RESPONSE:
THE PERILS OF A WESLEYAN SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGIAN

by William J. Abraham

The modern, Wesleyan, systematic theologian faces a cluster of three interrelated dilemmas which even an Irishman would not wish upon his enemies.

(1) On the one side, our theology must be genuinely modern for it must seek to draw on the best sources of research and information available to us, entering into "continuous dialogue with the authoritative sources of wisdom on the one hand and with the contemporary situation on the other."' On the other side, out theology must be genuinely Wesleyan, drawing inspiration from the work of that fastidious, dictatorial, workaholic, Oxford don whose evangelism, churchmanship and theology revolutionized the Church of the eighteenth century and indirectly shook the social order in its foundations. The pre-critical outlook of the eighteenth century Wesley cannot be transplanted into the post-critical twentieth century without its undergoing considerable strain and hence considerable mutation.

(2) On the one hand, our task is to be a systematic theologian, "attempting to interpret the faith in a wholistic way,"2 thus seeking to spell out comprehensively and in some detail the panoramic ingredients of the Christian faith. On the other hand, our mentor was not a systematic theologian in this sense at all but scattered his theology here and there in sermons, notes on the New Testament, short theological treatises, tracts for the times, polemical essays, letters and, of course, in hymns. Thus we are faced with the problem that in changing the task from that of the folk theologian to that of the systematic theologian we may be radically reshaping the whole tenor and perhaps even content of Wesleyan theology. In other words, the change of medium may have a profound effect on the message.

(3) On the one side, the Wesleyan theologian must acknowledge the indispensability and authority of the canon of scripture for faith and practice, thus seeking to articulate the faith once for all delivered to the saints. On the other side, the Wesleyan theologian qua Wesleyan theologian must acknowledge some ort of special significance to the thought of Wesley, thus seeking to preserve some degree of continuity with Wesley, for without this there will be nothing to distinguish us from, say, a Barthian or Calvinist theologian. Hence there is considerable tension between our commitment to the Bible, the Word of God, our canon, and our commitment to Wesley, a very human word, our mentor and inspiration.

Prof. Dunning is well aware of these dilemmas. Thus he is careful to distinguish systematic theology from historical theology and from dogmatics (understood as a study of the creeds). Quite rightly he does not want to guard the ashes but tend the fire. Moreover, he is intent not to short-circuit the complexity of the theologian's work, say, by opting to turn it into the deductive task of "organizing propositions divinely revealed in a disorganized form,"3 or by patching elements of Wesley's thinking into the loin-cloth of some alien theological system, such as fundamentalism or dispensationalism. What is especially intriguing, however, is Dunning's own positive proposal to resolve dilemmas two and three. In what follows I want to outline and evaluate this proposal.

Insofar as I understand Dunning's proposal it incorporates three distinct theses. First, the systematic theologian must begin and build on Biblical theology understood as "an inductive, descriptive discipline, synthetic in approach, which on the basis of a grammatico-historical study of the Biblical text seeks to set forth in its own terms and in its full structural unity the theology expressed in the Bible."4 This work however, cannot be done in a vacuum; it is done from within a set of presuppositions or from a particular perspective, a fact which is substantiated for Dunning by the historians to arrive at agreed conclusions. Although one can and should aim at an objective reading of the text there is an "inescapable element of personal judgment which shapes the theologian's vision" and which should be self-consciously fostered rather than ignored.

This provides the background for his second thesis, namely, that the Wesleyan theologian approaches the scriptures from Wesleyan presuppositions. Knowing that exegesis cannot be without a perspective or without presuppositions the Wesleyan self-consciously approaches the text from a distinctively Wesleyan point of view which serves as a norm for the entire spectrum of issues covered by systematic theology. The substance of that perspective is manifold. It incorporates a central focus on soteriology and salvation: "At the center would stand the doctrine of salvation conceptualized as justification by grace through faith and sanctification by grace through faith related as 'two foci of an ellipse.'"5 Around this center stand at least two other themes or doctrines: prevenient grace and Christology. Taken together these presumably constitute the "distinctively Wesleyan norm which will provide the perspective from which we can develop a full orbed, consistently integrated, coherently developed, systematically adequate Wesleyan theology."6

