|
Presidential Address:
JOHN WESLEY-MENTOR OR GURU?
Mildred Bangs Wynkoop
Trevecca Nazarene College
This, the tenth anniversary of the Wesleyan Theological Society, becomes a convenient
lace to pause in our ongoing to check on our compass, our direction, our purpose, and our
progress in the light of our purpose.
As a Wesleyan Theological Society we must renew our own self-understanding. We are
engaged in a big thing-how big we may not fully realize. It has not always been the "in thing" to be much concerned about John Wesley. It is becoming so today. One
of the reasons it has become intellectually respectable is that this age has found it
necessary to reach for a solution to its massive problems, and it has found a possible aid
in Wesley.
For all his diminutive, patrician size and manner, Wesley was BIG and there are growing
numbers of religious and humanitarian, concerned people who see that bigness. We were
seeing it all along, of course, and calling ourselves by his name but being Wesleyan does
not necessarily make one as big as the prototype. Perhaps, by examining him and ourselves
more carefully and honestly we may find the incentive to become bigger in ways that
matter, in order to more adequately meet a day not greatly different from the day in which
he served. But that process requires a view of the whole man Wesley was, not merely to
select parts of him. And the talk tonight is all about that-under the strange title "John Wesley, Mentor or Guru?"
Self-studies begin in reviewing stated purposes. The WTS purpose is outlined in two
major propositions in the Constitution.
1. "To encourage an exchange of ideas among Wesleyan/Arminian scholars and other
persons interested in this area," and
2. "To stimulate scholarship among younger theologians and pastors." When the
elements in this "purpose" are extracted and examined, a proper and suitable
tool for self-study emerges. Among the many implications the following are pertinent for
our review tonight.
1. The goal of the society is "an exchange of ideas," which among scholars
must be expected to result in wholesome differences of opinion shared creatively in lively
dialogue. There would be no purpose in simply repeating "ideas" already held in
common. Uncriticized ideas can hide unsuspected flaws. Controversy is the furnace in which
ideas are purified and polished into greater usefulness.
2. This exchange is "encouraged." It is important and demanded by the very
nature of scholarship
3. The goal is "scholarship," and scholarship imposes its own high demands.
It cannot be chained. It demands freedom as well as honesty and integrity and love of
truth.
4. It is not clear who is invited to this interchange, whether the "other
interested persons" are other than Wesleyan/Arminian scholars or other than scholars.
I presume both are encouraged. And that is good.
5. "Younger scholars and pastors" are to be stimulated to scholarship. This
is intended, no doubt, to prevent the "institutional dry rot" from undermining
the life of the society. Fresh blood transfusions at regular intervals are essential to
intellectual and spiritual health.
6. The major area of interest is "Wesleyan/Arminian." This presupposes that
Wesley and Arminius are important enough to become the center of attention and that there
is enough untapped resource in them to warrant further digging. We will continue to search
for Wesleyan and Arminian riches in Wesley and Arminius themselves, not neglecting
disturbing areas of their thought, or dismissing Arminius as merely the father of
"free will"-a travesty on his real contribution to the Church.
7. The society name, "Theological," indicates that it is theological work
that is to go on. It is recognized that theology is not finished. Creative
opportunities-and demands-lie before us, leading to solutions to the ever new problems
confronting the Church in the world.
8. The society is just that-a "Society," not a church, or denomination, or
sect, or social action group, or evangelistic movement. It is a working fellowship with a
specific mandate. This fellowship can be wide, challenging, virile, and meaningful. It
stands on the growing edge of Wesleyanism, reaching outward and upward toward a greater
measure of competency and relevance.
9. Finally, the unexpressed but strongly implied assumption is that all this is worth
the time and energy of scholars-that it matters.
This constitutes a profile of our task and suggests marching orders in the doing of it.
With this understanding of our purpose and privilege and obligation, we can begin to do
the thing required of us.
The Wesleyan Heritage
Wesleyans, traditionally, are not Wesleyan in the same sense that Calvinists rely on
Calvin, or Lutherans on Luther. None of these men entertained any ambition to have a
religious movement called by their names. All three were far too aware of the meaning of
the Church to countenance such ideas. To them Christ was the Head of the Church, and the "marks" of the Church were truly catholic (not Romish): one, holy, apostolic,
universal. The interpretation of these marks differed somewhat, of course. But their
theologies were Church theologies, not sectarianisms. The errors they sought to correct
were the pretensions of any human organization to usurp the headship of Christ over the
Church.
