A WESLEYAN THEOLOGY OF MINISTRY

by
Harold Burgess

Introduction: A Personal Journey

On a January day in 1968, the dean of the liberal arts college at which I was the newly named "Director of Religious Affairs" asked me, on six days' notice, to become the teacher of a required freshman level religion course, "Christian Foundations." With a kind of smiling, naive joy I began, certain that I could help the students-most of them products of Wesleyan Sunday schools-to an exciting, vibrant investigation of their faith. It did not take long for the naive smile to become reshaped into a grey-spirited expression marked, in public, by a stiff upper lip. There was a flurry of "drop slips." I read one of them. "Reason for dropping this course: BORING."

As the course progressed, some instinct for survival heightened my awareness of how students were responding to my efforts. 1) A number of them were indeed genuinely interested; they involved themselves deeply in the process of the class. 2) Other students-a sizeable segment of the class-were willing to memorize anything, nod supportive agreement when it seemed appropriate, or jump through any multiple-choice hoop 90 long as these things seemed likely to lead to a good grade. 3) Still a third group simply slumped in their seats and stared back at me in a most incredulous, blank, and uninvolved manner; their papers and oral participation duplicated their body-language.

It was the third group, the blank-faced, unresponsive, mostly silent students who captured my interest. "What had been done to them?" "Why was it that these products of growing Sunday schools-schools that prided themselves on being true to our historic faith-seemed 90 tuned out, so turned off, so spiritually lifeless?" And yet, I suspected that these well-meaning schools were congratulating themselves on having turned out another crop of students into the Christian college of their choice.

Looking back, it is my judgment that this "Christian Foundations" teaching assignment, and more specifically my response to it, was a major turning point in my career. For some reason that I cannot now explain in any satisfactory manner, I was convinced that a significant factor in the total picture was that many of the students in my course had not been very adequately taught in their churches. Furthermore, I was not at all sure that they were being very adequately taught in "Christian Foundations." That is, at least, if the quality of their involvement in the life of the Christian community was in any sense a measure of teaching effectiveness. Thus it was that my desire to have some better handles on understanding the dynamics and consequences of church education (one form of ministry), and an accompanying de9ire to have better tools for myself as a teacher (and minister) of the Christian religion, led me directly to a reconsideration of the foundations of my understanding both of teaching and of Christian ministry. This introduction, then, is an abbreviated record of my personal journey in these matters.1

Reflections on Theory/Practice

Now there appeared to be a number of avenues to get at the process of reconsidering these foundations of ministry, as focused in this problem related specifically to teaching. First of all there was the possibility of reconsidering the nature of the theological and experiential foundations of the particular expression of the Christian faith to which I was a fourth generation heir. As a matter of fact I did this somewhat informally, and, in so doing found myself affirming, even rejoicing in, my own faith and the somewhat pietistic tradition of which it was a part. I chose then (in the late 1960's and early 1970's) and I choose now to understand the Christian faith through the "lens model" that our present generation commonly labels "evangelical" and "Wesleyan."

The second avenue for "reconsidering foundations," the one which at that time appeared to have the greatest promise for my needs, was to examine the interaction of fundamental theoretical components in the actual practice of teaching as a dimension of Christian ministry. As I look back upon the process which led me to this approach, and from examining notes made to myself from time to time, I believe that even prior to any formal studies in this field I had come to a tentative personal judgment that Sunday schools, to say nothing of such institutions as colleges and seminaries, did not always succeed in teaching what they thought that they were teaching. Indeed, it seemed that results were many times antithetical to the obvious aims.2

Interestingly enough, it was not from individuals associated with my own theological tradition that I received the greatest help. Early on in my efforts at examining what had happened to my "group 3" students, and what was in fact happening to students whom I was teaching, I chanced to come across D. Campbell Wyckoff's The Gospel and Christian Education. The selection of this book was in some sense a "library accident." To be perfectly honest, I suppose that the appealing title of this small volume was misleading as I decoded its (the title's) possible meaning and promise-given my particular field of experience. Nonetheless, three sentences from Wyckoff gave me my earliest grip on the handle I was looking for:

Not long after my somewhat chance, but highly meaningful, encounter with Wyckoff's thought, I was accepted into the graduate program in religious instruction at the University of Notre Dame under the personal direction of James Michael Lee. Early-on, an issue raised by Lee made solid connection with my earlier reading of Wyckoff:

I firmly believe [to put this issue in Lee's words] that one major cause for the relative inefficacy of much of contemporary religious instruction lies in the fact that most religion teachers hold one theory of religious instruction while at the same time they utilize pedagogical practices drawn from another highly-conflicting theory. Consistency in the relationship between theory and practice is absolutely indispensable for the effectiveness, expansiveness, and fruitfulness of a practice in any domain whatsoever.4

Eventually a kind of scenario began to impress itself upon me as I continued to reflect upon my experience in teaching "Christian Foundations"-and in particular upon the previously mentioned, bored, incredulous segment of the class. Suppose that a well-meaning Sunday school teacher (or pastor) laboring too tensely under the double burden often imposed by the evangelical sense of mission,5 casts about in his mind for some "effective" means of drawing individuals into his classroom where 1) they may be counted, and where 2) they may respond to his message. By eagerly seizing too uncritically upon some, possibly gimmicky, practice drawn from a theoretical (or theological) framework quite out of harmony with his own convictions, it seems possible that such a teacher (or other minister) might cause his students (charges) to become inoculated rather than evangelized, indoctrinated rather than educated, brought under a kind of boring bondage rather than set free to explore and to live out the implications (and claims) of the Christian faith.

Following the insights gained through contact with the thought of such individuals as Wyckoff and Lee, I began a conscious attempt to link appropriate theory with practice in my ministry of teaching. Overall, I found that a free and inquiring spirit was liberated among the students in "Christian Foundations"-a course which was for me a kind of laboratory for a period of ten years. Indeed, my heart was strangely warmed (to borrow an image from Wesley-somehow we have got to begin getting him into this essay) as this liberation brought a new posture to certain members of the class. Class time began to be much more fun for me; the level of enthusiasm began to rise on the part of students. Best of all, we began to realize at least one of the objectives of the course, namely, to be involved in a vibrant investigation of our faith.

Nonetheless, in spite of a gratifying improvement in my ministry of teaching, I confess to a certain uneasiness with respect to the ultimate wholeness of my resolution of the teaching ministry problem described above. My uneasiness centers on the leap which I seem to have made from an espoused Wesleyan theology to my efforts at improving teaching via an integration of theory and practice. Such a leap might well lead to a practice of ministry that is uninformed, uncriticized, and unenergized by one's theology. While I am in the mood to confess, let me expand the range of my confession somewhat. I am afraid that a leap from "theology" to "practice" without a vital connection is all too common in Wesleyan circles. Out of our desire to bring about conversions, for example, I firmly believe that we sometimes allow, even encourage, uncriticized, unintegrated, and, worse still, unconscious application of practices drawn from Pavlov's or Skinner's theories of behavior change. Thus, as David Moberg suggests, those of us who by virtue of our theology ought to rely most heavily on the work of the Holy Spirit to bring about conversion strangely tend to rely even more heavily upon practices rooted in the behavioral sciences-i.e. reinforcement, persuasion, social pressure, and the like.6 William Sargant, a medical specialist interested in the physiology of conversion who also happens to be the son of a minister in the Wesleyan tradition, cuts even closer to the nub in his Battle for the Mind. In this fascinating study of the phenomenon of conversion, Sargant details the close similarities in the conversion experiences produced by Russian brainwashing techniques, Wesleyan revivalism, and Tennessee snake handling. In a tacit, though perhaps not intended, argument for a proper integration of theology with the practice of ministry (in this instance evangelism) Sargant quotes from an 1859 "Sermon on the Work of the Holy Spirit" by George Salmon:

To gather up my argument to this point, it seems fair to hold that two major roles of a theology of ministry can be identified: 1) to develop a "linkage" between a theology which is espoused and actual practices of ministry, and 2) to establish a standpoint for evaluating the results of ministry. By definition, a Wesleyan theology of ministry could be perceived as an effort to establish this same "linkage" and "evaluative standpoint" for those of us who choose to identify with the major tenets of Wesleyan thought.