With this norm, the Wesleyan systematic theologian then proceeds to develop the details of his doctrinal system, using it as a source of inferential reasoning and as yardstick of Wesleyan identity. This constitutes the third of Prof. Dunning's thesis: Wesleyan systematic theology is theology grounded on and developed out of the foundational Wesleyan perspective which one self-consciously brings to the reading of scripture. Prof. Dunning gives several examples at this point which flesh out what he means. Thus he argues that a modern Wesleyan will develop a distinctive view of the atonement, will have no time for so-called "proofs" of the existence of God, will operate with a mode of reason which is 'ontological' rather than technical, will develop a doctrine of the 'essential' goodness of man, will jettison the doctrine of the natural image of God in man and will develop a doctrine of general revelation, while rejecting a doctrine of natural revelation.

What are we to make of this fascinating proposal? I find myself in sympathy with the whole tone and spirit of the paper. I especially appreciate the emphasis on doing theology within the community of faith yet doing it with a measure of independence. I also like very much the recognition of the need for collaborative work with those scholars who must pursue detailed technical questions to the limits of their capacity. The questions which I want to raise, therefore, should be construed as much as a product of the turmoil of my own mind as they are a critique of Prof. Dunning's proposal.

My misgivings cut right across the three major points which I see Prof. Dunning as making. Perhaps I might begin with the last and work back- wards. Concerning the actual content of Prof. Dunning's proposed systematic theology I find myself disturbed by the extent to which Wesley himself is ignored when it comes to the working out of the system. To take the most glaring example, Wesley's position on natural theology seems to me to be completely overturned. To put it mildly, Wesley, good Lockean that he was, showed considerable interest in the classical proofs for the existence of God. To take another example, he has a quite definite doctrine of the atonement which is much more specific than anything Prof. Dunning either suggests or implies.7

What I feel is happening here is that we are not only straying from the actual corpus of Wesley's writings and thus missing the benefits of potential Wesleyan insight but we are smuggling in highly contested if not dubious philosophical and theological proposals which should be explicitly and carefully grounded in appropriate data and warrants. The great danger, at this point, is that we work with a kind of pseudo-history, as happens when we place Wesley in an amorphous tradition stretching from Plato to Tillich. That done, we expose ourselves to further danger when we almost unconsciously use this pseudo-history as a warrant for pivotal epistemological and theological doctrines. I can think of no more unsatisfactory way of resolving long-standing philosophical problems in theology. For me philosophical issues call for philosophical solutions and if Wesley is to help us, we will only gain that help if we attend to Wesley's philosophical commitments, modest as these may be. The game can be said, albeit with qualification, for any particular theological proposal we may care to develop.

What I am suggesting here pertains quite generally to the hermeneutics of Wesley and our use of his ideas as a source of theological reflection. For any particular issue I propose that we must do justice to what Wesley actually wrote on that issue. Thus if we are addresses the issue of natural theology, we begin not with what he says about prevenient grace and our analysis of what this supposedly implies but simply what Wesley says on that issue. Prof. Dunning wants to work with much broader strokes and thus very readily draws on the work of historians like Outler to develop a 'Wesleyan perspective.' It is this that then serves as the touchstone for a modern Wesleyan theology.

This perspective has its own problems. (a) It lacks internal coherence, being sewn together rather artificially and oscillating between soteriology and Christology as its central focus. (b) It draws on one particular reading of Wesley and does not sufficiently acknowledge the highly contested nature of claims about Wesley's theology.8 (c) It too readily assumes that Wesley's theology can be flattened into a perspective for use today. Over against this, I would argue that much as we should attend to the structure and focus of Wesley's theology, we can never ignore the specific proposals he furnishes on any particular issue. To repeat my point, Wesley, too, readily gets cast aside as Prof. Dunning begins to develop his systematic theology.