Luther and Calvin had a specific history-bound task to perform-that of defining their
reforming movements before the somewhat hostile governments under which they existed. The
question had to be answered clearly, "Is your revolt against civil authority, or
against the authority of Rome?" And the people who wished to be Christian, not merely
Roman, needed theological and ethical guidance which was provided in a masterful way by
Luther and Calvin and the other Reformers. But the very demand for sharp definition
eventually transformed the defining documents and creeds into divisive instruments that
soon hardened into cold scholasticisms which created and perpetuated wide and often bitter
divisions.
Wesley's task was quite different. He felt he did not depart from the foundations laid
by the Reformers. What he did do was to unlock the scholastic doors to allow the vibrant
Word of God" to illuminate and vitalize the cold, correct Reformation theologies. The
"man of one Book," as he called himself, added a dimension to theology that had
never been an integral aspect of it before.
The Bible had always been used to support Christian doctrine. Taking the cue, perhaps
from Arminius, Wesley used the Scriptures to criticize and give content to doctrine. To
the four classical marks of the Church, Wesley more or less consciously added a fifth. The
four marks had fenced off the Church into a sort of static, status-oriented, exclusivist
entity. Wesley opened that closed door by showing that the Church has, also, a mission. It
exists to live the life of love-Christian love-in the world; to become, in Christ's stead,
reconcilers. This changes the meaning of the Church in ways that we are but slowly
recognizing.
Our definitive label, Wesleyan, is both a mark of identification and an obligation to
engage in self-criticism relative to the accuracy of the claim. To be Wesleyan requires
that one knows what Wesley taught in its totality and full-orbed unity. Selected bits and
pieces taken out of context cannot be truly or honestly Wesleyan. This does not mean a
slavish, wooden bondage to every detail of Wesley's very fluid and investigative and
growing thought but rather a full appreciation of the fact that his thinking was fluid,
investigative, and growing and that he clearly distinguished between the substance (basic,
biblical, and unchanging truth) and the circumstance (man's opinions about these truths
and his appropriation of them) within theological conversation.
Wesley's real contribution lay within the substance of faith, the conviction derived
from years of study that the heart of the Christian religion was "perfect love."
"There is nothing higher in religion," he said. "If you look for anything
more than love you look wide of the mark, you are getting out of the royal way." 1 This vital relationship between man and God and man and his fellows
(religion and ethics) is the principle which interprets every detail of Wesley's thought.
Love as the compass towards Wesley's thought could "locate" us. By it two
questions are raised which we wish to press: Is Wesley our mentor or our guru ? and, How
can the Wesleyan Theological Society meet the challenge imposed on it by its own Wesleyan
claim? In other words, are we playing games or living for things that really matter?
8&9 missing
notes2,3,4
cannot be bound into the forms of logic and they do break out of the limitations of
formularies. Theology, including Wesleyan theology, is in some measure parochial, insofar
as it expresses the beliefs of segments of total Christendom. Parochialism by its very
nature identifies one group against another and can create judgmental "disfellowships" which divide rather than define. John Wesley's own solution
(for he was a man of amazing Christian tolerance) lay in the transcendent theme, holiness
as perfect love, which closes all parochial gaps.
When Wesleyanism becomes merely a formula, however precise, and the formula is equated
with "holiness," as it so often is, holiness, the central theme of the gospel,
takes on a cold, rigid, forbidding image which never, somehow, gets into the nooks and
crannies of the world's life where it can do its reconciling, antiseptic, and healing
work.
Christian Holiness
Wesley as mentor leads us into a biblical and vital concept of holiness. Holiness is
not Wesley's invention or property, nor is it ours. We do not do well to claim it as ours.
It is a Christian doctrine. It is a Church truth. Only in an accommodated sense is it
proper to designate any segment of the Church as "holiness."
For any group, organized or informal, to call itself "holiness" imposes great
responsibility. Negatively, great care needs to be exercised (l) lest holiness become
implicitly or explicitly merely parochial, hence divisive; and (2) lest the impression be
left that a judgment has been made regarding one's own higher spirituality and, by
contrast, the defective holiness of others.
Positively, equally great care needs to be taken that (l) holiness is understood in its
full-orbed biblical meaning-"Christian"-not merely a limited meaning; and (2)
that the demonstration of that many-splendored word include the beauty of Christian
love-Christian ethics. Theology that does not issue in Christian behavior characterized by
love is not Christian holiness(note Paul's shocking word, "If any man have not the
Spirit of Christ, he is none of his"-Romans 8:9).
