggests that, for us (in contrast to the original audiences), Scripture is far more unclear than we probably realize or acknowledge. Given the lay of the denominational land, this conclusion hardly seems debatable, although many groups insist they are right and everyone else is wrong. Even scholars regularly disagree on the meaning of passage after passage.

7. Here's where we should recognize the essential role of the Holy Spirit. There is a tendency to detach our interpretation of the Bible from the illuminating and inspiring work of the Holy Spirit. This is a serious mistake. After all, it is the prevenient grace of the Spirit that leads us to salvation. The biblical text without the Spirit will not lead me to salvation. It is not "Scripture alone" that leads me to salvation. It is the Spirit working with my spirit.

In the hands of the Spirit, the original meaning of the Bible does not need to be clear to lead me to salvation because the journey to salvation is not primarily an intellectual or cognitive journey. My mind is certainly involved, but the essential features have to do with my "heart" and will. The Spirit can use a stop sign to bring me to salvation assuming that I have the barest knowledge of God and Christ!

I might add that this is a frequent blind spot of apologetics as well. Coming to Christ is not a matter of intellectual argument. We can help remove intellectual obstacles. We can lay the groundwork for the path. But it is the Spirit that always leads the way. It is the Spirit that empowers the will. It is the heart that believes unto salvation (Rom. 10:10).

These refinements of our understanding of the perspicuity of Scripture and these clarifications to the limits of sola scriptura go beyond the hermeneutical understandings of Wesley and the Reformers. They are contemporary insights, as undeniable as they seem to be once they are pointed out and understood. 

The original purpose of sola scriptura was to say that the authority of the Roman Catholic Church was not needed for salvation, which of course is true. Luther asserted that the RCC and its priesthood were not needed to interpret the Bible for any believer. The doctrine was an instrument of separation from the Roman Catholic Church. 

Recent years have suggested that the community of faith is more important in the appropriation of Scripture than the Reformers recognized. For one thing, it was through Old Testament priests, Jewish rabbis, and the Church that God collected these writings into a canon and brought to recognition which books were authoritative as a collection. Without communities of faith searching these texts and worshiping with these texts, we would only have had individual believers with whatever individual scrolls they might have had access to. 

Still, Luther and Zwingli got together in 1529 to see if they could agree on what "Scripture alone" taught about communion. They couldn't agree, not even the first two Protestant interpreters of the Bible. Twelve years after Luther's 95 Theses, sola scriptura in a sense fell apart.

And thus the infinite proliferation of Christian groups all pretending they are just reading "the Bible alone" began. Zwingli would later watch his people drown Anabaptists in the river because the Anabaptists did not think the Bible alone supported infant baptism. "You want to be rebaptized as an adult? I'll rebaptize you!" Apparently, Zwingli could interpret the Bible alone, but no one else could. The statements of faith that are ubiquitous in Christendom are basically churches and Christian organizations trying to nail down what we should take away from the Bible (and to compel their communities to agree). 

I always smile when I think of the various churches of Christ and churches of God that were founded on the idea that they are not denominations. They were founded on the idea that they simply follow the Bible alone. Yet it is clear that they have made decisions about what their group thinks the Bible means. They have made decisions on what structures they think the Bible implies. And, sometimes, their people go full on heretical because that's just their interpretation of the Bible.

Your non-denominational church on the corner isn't fooling anyone. A few questions and we will quickly be able to identify which traditions of American Christianity their leaders and people draw from. They are mostly Baptist without the name, and some of them throw some charismatic movement on top. They are hermeneutically unreflective, more examples of the Protestant Principle at work.

To put a more positive perspective on it, our communities of faith are spaces where we "work out our salvation with fear and trembling" together (Phil. 2:12). Given the multiplicity of such workings, we should probably be pretty humble about our group being right. And we should quite probably be more generous toward the groups and individuals whose interpretations are different from ours. 

In the end, God will sort us all out.  

1. Preface to Wesleyan Ideological History

1. While it is obvious to those who are actual experts in the areas on which I write, I consider it an advantage to the rest of the church that I often write on topics I only know enough about to be dangerous. This has served my undergraduate students greatly over the years, for I have well gotten them in the door of knowledge by being intelligible. Then they remember much better the corrections of the real experts when they go on to more detailed study.