I think it is no accident that this happens for how we use Wesley in our theology depends in part on why we use him in the first place. This takes us to Dunning's second major thesis, namely, that we use Wesley's theology because we must have A perspective in our study of scripture. My misgivings at this point are much more substantial. To begin, I find the references to perspective and presuppositions much too broad and general to be illuminating. We can agree that we all bring presuppositions to the text of scripture, but this does not in itself show that we should come loaded with the very specific theological framework suggested by Dunning. On the contrary, the very proposals Dunning says we should self-consciously bring to the text, namely salvation and sanctification by grace through faith, prevenient grace and Christology, should arise out of our study of the text. Otherwise we are wide open to the charge of cooking the hermeneutical books in advance. Surely these matters are the kind of central theological issues which must be pursued at length by the systematic theologian in the course of his work. They cannot be conveniently packed in a suitcase called perspective and brought along on the journey, to be used as a kind of map to keep us going in the right direction. Rather they constitute the very issues which have to be explored and decided in the journey itself.

For this reason, they should not, as Dunning explicitly suggests, function as a norm for the rest of our systematic theology.9 If they do, we simply beg the question against the opponents of Wesleyan theology. To be sure, insofar as they are true, we should articulate and defend and work out consistently the implications of these classical elements in Wesley's theology but that is the task before us; that is not something from which we begin. Moreover, if these function as a norm, where does scripture then stand? Verbally no doubt we will say that it is still our canon, but this must be taken with caution for how can scripture function as canon when we make a virtue and indeed a necessity of reading it loaded with such a precise and comprehensive theological perspective? I have genuine fears at this point that our hermeneutics may corrupt our hearing the profound riches of Scripture or theology.

This takes us right, back to the first thesis of Prof. Dunning, namely, that the systematic theologian builds on biblical theology, understood as, "an inductive, descriptive discipline, synthetic in approach, which on the basis of a grammatico-historical study of the Biblical text seeks to set forth in its own terms and in its full structural unity the theology expressed in the Bible." It might be hoped that by now I would have found something with which to wholeheartedly agree. Alas, I must disappoint you. Such a theology in my view does not exist. It is an invention of modern scholars which was originally intended to replace the babble of voices sounding forth from the systematic theologians but which has failed to materialize; even the very best which has been produced covers only one part of the canon. It has had at least two great weaknesses: (a) it has ignored the richness and genius of the canonical process by seeking to flatten out the message of the Bible into a grand 'Biblical theology' which overlooks the complicated development of theology within Israel as enshrined in the canon itself; (b) it has so ranged itself against systematic theology that despite its good intentions to the contrary, it has turned the interpretation of Scripture into either a boring, historical exercise devoid of the theological insight so desperately needed to fathom the riches of the Bible or a cloak for our personal theological prejudices.

Unfortunately modern Wesleyan theology has gone the way of all flesh in its deference to 'Biblical theology.' Due to our hurried, secretive shot-gun wedding with theology in the twenties and thereafter, we became impregnated with ideas which spurred us on to look on 'Biblical theology' as our theological saviour. It is small wonder that our theological womb has become totally barren. For forty years now we have not given birth to a single substantial monograph on a central doctrine of the faith, not to speak of trying to replace the work of the mediocre Wiley and the more competent Gamertsfelder. Moreover, the very same wedding ostracized or stifled the crucial critical work in Biblical studies and philosophical theology without which early systematic theology will become antiquated, boring, bourgeois, and ultimately self-destructive. Just at the time when Biblical research has come to question the whole quest for a Biblical theology we still cling to it for theological salvation.