My search of the current literature of Wesleyan thought, which to this point has been less than exhaustive, has not yet uncovered any major work that as a treatment of ministry from a theological perspective incorporates an interpretation and integration of those "great general laws," the more of which we know, "the greater our power to benefit others will be." Judging from the current literature available, we Wesleyans tend to learn the facts of our theological heritage (our faith) and then live in hope that our practices will bring fruitful results.8 Of course we like to quote Wesley to the effect that our ministry is a matter of letting our faith work by love.

John Wesley's own theology, as it was hammered out during the long years prior to, and during, the eighteenth century revival, however, has the marks of a rather comprehensive theology of ministry. There was a theory-practice linkage to it, and Wesley was, "forever," critically evaluating the actual results of his ministry. In the eighteenth century, Wesley had not the plethora of theories to draw upon that are readily available to us. What knew he of Freud, Jung, Rogers, of Festinger, Bem, or Likert? It seems fair to say, though, that he held his theology with such a level of consciousness that it is unlikely he would ever have made the leap from "theology espoused" to "theory of ministry" practiced, to which I have already made confession. Perhaps we could learn a thing from this "brand snatched from the burning" who wrote his theology as a manual for ministry, and who practiced his ministry with theological consistency.

Taproot of Wesleyan Ministry.

The taproot for a Wesleyan theology of ministry is surely to be identified with the thought and practice of John Wesley. Traveling some six thousand miles a year mostly on horseback, holding conferences, founding schools, forming societies, preaching where and when he could an average of three times each day, helping the poor, undergirding the Sunday school, writing letters, journals, books, tracts and hymns, Wesley was able to state in l786, " I go on in an even line. "9 Albert Outler, adding his typical touch of color to his estimate of Wesley's ministry aimed at man's betterment, states: "This man was a eudaemonist, convinced and consistent all his life."10 Wesley had a track to run on, a track that kept him on course through an age that ignored the human wreckage that was so much a part of the scene. He saw the human hurts, to which he consistently applied the gospel as established in God's love. The result was, and Wesley regularly drew attention to results, ". . . that people had turned from their evil ways and taken up a new and good life; indeed, that people who had been pronounced neurotic and melancholic and had been given up as hopeless, became healthy, hard-working and happy."11

To appropriate Randolph Crump Miller's happy manner of encapsulating a definition as a description of the track he was on, Wesley's theology was "truth-about-God-in-relation-to-man."12 His understanding of the nature of ministry constantly kept in tension his awareness of God's truth and his awareness of man's need. Thus the doctrines which became the hallmark of the eighteenth century revival were precisely those which touched upon the God-man relationship. In varied contexts Wesley enumerates these hallmark doctrines: he speaks of "three grand, scriptural doctrines-Original Sin, Justification by Faith, and Holiness"; of "our main doctrines" as being repentance, faith and holiness; and of "the grand fundamental doctrines . . . the New Birth and Justification by Faith."13 Even if one has in mind the longer list of Wesley's essential doctrines as compiled by Colin Williams, namely: "original sin, the deity of Christ, the atonement, justification by faith alone, the work of the Holy Spirit (including new birth and holiness) and the Trinity,"14 the stress is upon the potential for healing man's broken relationship with God.

In some contrast to the sixteenth century Reformers, then, Wesley understood God in terms of a loving father who sustained a relationship with His children after the analogy of a family. The Reformers, on the other hand, laying stress upon the character and holiness of God, perceived the "truth-about-God-in-relation-to-man" to be more on the order of God, as creator and righteous judge, establishing a legal, though saving, relationship with man through justification by faith. Thus, in addition to justification by faith, Wesley championed the doctrine of the new birth (regeneration) as an entry point, not only to a right relationship with God (the righteous judge), but into the warm fellowship of the family of God. It should not be surprising that the atmosphere of the Wesley societies was much warmer than the atmosphere of Luther's or Calvin's churches. There was a recognition of, and rejoicing in, a sense of God's unconditional love that simply was not the case under the more legal system of reformed doctrine. The theory of ministry was different, the results were different. Indeed, to restate the Wesleyan understanding of the "truth-about-God-in-relation-to-man," Wynkoop argues that "love is more definitive of Wesley's theology than any methodology of the experience dimension presumed to be Wesley's."15

