Friday, March 09, 2007

Wesley, Wesleyans, Scripture, Etc...

So the week comes to an end, a week of meanderings largely on developments in Pauline scholarship relative the doctrines of the Reformation. I've dialoged enough here over time on sola scriptura, prima scriptura, etc. that perhaps I need not say much on that topic.

Basically,
1. Because the books of the Bible were written to multiple ancient contexts, they were not written directly to any of us. To apply the words directly to ourselves without further ado is thus to rip them from their contexts and falsely and dangerously apply them. We are just as likely to distort God's voice by doing this than to hear it.

That means, however, that reasoning is involved with the correct appropriation of Scripture--reasoning beyond Scripture.

2. Because the varied books of Scripture were themselves written to diverse contexts, we must synthesize and integrate their teachings before we can even say "the Bible" says such and such. This again involves a process of prioritizing and connecting that we are forced to do outside the Bible, beyond the Bible, extra scripturam. It involves reasoning.

3. My arguments this week have shown that I believe a good deal of what we think we get from the Bible in fact comes from Christian tradition. This is surely not all bad. Indeed, I believe that close scrutiny shows that Luther did not really get all the way back to the Bible in his pruning of tradition. Instead, he basically pruned off traditions from about 500 on.

Many of the key, even essential beliefs of Christendom--the Trinity, the dual nature of Christ, the contours of the canon--took on their quasi-current form in the 300's and 400's. The contours of the canon are particularly poignant. The same drive that allowed Luther to resist the book of James also led him to remove the Apocrypha completely from the canon. They had been in use up to his day at least as deuterocanonical, even if they may not have had as full a status as what we would consider the protocanonical books.

In any case, the Bible alone cannot by its very nature cannot identify the limits of what should be in the Bible.

So both in the nature of language in relation to context, given the contexts of the books of the Bible and our different context, and in the very question of what the contours of the canon are, the Bible alone is insufficient to provide us either with a stable meaning for today or a stable set of words on which to base that meaning. The so called Wesleyan Quadrilateral is thus a far sounder hermeneutic. It is, however, more of a trilateral in reality. There are the biblical texts, there is the history of interpretation of those texts by the church, and there is contemporary experience. Reasoning is necessary to process all of these. It is the roundhouse through which all the trains of meaning inevitably pass, whether we like it or not.

But all that is passe stuff I have written often before. I can't see how any of it is even debatable, really. What is more difficult is to identify what Wesleyan theology even is in the first place.

When I ask myself, what was distinctive about John Wesley in his own day, I think of things like 1) the idea of prevenient grace, 2) the idea of the assurance of salvation, 3) his ordo salutis, which was characteristic both in its "methodist" character and particularly in relation to 4) the doctrine of Christian perfection that was a part of it (as also prevenient grace). But the Wesleyan tradition has not been static, even if some of its wandering has been unconscious movement.

So most Wesleyans, as most Baptists and others, have become semi-Pelagian to believe--or at least to operate as if--we have free will apart from some miraculous intervention of God. I'm not convinced it should be called semi-Pelagian, but the current Wesleyan (broad) sense of prevenient grace differs from Wesley's somewhat in that we tend to think of prevenient grace as the grace that makes it possible for us to choose God at any time. Wesley of course thought the opportunity only came on God's time.

Russ Gunsalus had a good "light" metaphor for the current way of thinking, extending my previous metaphors. If for the Calvinist, God turns the switch of salvation on or leaves it off, if for Wesley it was more like a dimmer switch that God at some point turns up enough for us to say we want more light, Russ suggested that the current understanding of prevenient grace is of a switch that God has wired to be hot so that we can throw the switch at any time. In other words, it is prevenient grace that makes the throwing of the switch possible, but we are empowered to throw it at any time. This prevailing understanding is different from Wesley's.

The doctrine of assurance is no longer distinctive. Most believe we can know now whether we are on the way to heaven or not. In fact, I believe the idea of eternal security is a variation on the original Calvinist "perseverence of the saints" in the sense that it brings assurance into the equation. Before, a Puritan didn't know if s/he was saved until s/he made it. But with assurance now, if you know you are saved now and those who are saved will persevere, then once you are saved you know you are going to be saved. It is a kind of one point Calvinism without the logical basis!

My sense is also that most Wesleyans have become very tentative about Christian perfection as an instantaneous experience. Here let me suggest that the following components of Wesley's soteriology remain essential Wesleyanism:

1. The importance of imparted righteousness in the life of the believer. In other words, Wesleyans in the broad sense continue to emphasize the need for victory over sin and the power of God to make it possible.

2. The possibility of losing one's assured salvation. Wesleyans continue to have a sense of sin as a matter of a relationship with God, a relationship that can be offended, broken, and even restored again.

3. Although you don't hear much preaching on sin natures and such these days, Wesleyans would continue to preach the need for entire consecration of oneself to God. And along with this, I think most Wesleyans would still agree that you can not only win over temptation, but you can like it. In other words, that you can be oriented toward doing the right thing rather than sinning.