And so, like the fool I am, for some time, I have wanted to write an ideological history of The Wesleyan Church. After my first wee faith crisis in seminary, I determined that God was a God of truth. This may seem obvious, but what it meant to me was that if the truth seemed to come into conflict with the traditions I grew up with, then choosing truth was making a choice for what God thinks -- even if it went against my traditional understandings. My crisis ensued when I came to grips with the fact that Hosea 11:1 was not originally a prophecy about the Messiah going down to Egypt. Could Matthew have been wrong, because it was obvious Hosea 11:1 wasn't even a prophecy about the future, let alone about Jesus in its original context?

I've since concluded that Matthew was not wrong but, rather, that the lovely chart in the back of my Thompson Chain Reference KJV was misleading. Matthew was reading the Old Testament in a spiritual sense, not a literal one. It was perfectly acceptable for a Jewish interpreter of his day and, indeed, was not unlike some of the spiritual interpretations I grew up with in the holiness tradition.

I concluded that God was not a trickster. God was not a Loki. God was not putting me to the test as if to say, "I've made it look like Matthew is wrong here to test your willingness to ignore all reason and blindly believe things that appear to be stupid." Nope. That would be the Devil's approach to things. "All truth is God's truth," the saying goes.

I do believe there's a time to say, "The evidence and reason seem to point in this direction but by faith I'm going to go in another direction." That's honest. More often, I have found Christian thinkers go through the motion of reason and weighing evidence when it is clear that they are making the evidence fit what they want it to fit. I'd rather them just be honest and say, "Because of my presuppositions, I'm going to go in this direction despite the evidence and reason."

2. All of that is to say that I think I might be a little more "honest" about Wesleyan history than some others. It is a human tendency to idolize our heroes. I remember in college feeling a little naughty to suggest that Wesley might not have been someone to get marital advice from. Can a Wesleyan critique Wesley?

But then again, the holiness tradition I grew up in didn't really pay much attention to Wesley. We believed our preaching came straight from the Bible. At least in my experience, we had almost no idea of the historical influences leading us to interpret the Bible the way we did. I never heard about Phoebe Palmer, yet hers was the principal voice in any sermon on entire sanctification growing up. I had never heard of John Nelson Darby, and yet his voice was the source of all the teaching I heard on the Tribulation and Antichrist.

We were what I sometimes call "unreflective" interpreters of the Bible. We stood 100% on the Bible... and had no idea that we overwhelmingly interpreted the Bible through glasses we had inherited from our tradition and environment.

Wesley lived in the early days of what I might call historical consciousness. It would be hard for me to find much contextual interpretation before the 1600s and 1700s that wasn't two-dimensional, and it really wasn't until the late 1800s that historical consciousness came into its own, in my estimation. By two-dimensional, I mean that interpretation was largely literary without a strong sense of how culture and history impact the meaning of words.

Melanchthon, the systematizer of Luther, famously said that theology was simply the application of grammar to the words of Scripture. I was impressed when I first encountered this quote in college. It is also significantly mistaken. Melanchthon didn't understand that the meaning of words is a function of how they are being used at the time they are used. Accordingly, you can't fully understand a word of the Bible for what it really meant without knowing something about the world that used those words at the time.

Melanchthon was thus a "pre-reflective" interpreter, as to a great extent were Luther and Calvin. They were brilliant at the world "within" the text. But they were significantly blind to how the world "behind" the text affected its meaning. Luther's idea that "Scripture interprets Scripture" is a tell because it reveals that Luther didn't fully understand that the context of each book of the Bible is different and thus that the words of one book may not mean the same thing as the words of another. They saw the meaning of the Bible as static without much awareness of the movement of revelation.

Wesley was also pre-reflective. Yes, he knew Bengel, and Bengel was one of the first to begin to read the Bible in three dimensions. But many of Wesley's interpretations seemed obviously out of context to me even when I had just learned inductive Bible study at Asbury (e.g., his interpretation of Matthew 5:48, which was based on how he understood perfection rather than how the context seems to understand it).

3. My dear friend Keith Drury and I had some interesting exchanges about how some idealize Wesley. I think some Methodists especially do this. Growing up in the American holiness movement, we did not feel as tied to him. I once told Keith that Wesley was like our grandfather. Most of us do not treat our grandfather -- or even our father's thought as inerrant. Drury remarked, "He's more like our great-grandfather."

Of course, The Wesleyan Church's beliefs are dictated by the current Discipline, not the sermons or practices of Wesley, not the beliefs of the Wesleyan Methodist or Pilgrim Holiness Church, not even the 1968 Discipline. At the same time, at least on a popular level, we have drunk deeply from the "baptistification of America," as Martin Marty put it. There are probably ways in which our detachment from Wesley has made us more susceptible to the ebbs and flow of American religious culture.