Nonetheless, it was the focusing of this "love" that gave form and substance to Wesleyanism's most distinctive doctrine, "holiness." As Philip Watson phrases it, " '. . . holiness was their (the Wesleys') point.' . . . The way of faith must lead to love filling the heart and governing the life, or it was not true faith."16 It was the work of a lifetime for John and Charles Wesley to establish that "holiness," often designated "perfection in love," was the essence of salvation. Holiness was both a doctrine and a point of view for their ministry. When holiness was neglected in the eighteenth century, as even then it sometimes was the spirit of revival waned. Whenever he happened to notice this waning this lack of the focused fire of love, Wesley fanned the flames by getting back to "the point." In his journals, in his preaching, in his conferences, and in his tracts Wesley kept reminding himself and the "Methodists" that God had thrust him out to raise a holy people who could make a difference only as "faith working by love" made them alive and able. Albert Outler notes that contemporary Christians are sometimes made uneasy by this Wesleyan doctrine of "holiness of heart and life."

Beyond all of the personal characteristics and formative experiences that form much of the lore of Wesleyana, and from which it is common for scholars to draw inferences concerning the secrets to Wesley's successes, it is my opinion that John Wesley was able to sustain a long life of vital ministry in large part because he was "on a track" that did not disconnect his practice from his theory. Rather his ministry was an outflow of his theology. In his own words, Wesley had only "one point of view-to promote so far as I am able, vital, practical religion; and by the grace of God to beget, preserve, and increase the life of God in the souls of men."18 Wynkoop's observation is pertinent to the thrust of my argument here:

Harald Lindstrom makes a similar point but strikes the target differently when he avers:

This practical cast of mind in the Wesleyan movement was not in step with the prevailing mentality of the eighteenth century when to a considerable extent

Wesley's way of doing theology thus did not draw attention to itself as a system. It is even doubtful that Wesley would strongly object to Outler's characterization of him as "a folk-theologian who found effective ways to communicate the gospel."22 Rattenbury raises a related issue that deserves much more than mere mention when he suggests that "Christianity at its centre is life. Wesley knew this, and discovered that Christianity could only be understood by experiment."23 There was a pragmatic, empirical, even existential dimension to Wesley that allowed him to make vital contact with his age. He was constantly searching for the nourishment for his own hungers. His journals, letters and diaries record the depth with which he was involved in the search for answers to the needs and hungers of the human family. Once he found an answer, as at Aldersgate, he turned all of his energies toward sharing his answer with those whom he perceived God had committed to his care. Thus there is no ring of falseness to his often quoted statement concerning the character of his own ministry:

Wesley's Groups and His Use of Lay Ministers

Wesley's was a many faceted ministry. Since he had no capacity for complacency in the presence of evil, his was a social ministry that reached out to touch and heal the physical and emotional scars brought about in individual lives by the political and structural evils of his day. Since he had no tolerance for bigotry, his was a catholic-spirited ministry and his "Methodism" was a sworn foe to sectarianism-his spirit was to offer his hand of fellowship to all whose faith led them to love God and neighbor. Since he had no patience with the Church's unconcern for lost men, his was an evangelistic ministry-his message was the gospel of God for the whole world. Two other aspects of his ministry, though, have been selected for at least a summarizing treatment at this point because of their close relationship to the core theory of Wesley's ministry, namely his spiritual fellowship groups and his wide use of lay persons in ministry.

Although Wesley became a very significant theologian and preacher, his greatest strength related to the gathering of his followers into small groups, or societies, where they could experience and exercise that form of spiritual fellowship that bonded them into a genuine people of God. (It could be argued that his theory at this point worked out so well in practice that his societies of "Methodists" became a church in spite of Wesley's best efforts to keep them from thus institutionalizing the revival.) Wesley's efforts as an evangelist seem not to have been concentrated so much on leading persons to an individualized moment of decision as to form "little bands of God-seekers who joined together in an earnest quest to be Jesus' disciples."25 The classical theologians wrote widely of the theological importance of the soul powers of man, namely: intellect, feeling, and will. However, it remained for the practical Wesley to organize a ministry which fed the intellect through the societies, nourished the heart (feeling) through the bands, and shaped the will (behavior) through the class-meetings.26 In these Methodist core groups it was expected, in harmony with the suggestion of the apostle John in his first letter, that their fellowship was to include one another-and beyond that to include fellowship with the Father and with the Son through the action of the Holy Spirit. These groups were almost ingenious in their power to conserve the fruits (a favorite Wesley word, by the way) of the Revival. Indeed, Robert Tuttle boldly claims, and it is difficult to disagree with him, that:

It may be that the role of the spiritual fellowship groups in Wesley's ministry is nowhere better expressed than in Charles Wesley's hymn:

Help us to help each other, Lord,
Each other's cross to bear,
Let each his friendly aid afford,
And feel his brother's care.