It is significant, we believe, that in the earlier days of the holiness movement the
work of the Spirit of God brought people of all denominational affiliations into the "Movement" and prevented the formation of a church. Holiness was the vitalizing
spiritual energy which renewed the churches through spiritually renewed people. There was
a "holy" reluctance to pull folk away from denominations to form a new church.
It may be significant, moreover, that in this day's spiritual reawakening, the Holy
Spirit's activity spans every human organization, as if to say, "I do not belong to
any church, but to the Church, and I am where anyone is who is 'in Christ."' The work
of the Holy Spirit crosses all humanly divisive lines. This does not mean that
denominations forfeit the Spirit, but that God's Spirit cannot be restricted in His work
by any human fences. Where He is, holiness is going on.
When Wesleyanism is derived from Wesley as spiritual and theological mentor it is
possible to wear the designation "holiness" with grace and humility and truth
and winsomeness.
Summary
Among the things which being truly Wesleyan means are the following:
1. To be captured by the Word of God. To be Wesleyan is to be committed to the gospel,
which will not be bound by any man's interpretation of it but which stands in perpetual
judgment over men's interpretation.
2. To be a churchman, not sectarian in spirit. Denominations are not in themselves
wrong, but the gospel Wesley leads us to transcends divisions and establishes oneness with
all "the larger Body of Christ."
3. To be Christ-centered rather than creed-bound. Wesley made Christ the meaning of
holiness-the very heart of holiness. Theology took a seat lower than his Lord. It became a
very important servant, not a substitute for the Lord.
4. To identify holiness as love. He called it "perfect love" but explained
carefully and at great length that "perfect" meant unalloyed, not unimprovable,
love. In characterizing holiness as love, enormous ethical shock waves crash through
formal theology and raise great tidal waves of personal and social revolution. Love is
essentially relational and dynamic -what spiritual really is.
5. To live "on the boundary" between the solid past and the growing edge of
the world coming to be-to live fully and eagerly in the vitality of the Spirit's presence.
The freedom of the Spirit is not always, or only, emotional hilarity, shouting, weeping,
unconventionalities in public worship. Freedom may well be courage in battle, a life of
quiet dedication to Christ in unrewarded service, the prophetic voice in a hostile
wilderness without self-defensiveness, anguished hours-and years-in the scholar's study
thrashing out answers to human problems too complex for shallow and pious platitudes.
Freedom of the Spirit is the power to withstand impossible pressures in life and remain
true and gracious and forgiving. It is meeting misunderstanding and rejection without
bitterness. It is to love where self-vindication was once the spoiler. Wesley showed us
this in his own life.
6. To be profoundly involved with social concerns. Perfection of love includes "following the Lord of the Church in the open ways where men are found," says
Leon Hynson in "The Social Concerns of Wesley," "where abrasive encounter
calls forth Christian commitment and concern."5 Hynson quotes Carl
Michaelson's insightful comment to the effect that Wesley's doctrine of "Christian
Holiness removes the distraction of idolatry, thus
liberating a man to assume responsibility for the world.''6 So
strongly did John Wesley feel that the social dimension was absolutely essential to
Christian holiness that he said to fail in this respect was not merely neglect or simple
failure but rebellion.7
If, indeed, holiness can be a well-defined title standing for the full biblical
(gospel) meaning of that grand truth rather than a value judgment regarding our own
orthodoxy and spirituality, the term can become the asset that it was to John Wesley. If
Wesley is understood as a mentor leading us past himself to the Word of God and through it
to the Lord Jesus Christ, we can see our task ahead more clearly.
How Can the Wesleyan Theological Society Meet the Challenge
Which Calling Itself Wesleyan Imposes?
We are left with one final word. What is our mandate in the light of (1) our purpose as
a Society? and (2) our existence in this world?
1. Our mandate is to "do theology." Theology looks backward to roots, but
also forward toward service. Theology should be the vanguard of the marching army, showing
the way, setting the pace, leading into the real issues, guarding against expending
strength on side issues-wasting man-power and ammunition on battles already fought.
Theology belongs up in front leading the way, not dragging along behind justifying what is
done or condemning it.
2. Theologians need to come to terms with archiac theological vocabularies once vital
to common understanding but now obscure. They must bring into today's language the
meanings so long locked up in technical terms. The terms are not sacred or an assurance of
orthodoxy-the meanings are.
3. It is the task of theologians to bring Christian light to bear on problems modern
man faces which never have been faced before. This will require that the theologian learn
what the problems are, so that a simplistic dogma is not plastered over a sore more
complex than meets the eye. Christian answers are not easy and simple; else why do we have
a Bible wrestling for 1,500 years to bring truth to mankind?
