The main title implies two things: first, that there is a form of education that is distinctly Christian, and second, that there is a form of Christian Education that is distinctly Wesleyan.

Christian Education has as a philosophical base the world view of Biblical Theism Biblical Theism is chosen and preferred over any other religious or naturalistic world view.

Wesleyan Christian Education I will define as a Biblical Theism which is informed by Wesleyan-Arminian presuppositions which provide a foundation for structuring and communicating a view of God, man, and the universe.

It almost goes without saying (I say "almost" because I am going to say it) that the watershed of Wesleyan theology is prevenient grace. The Wesleyan doctrine of prevenient grace places man, even natural man (unregenerate man), as a recipient of God's grace. To be human is to be graced. Prevenient grace enables the unregenerate to recognize his need of salvation when he hears the gospel and move toward God in repentance and faith that God might justify, regenerate, adopt, and begin sanctification in him with the gift of saving grace. It is the Wesleyan understanding of prevenient grace; added to the concept that fallen man still has somewhat of the image of God (in other words, total depravity is not absolutely total); to which is added, thirdly, the Wesleyan tenet that all men, fallen or redeemed, have free will; which interact to provide the bases for a Christian Education which is distinctly Wesleyan. A Wesleyan Christian Education will be built upon this three-fold understanding of man: 1) humanity is graced (prevenient grace), 2) natural man can hear and understand the gospel, and 3) man is free to receive or reject (all or part) of what he learns. We then add a Wesleyan epistemology-the four-fold test of truth-Scripture, reason, experience, and tradition. This three-fold understanding of man coupled with a Wesleyan epistemology provides a minimal formula for developing an approach to Christian Education that is distinctly Wesleyan. This minimal statement not only has implications for Christian Education, but implications for evangelism as well. Indeed, Wesleyans have been reticent to draw a line between Christian Education and Evangelism.

This theoretical foundation has had a practical working out (though largely unconscious of its theoretical base) in the historical usage of the Sunday School as an evangelistic arm of the church. Non-believers have been taught as though they could understand the truth of the gospel as well as believers, and they have responded to that teaching in significantly large numbers over the years. At this point we might raise the question of the relationship of evangelism to Christian education, which is usually phrased: "Is evangelism Christian Education?" A line is usually drawn, sides are taken, and the battle waged. I tell my students that I do not care how they relate the two, but I do require them to give reasons for standing on their chosen side of the line. In historic American Wesleyanism there has been no problem with the relationship of evangelism and Christian Education. We do not need a Gallup Poll to inform us. "Hip-pocket data" shows that we have evangelized and educated at the same time and gotten results. I bring up the relationship of Evangelism and Christian Education because it is part of any Introduction to Christian Education course, and because we have a tendency to equate if not exhaust Christian Education with the Sunday School – a tendency not unique to Wesleyans, but almost universal to Wesleyans. And, we have used the Sunday School as an evangelistic arm of the church. Almost certainly, Wesley the evangelist would approve.

I summarize my opening statement by saying that Christian Education in a Wesleyan mode must be cognizant of a distinct theology with primary emphasis upon prevenient grace. Now for a brief response to the paper. The historical summary is excellent. I liked it so well that I read it to my students yesterday morning.

The author, Wesley Tracy, makes passing reference to prevenient grace in his discussion of learning theory, and gives more consideration to free will especially in his critique of B. F. Skinner's behaviorism. I would prefer that Mr. Tracy had given more space to prevenient grace as an "enabler" to recognize the truth. This would be more in keeping with historical Wesleyan awareness of the educational element in evangelism.

The author makes us aware of Wesley's study of the many and varied writings on education which were extant in his time, and presents Wesley as a synthesizer. After Wesley's critical study of educational theories, he picked and chose what he liked or what fitted the situation. I believe this to be a correct analysis of the development of Wesley's educational thought and also to be historically Wesleyan. Wesleyans have always grazed in everyone's pastures, but tried to give their own milk. It is especially evident at the annual meeting of this society. We also try to give "whole" milk for salvation of the "whole" man from "all" sin.

Mr. Tracy points out Wesley's emphasis upon knowledge as antecedent

to virtue and piety. This suggests a strong educational element in the process dimensions of sanctification. We grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. I earlier commented about Wesley Tracy's response to B. F. Skinner and other brands of behaviorism. After reading his comments I was left with the uneasy feeling that he comes dangerously close to overreacting against social science methodology and throwing out the good with the bad. Tracy does recognize that Wesley used the environment as a teaching tool, and that other behavioristic ideas can be read back into Wesley's approach to education. However, in Tracy's critique of the confusion of isness and oughtness by behaviorists, a valid critique' I hasten to add, he seems to leave room for the sole conclusion that isness must necessarily lead to oughtness. As a result of today's conversation with him, I now know that he does not maintain this, but I was left in doubt after reading his paper. I want to warn against throwing out social science methodology just because there are some, perhaps even many, "bad" social scientists.