Help us to build each other up,
Our little stock improve;
Increase our faith, confirm our hope,
And perfect us in love.

Then, when the mighty work is
wrought,
Receive thy ready bride:
Give us in heaven a happy lot
With all the sanctified.28

Even a casual reading of Wesley's earlier writings, particularly the journals and letters written during his mission to Georgia (1735-1737), confirm that his early views of ministry were dominantly high church. From the time of his ordination on September 22, 1725, Wesley shouldered the yoke of the ministry with a hearty commitment to all of the rubrics of the Church of England and its traditions as he believed them to be. Until the time of his Aldersgate experience on May 24, 1738, Wesley was in whole-hearted agreement with the doctrine that the ministrations of grace are dependent upon an episcopal ministry. But with his experience of the "warmed heart," his devotion to the Church of England tempered in the direction of experience as authoritative (at least to the extent that he took experience seriously). Eventually, he was able to write, "I am called . . . not to make Church of England men . . . but Christian men of faith and love."29

Considerable profit might be gained by reporting on and interpreting a growing body of literature which traces Wesley's changing theological concepts of what the Christian ministry entails: as, for example, his views as a member of the Holy Club (1727-1738); his views as the energizer and overseer of the Fellowship of People Called Methodists (1738-1784); and his views as the somewhat reluctant episcopal founder of the Methodist Church (1784-1791). Sufficient for the purpose of this essay is the recognition of the fact that the drift of Wesley's theological convictions, and hence his practice of ministry, was from a high church to a more utilitarian (or sect) view of ministry. This changed perspective is surely evidenced by his use of extempore prayer, his open air preaching, his declarations to the effect that "orders and laws are not the essence of the church," and, in particular, his wide utilization of lay preachers.30

In this utilizing of lay persons in ministry, especially in the class-meetings, there was "a practical demonstration of the Priesthood of All Believers.31 Both Wesley and the Methodism he founded had a high view of the church's ordained ministry, but they did not recognize any clerical monopoly on the ministration of grace-especially in the matter of preaching. There would seem to be little argument against the position that a major factor in the rapid growth of Methodism-a direct outgrowth of Wesley's changed theology of ministry-was that laymen were commissioned along with ordained clergymen to a wide range of activities such as preaching, evangelism, teaching, caring, discipling, and overseeing. Many of the Wesley hymns-we conclude this section with one of them-were composed to give direction and encouragement to persons engaged in lay ministry:

Shall I, for fear of feeble man,
The Spirit's course in me restrain?
Or, undismayed, in deed and word
Be a true witness for my Lord?

The love of Christ doth me constrain
To seek the wandering souls of men;
With cries, entreaties, tears, to save,
And snatch them from the gaping grave.32

It is well beyond the scope of this paper to sketch even the outlines of the broad-based Wesleyan Theology of Ministry adequate for our needs in the complex world that exists two hundred years after the revival that owed so much to John Wesley. Yet in concluding this small attempt "to serve the present age" by tapping the taproot, it does seem reasonable to describe some possible benchmarks in relation to the two roles of a theology of ministry identified as of particular interest to this investigation, namely: 1) to establish a linkage between espoused theology and the practice of ministry, and 2) to establish a standpoint for evaluating the results of ministry.

In the first place, it seems clear that a critical need is to work in the direction of reducing any disjunction that may exist between Wesleyan theology and Wesleyan practice of ministry. Our propensity is, it seems, to be quite Wesleyan in espoused doctrine and at the same time to be rather disconnectedly Rogerian, for example, in practice. For Wesley, if I am interpreting correctly at this point, there was a very real synapse between theology and ministry. He not only offered a theology of love, but a life-changing ministry which demonstrated that his theology was more than a heavenly theory.

