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.