With all this in mind, I start this journey through the story of Wesleyan ideology. It would be helpful if we knew the winds that have blown us to where we are. Then we will less likely mistake them for the Bible or the Spirit. On the other hand, some of those winds may actually have come from the Spirit. It will be easier for us to decide if we are aware of them.

Thus starts the journey...

The Weeks in Review

1. It's been three weeks now since my mother passed. She lived a long, good life and her passing was peaceful. It's more just weird. This morning at 11 is a show she used to listen to called Tinyberg Tales. I won't be calling to ask how it went.

The readership of my reflections on her life was surprising. It helped to have some notes from her early years. I may combine them with the notes from my dad's life. Together their lives covered a century, 1924-2024. I don't expect a large audience of buyers. :-)

2. I've had a lot of success on YouTube with Hebrew, so I wrote a book that took the approach I had used at Wesley Seminary and presented it in book form. It goes with a Udemy course I created in parallel. I have only promoted it on YouTube because the women in ministry/leadership book has been doing well (for me) with Facebook advertising so I didn't want to taint that well. First real "success" I've had with Facebook advertising, although I'm only making a few dollars a day when all is said and done.

3. In early July I made my yearly trip to Silver Lake Camp to be the Bible teacher (alongside none other than A.J. Thomas). We went through the book of Acts this year. I'm convinced that my sense of Acts (and in fact many parts of the Bible) would be interesting to a lot of people if I could find the right way to present it. I've had this blog since 2004 and of course any number of people have engaged it, but it has not had a broad punch -- not when you think of the likes of Nijay Gupta or Michael Bird or James McGrath.

I did start a new project this morning (not another one!). I'm titling it, "As Told by the Women: The Story of the Bible." Most readers are women. I thought it might be interesting to write a novelized overview of the Bible using the voices of key women throughout as the narrators, so to speak. Fourteen chapters. On your mark, get set, go.

4. I do have a writing schedule, but most days I don't get much to it. Sundays, I've been working on a project relating to the book of Revelation. Mondays I'm writing some notes from my life. Tuesday is Science and Scripture, a course I teach for Houghton that starts in a week. Wednesday is how to study the Bible. Thursday is my philosophy. Friday is my family story. Saturday is math and science. Like I said, these projects languish on.

For reading, I got three books this week to read. Miranda Cruz's Faithful Politics is now out. Her book is going to do well. I also started Salman Khan's Brave New Words on how AI is going to impact education. Finally, I bought Brant Pitre's Jesus and Divine Christology. I expect I'll find it driven more by sentiment than objectivity like so many scholarly works seem to me these days.

5. I went to Oklahoma Baptist last week for a day trip. We may work on some new online courses with them. Working on finishing up the Church Leadership ordination course for Kingwood Learn. Kingswood Learn now has over 1000 learners on the platform. Five of the ordination core courses are there now (Intro to Theology, Inductive Bible Study, NT Survey, Wesleyan Church History, Theology of Holiness). You can watch and read them for free. You can pay $350 and get the credit toward ordination licensure. Or you can pay $900 and get 3 hours of academic credit.

Kingswood has been a superb partner with Campus. For example, my daughter is taking a college biology class through the partnership. I'm teaching an ethics class for a student at Cairn University through Kingswood. Their on-campus enrollment is currently small (hindered in no small part by the quotas the Canadian government abruptly imposed this year), but they train more Wesleyan ministers online than any of the Wesleyan schools.

6. Last weekend I blew through Brian Simmon's Passion Translation study notes on Luke. He's revising it because it was a little too much for Bible Gateway and they took it down, I think. He's trying to be a little more scrupulous in a revision. It is a fun paraphrase and I don't have any problem with them for several hermeneutical reasons. 

I have two main critiques as a scholar. First, he "word-fallacies" all over the place (etymology, overload...). Second, he follows the late Lamsa in thinking the Syriac is a direct line back to Jesus in Aramaic. Although he's a true believer, it's actually a great marketing device. You give readers the impression that you have a secret line to the real Jesus AND it lets you claim that all the verses and passages left out in modern translations are actually original. However, pretty much all scholars think that the Syriac is later.

Onward!

Memories of My Mother 7: The Final Years in Lakeland

Memories of my recently passed mother continue. The first six installments were:

1. The Early Years
2. The Depression Years
3. The Teen Years
4. Getting Married
5. Early Marriage
6. Fort Lauderdale

35. It was nice to have my parents visit me in England when I was working on my doctorate. Toward the end of my second year (spring 1995), I went to Germany for a couple months. In the lead up, my dad used the moment as an opportunity to revisit some of the places he had been during WW2. Mom of course came as well.