A plausible explanation for some distancing between theology and life as the arena of ministry is offered by Robert Chiles. He argues that Wesley's well-integrated theology began to be compromised in the direction of a scholasticism even with the second generation of Wesleyans. Of the highly orthodox defender of Wesley's theology, Richard Watson, he writes:

To return here to an insight which arose out of my reflection on the case presented earlier in this study,34 it does seem that there may be a tendency for us Wesleyans to be loyal to our theology in a manner that indeed approximates a heavenly theory which is not fully rooted into our ministry. Wesleyan theology, however, works best when it is hot, permeating one's mind, one's heart, and one's action. What I am suggesting, then, is that one benchmark of a more adequate theology of ministry is one which features a healthy integration of the evidences for faith and the faith itself; of the truths to which we assent with the playing out of these truths in the work of ministry.35

In the second place, to deliberately incorporate the actual results of our ministry as a primary element in evaluation would make a positive contribution to wholesome ministry.36 One temptation which Wesley nearly always resisted was to link orthodoxy with evaluation. He seemed instinctively to know that "it is possible to be straight as a gun barrel and just as empty." Thus Wesley kept his list of essential doctrines pared down to a manageable few-original sin, justification by faith, holiness. This was one reason he spent so little of his energy testing gun barrels. Wesley kept these few doctrines alive and well warmed in head and heart, then he applied them in his ministry and he expected results, "fruit." As his journals indicate, Wesley constantly evaluated the results of his ministry by observing the fruit-and he looked it over very critically, using qualitative as well as quantitative measures (but this important topic deserves another paper).

Because he kept his doctrine and practice so intimately related, Wesley could afford to follow his own propensity, experimentation, using what he knew of the sciences and the scientific method. A significant problem occurs when a disjunction is allowed to exist between theology and ministry in that there is no close check on the direction our practices may be taking us-no ready check on whether we may not, in fact, be producing mutant fruit. As implied earlier, the complex world of two hundred years after Wesley offers many useful theoretical possibilities for ministry (communication theory, behavior change theory, organizational theory, among others). Almost all of these theories hold significant potential for Christian ministry. We do need to properly examine the produce, though.

Closely related to my argument here is Wesley's often repeated criticism-a kind of justified laughter, if you will-at those Calvinists who, in his day, thought that they had "fruitfully" communicated the gospel because they had "bawled out some doctrine on a street corner." Wesley's example was to take the gospel into the world and put its claims to the test of an expected result.37 By the way, to speculate just a bit, there are times in our day when I suspect that Wesley would also laugh-perhaps in this case a kind of sanctified laughter-when we assume that we have "fruitfully" communicated Wesleyan doctrine because we have bawled out the word "holiness" from some pulpit.

To "spread scriptural holiness" is indeed a Wesleyan task for ministry. But "spreading scriptural holiness" is much more than merely saying "the right" words-it is a matter of producing the right kind of fruit. A helpful benchmark statement here is:

These things, then, are what I am persuaded a Wesleyan Theology of Ministry is, at least in part, about.

1. This abbreviated record is adapted from my chapter "Evangelical Foundations: Reconsidered" in Marlene Mayr, editor, Modern Masters of Religious Education (Birmingham: Religious Education Press, in press).

2. As one example of results that were "antithetical to the obvious aims" of a course, I vividly recall a professor who assigned a paper on the Wesleyan theme of "Holiness." My paper drew together certain evidences for the doctrine and my conclusion offered a number of plausible interpretations. When I protested my "C-" grade, the professor informed me that "C-" was an appropriate grade since I had not included a clear personal testimony to "heart holiness." He offered the option of a higher grade if I would do so, but I could not allow myself to be coerced into such a confession for the sake of a grade. I think most readers will not be surprised that my attitude toward "holiness" was negatively affected for a number of years. For readings that develop the possibility of educational results being antithetical to aims, see Leon Festinger, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (Stanford: Stanford University,1957) and Robert Mager, Developing Attitude Toward Learning (Belmont, California: Fearon-Pitman, 1967), especially his limerick on p. 21:

3. D. Campbell Wyckoff, The Gospel and Christian Education (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1959), p. 7.

4. James Michael Lee, The Flow of Religious Instruction (Dayton, Ohio: Pflaum/Standard, 1973), p. 27.

5. In my essay from which this introduction is adapted, I argue that typical foundation elements in an evangelical understanding of Christian education commonly include some rendering and division of the following items: 1) That the core subject matter content is a divinely revealed, salvific message to be transmitted from teacher to student, and 2) that numerical growth is directly related to Christian Education as an evaluative measure-evangelical churches are supposed to grow.

