HISTORICAL THEOLOGY IN THE WESLEYAN MODE:
A RESPONSE

by
Leon 0. Hynson

It has been suggested that the critic lives in the objective case, in the subjunctive mood, and in the past tense. In the contemporary existential climate, the study of historical theology may appear to some to be an immersion in the past. In my assigned role as respondent to Carl Bangs' paper, I assume more the task of complementing his analysis than critiquing it.

Historical theology is theology carried on by persons in historical time and place, informed by particular assumptions and shaped by particular norms. Dr. Bangs has described theology as "human response to a divine initiative."

If theology issues from faith, theology will participate in the humanness of the response. For that reason it will always be historical, that is something that participates in a specific historical situation and community that has emerged through a particular history and which bears the mark of that history. Theology is always historical, never purely biblical nor purely systematic. The theology that the Wesleys developed as the concomitant of the movement of evangelical faith was no exception."1

"Historical theology" is a concept which is more than the sum of its parts. It is history and, it is theology, but it is more. When the Christian scholar reviews the theological past s/he may strive for objectivity through - descriptive methodology, or develop an apologetics using normative criteria. When historical theology is in a constructive stage at the hand of the historical theologian, when, as Bromiley puts it, the "observer ceases to be mere observer and becomes participant," when he is "a Christian doing theology in its historical dimension,"2 then objectivity will be subordinated to a theology structured for the church, possessing a normative and evaluative character. The historical theologian may treat theology in a largely phenomenological manner, describing its structures and variations throughout history. But, when the historical theologian is participant, creating theological models and offerings for Church, society, family, or even for himself, or, when faith is seeking understanding, the normative dimension surely enters. Considerations of worth, of significance, of integrity, or truth, will be weighed by the scholar's own heritage, philosophical stance, mind-set, etc., etc.

This is illustrated by the work of Albert Schweitzer who sought early in this century to correct earlier "life of Jesus" interpretations in his Quest for the Historical Jesus. B. H. Streeter critiqued Schweitzer's own modernity, charging him with presenting a "boldly-outlined portrait of Jesus, which is a little like the Superman of Nietzsche in Galilean robes."3

In the interests of objective scholarship some will want to employ the phenomenological approach of Mircea Eliade, or C. J. Bleeker, studying historical theologies as the parasitologist analyzes the anopheles mosquito or trichinosis (no puns, inferences, or comparisons intended). It is difficult to see that this can be carried off if the historical theologian is a theologian of and for the Church. If the scholar tries to assume a strict neutrality, at some point his neutrality will break down as he encounters ideas contrary to his own heritage; ideas evoking emotional response, or theological conflict. No one comes to historical theology with an empty head (certain contrary appearances notwithstanding).

When we study theology "in the Wesleyan mode" (for purposes of this paper, "Wesleyan" will mean an understanding and use of Wesley's approach to historical theology), both descriptive and normative styles will be used. Wesley's mode is typically normative and presuppositional.

Norms, Presuppositions and/or Interpretive Assumptions in Historical Theology

1. Primitive Christianity is more highly esteemed than contemporary Christianity as a measure of authentic Christianity.

It is now better understood that Wesley interpreted Christianity by the norms of the Church of the New Testament and the pre-Constantine fellowship. Influenced by the renaissance of interest in the Primitive Church at Oxford University, Wesley read the records of the early Fathers (through the Apostolic Canons of William Beveridge, written 1672), validated his extraordinary actions in ordaining ministers for America (by reading Lord Peter King's Account of the Primitive Church), and shaped his societies (through Moravian midwifery of course) by the New Testament concept of koinonia. His reading of the Biblical record effected a critical assessment and rejection of the Church's acquiescence in wealth and power in the Constantinian subversion of the Church. Wesley found in early Christendom a model for accenting the spiritual energy of Christ's church in a society (the Constantinian) attuned to compromise. The familiar pattern of martyrdom and rigorous discipleship was so suddenly succeeded by an atmosphere of permission. Soon the church is not simply licit but regnant. It was a case of the "bland leading the bland."

The model of the primitive church decisively shaped Wesley's ecclesiology. In his mature years he called the Established Church a "mere political institution." The New Testament conception of the church as a "fellowship" so dominated his vision that he could never come to terms again with the Church of Elizabeth. This quest for repeating the patterns of the primitive church is called restorationism in the Christian (Disciples) Church. Wesley lacked confidence in the actual repristination of the early Church. He portrayed the primitive church as the model for Christian renewal.

2. Scripture, which is illumined and interpreted by the aid of reason, experience, and tradition, stands above and judges all three.