We visited Cheltenham in the south where my dad was stationed in England. I believe we drove to Paris, taking a ferry from Dover to Calais. In Paris, we have a picture of mom with the seat belt under her jacket by accident. It took a moment to figure out why she couldn't get out of the car. She had zipped up the coat over the seat belt. We took a train but didn't stop in Nancy where he had been stationed in France. We went to Mannheim where he had been stationed in Germany. 

From there we went to Munich where we visited Dachau. Then we took a train to Zurich and on to Basel and Bern, places Dad had gone on vacation while he was in Germany. For all my planning, the train from Munich to Zurich briefly ran across Austria, which was not on our travel pass. Dad had to cough up a little unexpected money for that ever so brief passage of the journey. It was a meaningful trip for dad and fun for mom.

They came over for my graduation from Durham in December 1996. Professor James Dunn and his wife Meta kindly had lunch with us after the ceremony.

For a while, Angie and I found some excuse to go back to Europe at least every other year. 2001 was the year of the big family trip with both Angie's parents and my parents along with the four kids. I was giving a paper at St. Andrews for a conference, so we all started up there. From there we traveled to Paris. It was quite an ordeal getting all those children and all that luggage on and off of trains. We got home just weeks before 9-11 would change travel forever.

Angie likes to tell a story of us at a restaurant near the Eiffel Tower. I was the only person who spoke any French at all, but I was pushing Tommy in the stroller (I don't think I sat down for five years). My parents kept saying in English, "We need to wait for Kenny to get back so we can order." The waiter spoke no English and was incredibly frustrated. Finally they all just pointed to who knows what.

The final trip to Europe with Mom came in 2004 when I was on a Fulbright in Tubingen. Angie's dad came too and we revisited some of the old haunts. We made a day trip to Munich and visited Dachau again. Angie took them to see the Grunewald altarpiece in France. I think it was the last time Mom was out of the country.

My mother was a little too proud of me. If I were to shoot someone and confess she would tell the police that I didn't really mean it. Soon after I finished my doctorate we were waiting to go into Outback to eat, and she began a conversation with the complete strangers next to her about how I was a minister and had just finished a doctorate in Bible in England. Very embarrassing!

In her later years when I would tell her what I had done on a particular week, she often assumed I had been involved in a grandiose activity substantially out of proportion to whatever it actually was. Now are you speaking there? Do they want you to be president there? No, mom, it was just a trip to Walmart.

36. Eventually they would transfer the lease on their cottage on the Frankfort Campgrounds. We had made that trip in early August every year. I think my mom had only missed one year in all her life up to that point.

That reminds me of my mother's ventures with miniature Schnauzers. My mother was not a pet person. She never had any desire to have a dog. But my sister Debbie wanted one early on in Florida, so they indulged her and got her a miniature Schnauzer named Misty. Then Debbie went off to Hobe Sound, leaving my mom to raise the dog. Suffice it to say, it became my mom's dog.

Then after Misty had died, Debbie wanted to get another dog to replace it. Not my mother's first choice, but they indulged her and got another miniature Schnauzer, Mindy. Then Debbie went off to Marion College and got married. Suffice it to say, it became my mom's dog again. Mindy died in my mom's arms at Frankfort Camp around 1988 and is buried next to our old cottage.

37. In the last years of my dad's work, GMAC flew him to Atlanta to work during the week. He would fly Delta up on Monday and fly home on Friday. In the early days, she would go up with him sometimes.

I was glad that my two stepdaughters Stefanie and Stacy were able to see the house in Fort Lauderdale before my parents moved to Lakeland. We visited in the summer of 1998. When I bought my first house on Harmon St. in Marion, we converted an attic into a room for the girls. Russ Gunsalus and I built some stairs into the attic.

My mother and father visited just after we had finished the stairs around 2000. As my dad started to go up, my mother with brutal honesty blurted out, "You're not going up there are you?" We laughed. Apparently, she wasn't sure whether my craftsmanship should be trusted or not. Wise woman.

38. As I began teaching at Indiana Wesleyan, my mother's voice was something like a little angel on my shoulder. If I said such and such, would it make her upset? Unlike Bud Bence, who wanted you to face your greatest doubts and rise to the challenge (the Houghton in him), I didn't want students to feel too uncomfortable. My far-too-subtle approach was to sow seeds that I thought would spring to life at some unexpected moment in the future as the implications dawned on them. Some of that was picturing my mother in the back of the room.  