Beyond soteriology, let me also add that

4. The Wesleyan tradition has increasingly seized on Wesley's method of using Scripture, summarized by Albert Outler as Wesley's Quadrilateral. This is a keeper. Wesley wouldn't have put it quite this way, but we can see him more objectively now than he could have in his day and categories.

This may seem like a watered down list of Wesley-an characteristics. As others have posed, it is a legitimate question as to whether we can even speak of an essence of Wesleyan theology without referencing Calvin and Augustine, to where Wesley's theology is a tweak rather than a free-standing theology. This suggestion bugs me. Chris Bounds also pointed out to me yesterday that my descriptions of Paul might actually be closer to the Eastern Orthodox tradition than to Wesley himself, which also bugs me.

So how might we describe a Wesley-an theology that is systematic in its own right today, not as a variation on Calvinism? I wonder if one direction such a theology might take is a somewhat pragmatist turn, one that fits with the death of conventional metaphysics. Wesleyan theology seems well suited in flavor to make certain theological statements that are in potential tension with each other but which we do not logically try to resolve, assuming the resolution of the tensions is in God.

1. God offers the opportunity of faith to all persons.
2. Those who have faith are elect of God, predestined by Him.
3. The default state of all humans is one of separation from God and the end thereof is death in the dual sense.
4. God's justification of those with faith is gracious and not by any obligation on His part.
5. Reconciliation with God is only possible on the basis of the atoning death of Christ.
6. God empowers those in Christ and thus expects fulfillment of his core ("moral") law thereafter.
7. Continued willful sin after adoption as God's child endangers one's relationship with God and can break it if one wrongs God enough.
8. Final justification will be based on the status of one's relationship with God on the Day of Judgment.

These bald affirmations raise all sorts of other questions, questions that have spawned the "mythologies" of various Christian traditions about natures and such. But it seems particularly appropriate in a postmodern age--and quite amenable to Wesley's practical nature--to leave the gaps.

Any suggestions?

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Ken.. I have enjoyed your theological reflections. The questions I have are these. You said "that God justifies those with faith," which is a standard Wesleyan and Reformed understanding. I have always wondered why one will have the faith to be justified and someone else will not. Where does justifying faith come from? From the Holy Spirit and prevenient grace I think you would say. If someone does not muster up enough faith or fails to respond in a positive way to God's offer of grace, where is the breakdown? Are some individuals more depraved, posses less intrinsic goodness, less intelligence or born more foolish than others? Why did you and I choose to receive Christ and many we know reject him? I guess it is better to say that if someone dies having refused to receive grace, we can blame that individual for his own damnation. But to blame God for not choosing or electing someone offends us. I think leaving the choice to depraved people who are by default inclined to sin and resistant to God also sounds unkind. This question has caused me to lean more Calvinistic in the last 5 or 6 years. I asked Chris Bounds about this last year and I would like to hear your comments.

Also, Wesleyan "eternal insecurity" sounds to much like car insurance. To many violations and you get cancelled out. I think God is more involved in keeping us in fellowship with Him instead of leaving it up to us to maintain a good driving, I mean living record.

Ken Schenck said...

I deliberately left the prevenient grace, irresistible grace issue out of the final list because it's where we begin to fill in the gaps and run the most risk of skewing the basics. Free will is easy to affirm until you begin to think about the way the brain works and realize how determined our wills really are as a by product of brain structure meets body and world. If true free will exists in some way, I believe we would have to consider it a miracle of God's intervention.

In terms of security, I think we should think of God in terms of a very patient husband or wife. Issues of His honor surely come into play at some point, but I wouldn't say in any way that there is insecurity. God's not looking to get out of the relationship.

My thoughts... Yours?

Anonymous said...

Ken, the brain structure and free will diversion was merely a cleaver way of side-stepping the issue. I have found that Wesleyan theologians don't want to deal with this issue. Maybe it is irrelevant and skews the basics. The origin of effectual saving faith has always been a question for me and Wesleyans have never answered it to my satisfaction. Reformed theology seems to at least have a reasonable response. Maybe I should leave you guys alone. Semi-Pelagianism is the only explanation I think is available for the Wesleyan and I have big problems with it.

You are right, God is not looking to get out of the relationship. The work of regeneration and sanctification is his plan for keeping us in. You guys at IWU know better, but in my years in The Wesleyan Church, "losing" your salvation was preached all the time. Man, I lived in fear of being one sin from hell much of my early adult life.

Ken Schenck said...

Not clever enough ;-)

Yes, I grew up with the "one sin you're out" teaching too, and I don't agree with it at all.

Just to defend Wesley, I don't think of him as a semi-Pelagian because God completely dispensed the power of will at will. I'm not convinced that current Wesleyanism must be semi-Pelagian in the sense that God dispenses the power of will equally to all.

I can see your problem with the second, because it sure does not look like every person on this planet has an equal opportunity to come at every point. However, who is to say that at some point in their life God does not dole out a moment of light to each individual in the midst of an otherwise darkened existence? In that sense I think Wesley himself both fits our experience and avoids Pelagianism (assuming that we should avoid it ;-).

I think you're right that most pop-Wesleyans (Baptists, etc...) are Pelagian without knowing it.