Scripture thus interpreted determines the value and use of various theologies of history. This is most evident in Wesley's appeal to the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone over prevailing contemporary interpretations in the Church of England which were Pelagian and latitudinarian. When Wesley was charged with rejection of the doctrines of the Church, he responded that he held to the essential doctrines of the Church taught in the Reformation Church of England. Wesley described the difference between 16th and 18th Century theology by contrasting the views of his opponents with his own:

First. They [the clergy with whom he differs] speak of justification, either as the same thing with sanctification, or as something consequent upon it. I believe justification to be wholly distinct from sanctification, and necessarily antecedent to it.

Secondly. They speak of our own holiness, or good works, as the cause of our justification.... I believe neither our own holiness nor good works are any part of the cause of our justification....

Thirdly. They speak of good works as a condition of justification, necessarily previous to it. I believe no good work can be previous to justification . . . but that we are justified . . . by faith alone, faith without works, faith (though producing all, yet) including no good work."5

Wesley's appeal to the Reformation represents a decided preference for the anthropology of the Reformation over that of the Enlightenment.

3. Historical theology in the Wesleyan mode focuses as sharply on orthopraxy as on orthodoxy.

Influenced by the Pietist concentration on the primacy of Christian experience, Wesley argues that correct doctrine is a slender reed if it lacks the corollary of experience. Experience is not to be divorced from credal expression, but in its authentic Christian form (fleshed out in life and practice), it is a stage beyond the formal fiduciary framework. Wesley's formulation of the great issues of the faith is careful and sophisticated, but he leans hard toward the experience of Christian reality; reality interpreted in formal structures, creeds, and articles.

Wesley's reading of Christian history demonstrates his concerns. In 1771, he read Maclaine's translation of Lorenz von Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History. (Mosheim's history has been described as objective history6 but his designation of Montanus as "insane" suggests that he lacks von Ranke's objectivity.) Wesley wrote: "I dare not affirm that either one or the other (Mosheim or Maclaine) was acquainted with inward religion."7

4. Wesleyan theology will be processive and teleological, both in its order of salvation (ordo salutis) and in its eschatology.8 It will be trinitarian with emphasis on Christology.

5. Divine sovereignty, and human responsibility interpreted by the doctrine of prevenient grace, are given balanced emphasis. This leads Wesleyan theology to a critical assessment of Reformed theologies, to a rejection of determinism, and a magnifying of divine pre-determination which is God's pledge that all who believe will be saved (Ephesians 1:4ff).

6. Historical Theology in the Wesleyan mode will be:

a. Constructive and Eclectic-meaning that it will build its own structure from many theological materials (hopefully "gold, silver, and precious stones."8 Albert Outler calls this approach "plundering the Egyptians."9

b. Ethical -- it will be concerned with Christian lifestyle, with "faith active in love," with holiness both personal and social.

c. Sometimes, but not primarily, Apologetic-engaging in discussion with humanistic approaches (such as Joseph Priestley or David Hartley) or with theologies which conflict with the wholism and balance of Scripture.

Conclusion

To reiterate, the "Wesleyan mode" which is analyzed here has centered primarily upon the formation of Wesleyan theology through an evaluative interaction with historical theologies. Wesley does not propose an academic treatment of historical theology but appeals repeatedly to a broad range of theological perspectives for pastoral guidance, for evangelism, and for reform. Theology for the sake of theology, as gnosis for the elite, a scholastic enterprise for the titillation of theologians is entirely outside the purview of the Wesleyan style. Theology divorced from history is "like making love out of a book of etiquette."10

In sum, Wesleyan theology aspires to "express the faith of the fathers in the language of the children," to the end that the children may be God's children.

Notes

1 Carl Bangs, Our Roots of Belief: A Biblical and Faithful Theology (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1981), p. 53.

2 Geoffrey Bromiley, Historical Theology: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), pp. xxv-xxvi.

3 Cited in Alec Vidler, The Church in An Age of Revolution (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1961), p. 197.

4 The principle of the development of doctrine is not disavowed. If the scholar employs the Wesleyan theological corpus to gain intellectual and practical guidance for issues Wesley never confronted, he is surely carrying on "Wesleyan" theology. The term loses its meaning if it becomes a comprehensive umbrella used to describe everything a Wesleyan scholar may do.

5 Journal. II, p. 275 (September 13, 1739).

6 See Roland Bainton, Christendom II (New York: Harper & Row,1966), p. 118.

7 Journal V (August 12, 1771), pp. 425-426.

8 See Clarence Bence, The Teleogical Theology of John Wesley (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Emory University, 1981).

9 Theology in the Wesleyan Spirit (Nashville: Tidings, 1975), pp. 1-22.

10 Bangs, p. 64.

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