Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Wesleyan Evangelicalism vs. Reformed Evangelicalism

I would include in the Wesleyan tradition groups such as the following: tradition conscious Methodists and offshoots like Nazarenes, Free Methodists, and the Wesleyan Church, to which I belong. Many Methodists of course have either no sense of the history of their church or no interest in it. By Wesleyan evangelicals, I therefore refer to those in the Methodist tradition who would embrace the four identity markers described by David Bebbington in The Dominance of Evangelicalism, here presented in what I consider to be an appropriately modified form:

A Wesleyan evangelical...
1. ... looks to Christ as the Word of God par excellence, God's consummate revelation and appointed means of reconciliation of the world to Himself. (redemption)

2. ... looks to the Bible as the focal point of hearing God's voice, the fountain of Christian understanding and a sacrament of revelation. (Scripture)

3. ... views every believer as an agent of reconciliation of the world to God and affirms the need for each individual to be reconciled as an individual. (conversion)

4. ... views every believer as an agent of wholeness for all people in all the dimensions of human life. (activism)

The emergence of neo-evangelicalism out of fundamentalism in the late 40's was heavily Reformed in nature. Although some key Wesleyan thinkers jumped on the bandwagon, they were uneasy partners at times. The Wesleyan Theological Society was formed in part because the Evangelical Theological Society did not completely satisfy who we were. Nor did it or has it ever completely embraced Wesleyans as true evangelicals.

To this day, the Reformed tradition has an interesting tendency to view itself as the true church, the completion of the Reformation begun by Luther but finished by Calvin. They see themselves as the true restoration of Christianity to the Bible, with all "false" catholic accretions definitively removed. In my opinion, the Westminster Confession holds more authority in practice for the Reformed than the Nicene creed or, indeed, the Bible itself. Even Calvin in his Institutes sets his theology as an important companion to his commentary. It functions practically as the appropriate lens through which to read Scripture.

In the historical analysis of George Marsden and Mark Noll, both Reformed in tradition, it is no surprise that "fundamentalists" are defined as groups like dispensationalists, revivalists, and charismatics. But ironically, those who actually first used this word were those who combatted modernism (read evolution and higher criticism) intellectually. The true fundamentalists were thus people like J. Gresham Machen and those who founded places like Westminster Theological Seminary to combat the modernism of places like Princeton Theological Seminary at the time.

But strangely, Marsden and Noll restrict the term fundamentalism to those who retreated from the broader debates of the intellegentsia into little Bible colleges and sects where the teachings of their particular groups could continue unscathed from the broader debates of the day. These groups retreated into safe pre-modern enclaves, while the better known conservatives might be better described as anti-modern.

While neo-evangelicalism stood in significant continuity with the Bible thinking of the fundamentalists at first, it moved toward greater balance in the personal dimensions of faith. It affirmed the importance of evangelism and a "personal relationship" with God. It tended to be less reactionary and militant that the first (true) fundamentalists had been. Over time, we can speak of certain clear distinctions between fundamentalists properly so called and evangelicalism.

For example, Jerry Falwell was the consummate fundamentalist of the late twentieth century. But he does not at all fit Noll or Marsden's sense of a fundamentalist. The fundamentalists of the late twentieth century engaged militantly with broader society. Indeed, their militancy is part of fundamentalism's essential flavor.

I want to resist going much further in my analysis of the differences between fundamentalism and evangelicalism at the end of the twentieth century, and the fundamental skew of Marsden and Noll's work. What I want to point out is that there are some general differences in flavor between Wesleyan evangelicalism and Reformed evangelicalism that I believe we in the Wesleyan tradition need to embrace as defining differences.

Noll and others are at least right to suggest that revivalist traditions--and revivalism was a defining feature of the Wesleyan tradition in the late 1800's--largely removed themselves from the modernist debate. Let me again point out his skew by noting that what they removed themselves from was the fundamentalist modernist debate--they were not fundamentalists. His group was.

As we hesitatingly joined the evangelical movement, we thus largely did not bring with us the baggage of that controversy with us. We had by passed it. Reformed evangelicals, on the other hand, like Ockenga, did. To be sure, those individual scholars in the Wesleyan tradition who followed the debate were tainted with the false alternatives of that debate. In my own church, I have in mind people like Stephen Paine or Charles Carter. But as the fundamental identity of the Wesleyan tradition is more revivalist than cognitive, like the Reformed tradition, these sorts of individuals were more tangential to who we were at the time. They had some impact, but not "fundamental" impact.

The Wesleyan tradition has often debated whether it should self-identify as evangelical or not--as Reformed evangelicals have debated whether we belong or not also. It is important to point out that the reasons for our inclusion have more to do with the 3rd and 4th identity markers of evangelicalism than the 1st and 2nd. This is an important point. We joined the evangelicals because we believed in the need for everyone to have a personal encounter with Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, not because of the fundamentalist substratum with regard to the Bible. Indeed, how many in the Wesleyan tradition have even heard the term "penal substitution."

I imagine we will continue as a tradition to self-identify as evangelicals. What other sociological term would be used. But let us be clear that we do not bring fundamentalist baggage with us to the term inerrant in our approach to Scripture. Let us be clear that we do not wrankle over penal substitution--by the very nature of our tradition we emphasize the mercy side of God's character as more determinative than His justice.