4. Theologians in the holiness tradition have the obligation to expose Wesleyan
parochialisms to each other in order to close the gaps in the ranks. Heat will be
generated by "perfect love" discussions, but the heat can fuse the isms into a
dynamic spiritual unity-in-diversity-a "knitting together," as Paul said.
5. Holiness theologians should communicate with and commend to "the larger Body of
Christ," of which we are a part, an understanding of what holiness theology and life
really is.
6. Holiness theologians ought to be as courageous and humble as other religious bodies
who open themselves to the criticism and evaluation of "outsiders" in order to
establish a ground for serious dialogue. Without this "airing" process the
danger of becoming ingrown, infertile, and powerless exists. Slaying the enemy behind the
safety of our closed doors does nothing toward entering the arena of today's need.
7. We need to take our faith out into the riptides of contemporary life and
thinking-into the scholarly societies whose task it is to engage in biblical exegesis,
historical research, theological exploration, and ethical and social problems. Are we
willing to do the homework necessary to be confronted with scholarship and build the
respect of those who have done their homework? Biblical holiness does not need to be
defended and protected and coddled but put into the rough-and-tumble of life. The Holy
Spirit does not need a safe place to do His work. He is eminently capable of caring for
himself, and He operates most effectively when opposition is the hottest and the holiness
theologian is the most intellectually prepared. Wesley taught us this, too.
8. One of the most urgent needs is to engage in cross-disciplinary interchange. How
does holiness look to a psychologist and a psychiatrist and a medical doctor? How can
holiness be meaningful to a social scientist, an anthropologist, an educator, a
politician? How can a Christian cope with the impersonality of the computer culture-the
depersonalizing, technological way of modern life? What about holiness in a world where
the state has been given the responsibility for the poor and needy; where drugs solve the
problems of depression, aggression, and crime; where health problems are yielding to
science and the future is predicted with mechanical assurance? Holiness, if it is
relevant, must demonstrate that relevance where the real problems lie.
9. Holiness theologians must establish true biblical and psychological and theological
foundations for the ethical life. Ethical demands without a firm foundation are mere
moralisms. And this is going to take some very real biblical study.
10. Bishop Paul Ellis expressed a very Wesleyan concern to the Christian Holiness
association executive committee: "Mr. Wesley placed primary emphasis upon Christ's
definition of the ultimate demands of Christian discipleship in terms of love.... It seems
to me to be signifcant that, at a time in history when society seems as corrupt as in the
day of Wesley, there comes from several sources a new call to a biblical definition of
Christian love and the evangelical Christian's responsibility to social concern and
action. The relational concept suggested by the word love is right on target for any
discussion which moves toward the purpose of opening up Christian holiness and love as
realities which concern the entire Church of Jesus Christ in the world.... The theological
position which we take as teachers of holiness must be moved from the areas of debate
about the definition of terms into the home, the community, the marketplace, and the
personal life of the individual-in other words, the area of dynamic action and creative
relationships." 8
11. And, then, Wesleyan Theological Society theologians need to write, WRITE, WRITE-not
just tracts and devotional literature-but solid theology, worth reading-not just rewriting
the old words but breaking out into fresh, vibrant, anointed, biblical, deeply meaningful
theology-and to pay the price for the scholarship needed to do this.
The Final Word
It is not mere negativism to recognize the fact that the holiness movement has
virtually lost its voice in the religious scene today-by default. The resource is present.
The vision of possibility is coming clearer. The will to respond is a part of the
dedication to God which Wesleyanism proclaims. Our work is not done. We have no excuse for
thrashing old straw. The call is imperious OUF answer is, "Lord, here am I; send
me."
REFERENCE NOTES
1. John Wesley, "Plain Account of Christian Perfection," Works (reprint of the authorized edition published by the Wesleyan Conference Office,
London, England, 1872; Kansas City, Mo.: Nazarene Publishing House) 11:430.
2. Woodrow Wilson, An Address Delivered at Wesleyan University on the
Occasion of the Wesley Bicentennial (Nashville: Abingdon Press, n.d.), pp. 41-42.
3. Ibid., p. 29.
4. Ibid., p. 30.
5. Leon Hynson, "The Social Concerns of Wesley," Christian
Scholar's Review 4, no. 1(1974): 39.
6. Ibid., p. 39, fn.
7. See John Wesley, Standard Sermons, ed. Edward H. Sugden (London:
The Epworth Press, 1957), Sermon 52, 2:481 f.
8. Paul Ellis, "The Purpose of the CHA," mimeographed
report to the Executive Committee of the Christian Holiness Association, 1974.
|