39. In her later years, my mother was not great at facing her fears. She had some cataracts that could have easily been removed by laser, but she wasn't interested, even though her eyesight was getting worse and worse. The first day I arrived at the hospital last week, she said maybe she could handle that procedure since she was handling the hospital ok.

In 2003, her brother David died of cancer. During his second marriage, he had become quite charismatic. In fact, he had disturbingly told his brother Paul that, if he had enough faith, his heart issues would go away. Now, we believe in healing, but we also believe that God doesn't always heal. And we believe in doctors too.

I don't know if it would have made a difference, but David waited too long to see a doctor. Despite his faith, he died from the cancer. My mom and her sister Bernadine came up to help him in those last days. Unfortunately, he fell off his bed at some point and my mother and Bernadine tried to lift him back up on it. My mother crushed some vertebrae and never fully recovered. That was also one of the last times she drove, driving herself from Marion to Frankfort.

Then a few years later when her grandson Jeremy graduated from high school, she crushed some more vertebrae trying to lift a stack of plates into a cabinet. Much of her immobility in her later years was because of her back pain. For over a year, she gave herself daily shots in the stomach to improve her bone density. I was proud of her for being able to do that.

When David died a month or two later, she couldn't bring herself to come back up to the funeral. Some of it was of course her back pain.

40. My father died in March of 2012. He had a significant event about a month earlier, maybe a heart attack. Again, in the category of, "if you hide it doesn't exist," they should have gone to the hospital immediately. Instead, they went to bed.

When he had his final heart event, at first my mother did call 911. But she hung up on them. They did call back immediately of course, but he was gone. I suspect there was some fear of hospital expenses in there.

My sister Debbie being a nurse has been an invaluable help this last decade. Patricia has born the brunt of taking care of my mother, and her husband Dennis has also been incredibly faithful. Patricia even hurt her back some trying to help my mother.

I have repeatedly said that my mother was a tank, but a lot of it was just smart health care under Debbie's supervision. My mother got COVID in late 2020, but smart work got her Rendezevir and a platelet wash immediately. She had a seizure at one point in which it was discovered she had a tumor around part of her brain. It turned out to be a kind that grows slowly and is survivable. 

She has had countless UTIs and had pneumonia one other time. She broke her pelvis once. She has been in rehab twice. I think she overheard us talking rehab last week -- not something she would want to face at all. But she was a tank at 98!

Juanita and Debbie recently moved back to the Lakeland area. That has helped relieve some of Patricia's load. They also had some faithful helpers who would spend the night and help turn my mother when she needed it. Occasionally, Sharon and I would take a few days to help as well. My mother was incredibly fortunate to be able to spend her last days in her own home. Her mother and sister were not so fortunate.

I was able to be with her some in February, and was able to be with her for four nights last week. She was probably exposed to COVID Friday or Saturday, July 27-28. On Tuesday she was showing symptoms. On Wednesday they took her to the ER where they sat for four hours and were almost sent home without anything. They were basically sending her home to die.

Thursday they took her again by ambulance and the doctor didn't think she would make it. But she rallied and when I arrived on Saturday she seemed to be on a good path. I spent the nights with her. Monday the steriods had her saying crazy things. They had her on Lasix to drain fluids on her lungs, which meant she was constantly thirsty. I have to think those things were incredibly tiring to her body.

After I left on Wednesday she continued to decline. There were new infections in her lungs. On Friday she was telling my sisters to stop when they offered her water and food. She told me she loved me on the phone Friday night, and she died around 4:15am Saturday morning. It was pretty unexpected. The nurse called about 1am in the night to get permission to give Albumen, but she thought she would make it. But a little after 4am, her heart slowly stopped. She doesn't seem to have suffered. 

And so shall she ever be with the Lord.

41. I wrote a poem when my father died, so I thought I would write one for my mother as well.

'Tis So Sweet

We cannot choose our day to die.
We cannot always say goodbye.
But gratefully our time with Mom,
Allowed for us a gracious sum.

A century she walked with us.
She loved; she prayed without a fuss.
She taught us how to trust in God,
Whatever comes upon this sod.

She loved the Lord; she loved his Word.
She studied thus her soul to gird.
And when the trials upon her came,
Her God was with her through the same.

She looked for Jesus soon to come
And any day his kingdom done.
But now she'll beat us to the air,
And we will follow to her there.

We look to see you on that side
Where we forever will abide.
And until once again we meet,
Enjoy God's presence oh so sweet!