We believe in the importance of personal change and personal appropriation of the gospel. Indeed, we are far more optimistic about God's gracious desire and enablement for a believer to be changed for real and dramatically to do the right thing. And we have of late returned to the early roots of the Wesleyan tradition, a tradition that opposed slavery and helped the poor and needy.

I call on those of us in the Wesleyan tradition to embrace these distinctions, these hallmarks of our identity. We are evangelicals, but we are different in many key respects.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Great post!

An excellent book (in case you haven't read it) is: Harriet A. Harris, *Fundamentalism and Evangelicals* (Oxford).

Keith Drury said...

Well put Ken. The former-Funda-evangelicals like Noll and Marsdon have tried to redefine fundamentalist and it does not fairly apply to Wesleyans. Our identification with "Evangelicals" has more to do with our dis-identification with fundementalists like Jerry Falwell. Of course Islamic fundamentalists have given the term such a bad name, nobody wants to be one today anyway.

Thanks for the defining post and for calling out Noll and Marsdon

Anonymous said...

Ken, I agree I don't think we have ever really been accepted by the Reformed camp as evangelical. I remember reading a book of essays by JI Packer one of which addressed the problems of dealing with the "Arminian Sickness"!

Angie Van De Merwe said...

If it is of any value whatsoever in furthering the cause of distancing from Calvinism, we had an experience that was hard to swallow, when we took a course at a Calvinist seminary...

As we were sitting in class, the professor asked a question, which Wim (my husband) tried to answer, but was interrupted by a fundamentalistically inclined Calvinist...As he had idenitified Wim as an Arminian, because of Wim's experience within the Wesleyan tradition...he literally attacked Wim in class, without allowing him the right to finish his thought...He labelled him as a heretic, etc...it was quite distressing...

But, then we have also had similar experiences within the Wesleyan tradition, as well...just recently, when a visiting scholar came to IWU, I went up afterward to ask as question and he said, "oh, you and your husband are "Reformed"...I found that again quite distressing, as I wondered how he got that impression, not knowing me...he did have lunch with Wim, and maybe he just assumed since Wim is Dutch, etc....

I think the aforementioned just describes what happens in "real life" whnever we attempt to label a real person and then put them in a box, and not listen to them.That is real prejuidice and it does not really give room to individuality.
That doesn't mean that we can't make generalizations concerning ideas....but whenever that interferes with our ability to engage others, then it becomes a problem...

I struggle with fundamentalism extremism, as I have had so many experiences that have not benefitted my understanding of them as being open in any way...I am gun shy, as I always get "shot"...I tend to stay away from topics which I know will bring up something that challenges the "holy cow"....that is in "real life"...

Anonymous said...

Wesleyans did not concern themselves with the great theological debates of the first half of the 29th century. Instead they were battling "worldliness" wedding rings, Hollywood movies, make-up, dancing and card playing. The only theology that was a big deal was belief in the eradication of original sin and going onto perfection!

Carey said...

This was an excellent article/post. The problem is most Christians would agree that they are evangelical. However the term evangelical in recent years unconsciously means white, conservative, republican and reformed and too conservative when it comes to issues like race and class. The Reformed Tradition has done a great job at saturating the Christian Marketplace so much that people believe the reformed tradition is the Gospel. The reformed tradition also has a great pedagogy as it relates to theological education. However when we study John Wesley his practical Christianity was less heady and more spiritual. Most of the modern or post-modern expressions of Christianity have more in common with Wesley than Calvin.

At some point the Wesleyan and Reformed Traditions need to sit down and talk abut what they have in common vs. what they disagree about. I actually view the Wesleyan Tradition as the natural progression of the Reformed Tradition. The Reformers placed authority back to the Bible and the Wesleyan rooted us in the necessity of having a personal relationship with the Lord and living Holy. You can not get to Wesley until you have understood Luther and Calvin. The two traditions don't need to be opposed to each other. They actually help each other.

I believe the Reformed Tradition grew in AMerica as a result of the various Christian Bookstores that carried Christian Writers from the Reformed Tradition. At one point the only Christian Bookstores in a community was connected to a Reformed Tradition (with the exception of Cokesbury). The Reformed Tradition just saturated the marketplace. MAybe if the Wesleyan Tradition had been more visible things would be different.

Carey A Grady said...

This was an excellent article/post. The problem is most Christians would agree that they are evangelical. However the term evangelical in recent years unconsciously means white, conservative, republican and reformed and too conservative when it comes to issues like race and class. The Reformed Tradition has done a great job at saturating the Christian Marketplace so much that people believe the reformed tradition is the Gospel. The reformed tradition also has a great pedagogy as it relates to theological education. However when we study John Wesley his practical Christianity was less heady and more spiritual. Most of the modern or post-modern expressions of Christianity have more in common with Wesley than Calvin.

At some point the Wesleyan and Reformed Traditions need to sit down and talk abut what they have in common vs. what they disagree about. I actually view the Wesleyan Tradition as the natural progression of the Reformed Tradition. The Reformers placed authority back to the Bible and the Wesleyan rooted us in the necessity of having a personal relationship with the Lord and living Holy. You can not get to Wesley until you have understood Luther and Calvin. The two traditions don't need to be opposed to each other. They actually help each other.

I believe the Reformed Tradition grew in AMerica as a result of the various Christian Bookstores that carried Christian Writers from the Reformed Tradition. At one point the only Christian Bookstores in a community was connected to a Reformed Tradition (with the exception of Cokesbury). The Reformed Tradition just saturated the marketplace. MAybe if the Wesleyan Tradition had been more visible things would be different.