But in my view, a 5 point God cannot truly be a God of love and cannot offer any satisfactory answer to the problem of evil, that is, unless he is a universalist. To me, this is a far worse answer to the equation that trivializes all the biblical statements about God's love for the world. And of course, if God determines who will be saved. And if God wants everyone to be saved. Then everyone will be saved. Only if a person is willing to accept that all will be saved, then the position cannot be reconciled with Scripture.

Anonymous said...

Yes, the "pop" Wesleyans and Baptists compelled me to run to the Calvinists. But, I will have to say that Drury's articles on the subject and Bounds have been very helpful and I can live with their version of Wesleyanism. But, no one else seems to be saying these things in the Wesleyan camps that I am aware of. I talk to Wesleyan & UM clergy and laity alike and all I get is the choice to be saved is up to me when I decide to make it.

Much of the evangelism strategy of high pressure decisions, guilt inducement and emotional pleas that seems to be designed to close the sale on the listeners is influenced by this faulty theology I think. As you may agree, many of the decisions for Jesus don't last and wilt away.

I got my fill of that in the 80's and early 90's as a Wesleyan. In Methodism it is not a problem because evangelism and preaching the gospel is rare.

I think your version of Wesleyanism is as healthy as it can get. I hope you and the other faculty at IWU can train a new generation of Wesleyans who do not follow the "pop" Wesleyanism of the past. As for me, I feel much more at home in the Reformed world.

Jeffrey Crawford said...

Just throwing my two cents in here... as a Wesleyan/UM myself, and as one who lived for many years with the specter of lost salvation dangling over my head like the proverbial sword of Damicles, I do understand this point of view.
However, I really believe that there is a great deal of difference between the possibility of losing one's salvation and actually losing it. I believe that the bottom line here is the overwhelming work of the Holy Spirit in our lives. I also believe that this is what lies at the heart of Wesley's soteriology. The idea of God somehow possessing a type of scorecard on which our sins are tallied, while frankly not out of the realm of God's justice, doesn't seem to fit with his grace. In fact, it smacks more of Egyptian than Christian beliefs.
While I am wondering how Reformed theology fits into a UM epistemology, that is a bit off topic. I'm not quite sure how semi-Pelagianism is viewed as the only alternative for a Wesleyan address of saving faith. Does that mean that if we possess a desire to be saved that we are taking away from the work of God - which could be so addressed through prevenient grace...
I guess I am a bit naive, but does it really matter all that much who makes the first step, whether an innate desire within some or a compulsion of the Holy Spirit? the fact that is most important, in my estimation, is that we are granted the absolute wonder of salvation to begin and end with. The fact remains, humanity isn't able to save themselves, a la Pelagianism but neither can I swallow the irresistible grace motif, a la Calvin. Does not a synergy exist here? If so, then what's all the fuss?

Ken Schenck said...

OAW, as usual you have so much in your comment that we almost have to make it its own post so that we can have a good dialog.

Part of my design in this list was to stay close to the surface of the text as it were. Both Reformed and Wesleyan theology go considerably beyond the text to glue these statements together. So the Reformed position cannot take verses like 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 1:10, or Hebrews 6:4-6 at face value, because they do not fit with the Calvinist glue. Similarly, Wesleyans do not typically take any passage on predestination in a deterministic way because it does not fit with their Arminian glue.

In my list I have intentionally stopped short of gluing the comments together because it always seems to be the glue that skews Paul in one direction or another.

I would agree that it seems at least superficially true that if God knows that a person will have faith then that person cannot possibly not have faith (I have to say superficially because can we really know how these things work for God?). But for me this would not at all imply that God determined that they would have faith.

If I watch the Superbowl live and then watch it with a group who are watching it on a delayed broadcast, I know what is going to happen even though I am not determining what will happen in any way. The problem in this scenario is not that foreknowledge implies determinism, particularly if God is "outside time" in some way. The potential problem for my theology is that God seems (again, superficially) to be gaining new knowledge from outside Himself. But since we have no point of reference by which we might have any idea how God knows things, one can hardly demonstrate that this is fatal with any force.

Ken Schenck said...

Thanks OAW (I always think of the UAW when I write that ;-). I didn't mean to imply that you get carried away. If they weren't "meaty" comments, I wouldn't feel compelled to respond so much...

Amanda said...

An utterly random comment: on your recommendations for insomniacs, the version of 1 & 2 Corinthians looks an AWFUL lot like the artwork on the Left Behind series...I was very nervous for a moment. :)

A former IWU student

Ken Schenck said...

Yes, the Wesleyan Publishing House has turned to the dark side ;-)

John Mark said...

Can grace be resisted? Are there any places in scripture that someone was offered saving grace, and by that implication election, and refused it? It may be difficult, if not impossible to know if someone who needed to have faith was not given it-the Pharisees, the thief on the cross, Herod, Pilate, Agrippa, those who stoned Stephen, most of the crowd at Ephesus,etc. But it seems to me that you must be able to prove that no one has ever "resisted his will" to absolutely buy into Reformed thinking.
I am not a theologian, but I would be interested in any reponse you might have, Dr. Ken.