We should note that Wesley knew nothing of this modern imperialist discipline which has kept us in bondage for a generation or more. At this point his pre-critical setting was a god-send. It allowed him to work much more directly with the text. Much as he mulled over the full range of the canon and compared Scripture with Scripture, he did not sense the need to run his exegesis through the mill of 'Biblical theology' before putting it to use in preaching and instruction. Rather drawing imaginatively from Scripture, he creatively integrated what he found there with what he knew to be true from reason, experience and tradition, all the time speaking to issues which cut into the life of the people of God in his day. It was this that he then proclaimed and lived and sang to such telling effect throughout England and Ireland. I find it remarkable that he never became a systematic theologian in the classical sense of that term- rather, he wrote short theological treatises where he could touch the relevant bases without losing his reader and where he could do justice to the relevant data within and without Scripture without sacrificing intellectual integrity. When he wanted a rounded system of theology for his people, what did he do? He took the thirty-nine articles, shortened them to twenty-five and sent them to America with a prayer-book. Systematic theology had its place but only a9 a kind of catechism or handbook of theology which would give an over- view of the total terrain. After that people would have to read sermons and sing hymns en route to further reflection on the riches of the canon. Even then there was no substitute for hammering out the details for themselves: after all, Methodists were to be people who think and let think.

It is at this methodological level that Wesley is our greatest asset and mentor. His judicious use of Scripture, reason, experience and tradition, while by no means original, is God’s greatest gift to the contemporary theological scene. As we follow in his footsteps, we will no doubt find that we share his theological perspective and doctrines but we also find that Wesley is at times as human, as fallible, as wrong as other great doctors of the Church. In the process, however, we will be nurtured, chastened and purified. We will be dubious of grand schemes no matter how brilliantly conceived; we will seek to ground our theological proposals in the relevant data and warrants both within and without Scripture; we will keep our ears and hearts open to the needs of the people of God where we live and work; above all we will seek the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to help us proclaim and live out what we come to believe.

It might seem that I am here hacking away at the very foundation of systematic theology itself. This is not so. What I am urging is that we grasp how fascinating the task before us really is and that we thus come to terms with the first dilemma I set forth at the start of this paper. Think of it this way. Wesley, genius that he was, sought to serve people and train preachers, just as we do. Due to his pre-critical setting he had two advantages over those who live in the post-critical setting. First, he could serve his purposes in ministry without doing systematic theology in the classical sense. He could write occasional pieces without drawing them into a coherent whole. Secondly, when he did his theology well with all the relevant data and information. After all, given his reading schedule and discipline he could become something of a Renaissance man, mastering the best science, history, linguistic study, philosophy, etc., available in his day. Why, he could even try his hand at medicine!

For us the situation is reversed. We cannot minister adequately with- out doing systematic theology. We need it in order to satisfy the craving for a comprehensive, coherent vision of the Christian faith and we need it simply because we are scholars working in modern universities and seminaries where it is an integral and vital part of a sound curriculum. We therefore have to cover a range of issues much wider than Wesley addressed. At the same time we simply cannot master the relevant data and information from Scripture, reason, experience and tradition to the extent possible for Wesley. In other words, the ideal of the Renaissance man has totally collapsed and we cannot hope to master all the relevant disciplines and information demanded by the very nature of theology itself and bequeathed to us by our heritage.

In such circumstances it is easy to panic. Cool-headed Wesleyans, however, will preserve the basic methodology of Wesley's theology, will continue to mull over his writings for insight and assistance, will ransack the voluminous but sadly neglected output of classical Wesleyan theologians of the last century, and in the light of these creatively develop the structure and details of a modern Wesleyan theology. Such work can only be done in fear and trembling. Whatever we produce, we do well to ponder the advice of Pascal: "Do small things as if they were great, because of the majesty of Christ, who does them in us and lives our life, and great things as if they were small and easy, because of his almighty power."10

1 H. Ray Dunning, "Systematic Theology in a Wesleyan Mode," 1.

2 Ibid, 2.

3 Idem.

4 Ibid., 1. Dunning here follows John Bright's definition.

5 Ibid, 6-7.

6 Ibid., 6.

7 For comments and exposition see A. Skevington Wood John Wesley: The Burning Heart (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967), 236-238.

8 For a healthy reminder of the variety of interpretations of Wesley see Kenneth E. Rowe, "The Search for Perspective," in The Place of Wesley in the Christian Tradition, ed. by Kenneth E. Rowe (Metuchen: The Scarecrow Press, 1976), 1-10.

9 Op. cit., 6.

10 Quoted in Alban Kraitsheimer, Pascal (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980), 72.