6. David 0. Moberg, The Church as a Social Institution (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1962), especially Moberg's insightful chapter, "Religious Conversion and Revivalism," pp. 421-444.

7. William Sargent, Battle for the Mind (Baltimore: Penguin, 1961), see frontice sheet for Salmon quote.

8. Perhaps we tend to preserve this disjunction between theology and practice by the way we organize the learning experience of ministry students, i.e., theology is commonly taught as a classical discipline, ministry as a practical one.

9. From Wesley's letter to Elizabeth Ritchie, February 24, 1786. Works, XIII, p. 52. The thrust of his letter suggests that I am not pressing his intention too far at this point.

10. Albert C. Outler, Theology in the Wesleyan Spirit (Nashville: Tidings, 1975), p. 81.

11. See Martin Schmidt, John Wesley: A Theological Biography Vol. 2, Part 2, translated by Denis Inman, (Nashville: Abingdon, 1973), p. 123.

12. Randolph Crump Miller, The Clue to Christian Education (New York: Scribner's, 1950).

13. See Robert E. Chiles, Theological Transition in American Methodism: 1790-1935 (New York: Abingdon, 1965), p. 27.

14. See Colin Williams, John Wesley 's Theology Today (Nashville: Abingdon, 1960), pp. 16-17.

15. Mildred Bangs Wynkoop, A Theology of Love (Kansas City: Beacon Hill, 1972), p. 27.

16. Philip S. Watson, The Message of the Wesleys: A Reader of Instruction and Devotion (New York: Macmillan, 1964), p. 13.

17. 0utler, Theology in the Wesleyan Spirit p. 67.

18. From Wesley's letter to Samuel Walker, September 3, 1756, Works, XIII, p. 167.

19. Wynkoop, A Theology of Love, p. 19.

20. Harald Lindstrom, Wesley and Sanctification: A Study in the Doctrine of Salvation (Wilmore, Kentucky: Francis Asbury), p. 1.

21. Chiles, Theological Transition in American Methodism, pp. 28-29.

22. 0utler, Theology in the Wesleyan Spirik p. 3.

23. J. E. Rattenbury, Wesley 's Legacy to the World (London,1928), p.58.

24. Works, I, p. 201.

25. Howard A. Snyder, The Radical Wesley: Patterns for Church Renewal (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1980), p. 2

26. I am indebted to Michael Henderson for this insight. See David Michael Henderson, "John Wesley's Instructional Groups" (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, 1980). In my opinion, Henderson's dissertation deserves to be published and to be widely read.

27. Robert G. Tuttle, Jr., John Wesley, His Life and Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), p. 69.

28. See Philip Watson, The Message of the Wesleys, p. 52.

29. Letters, III, p. 37 (May 22, 1750).

30. An excellent treatment of Wesley's developing understanding of the ministry at this point is to be found in E. Herbert Nygren, "Take Thou Authority: John Wesley's Doctrine of the Ministry" (Publication projected for 1984 by Francis Asbury Publishing Company), approximately 150 pp.

31. Philip Watson, The Message of the Wesleys, p. 53.

32. See Ibid., p. 54.

33. Chiles, Theological Transition in American Methodism, p. 49.

34. The "Case Study Method" when applied to theological education offers a potentially powerful tool for bringing about a proper relationship between theology and ministry.

35. Two excellent resources for further study at this point are: Ray S. Anderson, editor, Theological Foundations For Ministry: Selected Readings for a Theology of the Church in Ministry (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1979), and Frank Lake, Clinical Theology (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1966).

36. This is also in harmony with the teachings of Jesus Christ, see, for example, Matthew 7:20 and context.

37. While it would be difficult to prove that Wesley employed a formal hypothesis making and testing procedure, he certainly kept in mind what his goals were and the extent to which his methods were successful in achieving them. His was no aimless ministry. It is well beyond the scope of this paper to extend a discussion of hypothesis making and testing as a dimension of ministry, but it surely has its place in any complete treatment of a theology of ministry.

38. The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church (Nashville: The United Methodist Publishing House, 1980), p. 10.