Perhaps an analogy will help. The scientist may look at the universe and say, "This is what I see." Then he might also add the statement, "What I see is all that exists." He may have adopted an empirical epistemology which leads him to that conclusion. When he is observing, he is a scientist; but when he is pontificating, he becomes a philosopher. He is, in effect, a good scientist, but a bad philosopher. The same is true in the social sciences. A social scientist may say, "Men learn by conditioning." Then he may add, "That is the only way in which men learn." When he makes that second statement, he becomes a philosopher – a very bad philosopher. But his bad philosophy does not invalidate the truthfulness of his first statement. Men do learn some things by conditioning. Perhaps not solely by conditioning, but it is an important element in some learning.

The social science method of observation, classification, and prediction of probability is a valid tool and can be used by those who hold distinctly Wesleyan presuppositions.

Let me illustrate with an example which precedes even modern social science methodology. In the 1820's, a young preacher by the name of Charles Grandison Finney began evangelistic tours in which he developed methods for effective evangelism. Williston Walker, commenting on Finney's methods, said, "It was the shaping of them into a system designed to produce results that was the novel feature."2 Perhaps a few excerpts from Finney's own writing will serve to illustrate. Regarding the comparison of a revival with a miracle, Finney states:

A miracle has been generally defined to be Divine interference, setting aside, or suspending, the laws of nature. A revival is not a miracle in this sense. All the laws of matter and mind remain in force. There is nothing in religion beyond the ordinary powers of nature. It consists entirely in the right exercise of the powers of nature.3

To illustrate the right exercise of the powers of nature, Finney refers to the breaking up of the fallow ground, which he calls the preparation of one's mind to bring forth fruit to God. He makes reference to directing one's feelings toward God.4 He prescribed some very behavioral processes which could aid or impede revival. Coming late to prayer meeting was frowned upon, as was reading long portions of Scripture.5 Environment was a topic for Finney's comments. The building was to be clean and warm, and the chairs comfortable.6 There is no record of any formal social science research on Finney's part, but he gathered enough "hip-pocket" data to structure and realize successful revival meetings. Finney analyzed and categorized his experience and applied the results to his practice.

Experience has always been an essential part of Wesleyan thought. The four-fold test for truth: Scripture, reason, history, and experience, used by John Wesley and his followers gave more room to experience than any other preceding reformation theology, but always weighed experience against the other three giving pre-eminence to Scripture thus avoiding excesses which appear in some neo-Pentecostal emphases upon experience.

I suggest that experience, both our own experience of learning, and our observation of how others learn, has valid roots in both the theology and history of the Wesleyan movement, and should therefore, have a rightful place in any Wesleyan Mode of Christian Education. If modern social science methodology allows us to be more accurate in our observations and gives a higher degree of probability of desired learning outcomes, so much the better. We have one more pasture in which to graze. But, and here we return to Tracy's critique, let us not graze in that pasture only. Let us wander with wonder across hill and vale grazing where every green blade grows, digesting our nibblings in the axioms of our learning theory, giving the "sincere milk of the Word" to those entrusted to our care that they might grow in the "grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ." That is Christian Education in the Wesleyan Mode.

1 He might have gone further in his critique. For instance, if there is no such thing as freedom, how does Skinner assume that he is free to structure an environment which will condition others?

2 Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church, Revised Edition, New York, Charles Scribner’s Son, 1959, p. 118.

3 Charles G. Finney, Revival Lectures, Westwood, New Jersey, Fleming H. Revell, n.d., p. 4. (First published as Lectures on Revivals of Religion in 1834 and 1835.)

4 Ibid, p. 36.

5 Ibid, p. 145.

6 Ibid, p. 207.

© Copyright 1999 by the Wesley Center for Applied Theology. Text may be freely used for personal or scholarly purposes , provided this notice is left intact. Any use of this material for commercial purposes of any kind is strictly forbidden without the express permission of the Wesley Center at Northwest Nazarene University, Nampa, ID 83686. Contact the webmaster for permission or to report errors.

Edited by Aaron R. Bynum of Northwest Nazarene University (Nampa, Idaho) for the Wesley Center for Applied Theology.