A RESPONSE TO LUKE L. KEEFER
by
Clarence L. Bence
Dr. Keefer presents a convincing case for John Wesley's primitivism—a primitivism
that is modified in several crucial aspects. My question would be, "To what degree
can one speak of a modified primitivism and still retain the force of that
designation?" We might lift several comments from Wesley's writings and speak of his
modified Calvinism. The description might have some validity; however the Reformed
elements of Wesley's thought would be over—shadowed by the far more telling
modifications he made to Puritan thought. I want to draw attention to the significant
departures from what I understand to be genuine primitivism in Wesley.
For the sake of clarity let us use the definition of primitivism given in the footnotes
of the paper presented this morning. Primitivism is "a religious outlook in
Christianity in which one tries to recapture the spirit, thought, and practices of the
early Church." There is much of the spirit and thought of the apostolic community in
Wesley. Keefer designates this as "soteriological primitivism" and distinguishes
it from an ecclesiastical primitivism that is more concerned with the structures and
practices of the early church. But is such a distinction helpful? Does a commitment to a
scriptural doctrine of salvation qualify one as a primitivist? If it does, then such
diverse persons as Luther, Moody, Barth, and Falwell might join the ranks of
soteriological primitivists along with Wesley. The argument would be better served by
keeping the focus on ecclesiology and the issue of whether the structures, more than the
message, of the New Testament Church serve as a model for contemporary Christianity.
Wesley did look to primitive church government and practices to find insights
pertaining to his own ministry. But what he appropriated was the functual dynamism of the
apostles rather than the specific procedures they used. Hence Wesley's pragmatic and
creative approach to the evangelistic mission of Christianity becomes, for Keefer,
evidence of his primitivistic bent. But again, is this not a bit too general? One could
appeal to this primitive functionalism for establishing structures and practices quite
alien to the book of Acts; such an unscriptural ecclesiology might be as effective as the
early church in its impact on the lost, but I question whether it would be proper to call
it primitive on that account. Such is the case with Wesley's Methodism. Many of its
features do find striking parallels to the early church. The classes correspond rather
well with the house congregations; the itinerant ministry looks quite similar to the work
of the apostles and evangelists of the first century. But taken as a whole, the Methodist
system cannot be judged a quid pro quo restructuring of the early church . . . nor was it
designed to be such.
What is striking when we read of the Bristol experiment is the rather serendipitous
discovery by Wesley and his followers of their reappropriation of first—century
Christianity. After his laypersons began visiting the sick, Wesley observed, "Upon
reflection, I saw how exactly . . . we had copied after the primitive church."1 Concerning the formation of classes, he wrote, "Upon reflection,
I could not but observe this is the very thing which was from the beginning of
Christianity."2 Again after establishing charities for the poor,
"Without any design of so doing, we have copied another of the institutions of the
apostolic age."3 And in describing the entire system of
Methodism, Wesley said of his preachers,
. . . they had no previous design or plan at all; but everything arose just as the
occasion offered. . . . Many times they fell unawares on the very thing which secured the
good or removed the evil. At other times they consulted on the most probable means,
following only common sense and scriptures. Though they generally found in looking back,
something in Christian antiquity likewise very parallel thereto.4
Here is primitive Christianity in retrospect, not by conscious design. One has to
wonder how central primitive practices were to Wesley if they were discovered upon
reflection rather than pursued as a deliberate program in his ministry.
It was certainly to Wesley's advantage to appeal to the practices of the early
community when challenged by the established church. As Keefer observes in his
dissertation, Wesley was "relieved to find justification from the practice of the
early church for his departures from Anglican order."5 This is
not to deny that he was a man of one book, committed to spreading scriptural Christianity
throughout the land; it is only to suggest that in his searching for warrants for his
innovative measures, Wesley might naturally have turned to the earliest traditions of the
primitive church, as well as reason and scripture in building a defense for his practices.
If the restitution of the New Testament community is not the prevailing concern for
Wesley, where do we turn to find his vision of a society transformed by the gospel? I
would suggest that a study of the eschatological kingdom in Wesley's writings might offer
fertile insights. In two of his sermons where he describes the spread of Christianity
("Scriptural Christianity" and "The General Spread of the Gospel"),
Wesley's scriptural allusions are not to the book of Acts, but to the Old Testament
prophecies of the glorious kingdom to come, and the book of Revelation. Wesley's desire
for believers is that they would be a "part of the firstfruits, if the harvest is not
yet."6 In one address he describes the church as
. . . a body of men compacted together, in order, first to save each his own soul; then
to assist each other in working out their salvation, and, afterwards, as far as in them
lies, to save all men from present and future misery, to overturn the kingdom of Satan,
and set up the kingdom of Christ.7
For Wesley, the mission of the church is clarified by looking forward to the kingdom
that is to come, and preparing for it, rather than looking back to the community that was,
and re—establishing it.
However, that Wesley discovered the New Testament Church on the way to the kingdom is
not coincidental. His understanding of history was conditioned by a belief in a literal
fall, both of the human race in Adam and the Christian Church under Constantine. And
Wesley was confident that whatever was lost could be recovered as one pressed on toward
glory. For the individual, the image of God could be restored and even surpassed as the
believer experienced higher degrees of holiness and glory than would have been possible if
Adam had not sinned. In a similar fashion, as the Spirit renews the world through the
proclamation of the gospel, that which had been lost since the days of the apostles could
be regained and even surpassed by grace.
God is already renewing the face of the earth. And we have strong reason to hope that
the work he has begun, he will carry on unto the day of the Lord Jesus—that he will
never intermit this blessed work of the Spirit, until he has fulfilled all his promises,
until he has put a period to sin, and misery, and infirmity, and death, and
re—established universal holiness and happiness.8
Here is a primitivism that transcends the apostolic community—a primitivism
modified by a vision of the fullest possibilities of divine grace in this age and the age
to come.
Notes
1John Wesley, The Works of John Wesley, 14 vols. (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1958—9), VIII, p. 263. (Italics mine)
2Ibid, p. 251. (Italics mine)
3lbid., p. 256. (Italics mine)
4Ibid., p. 248. (Italics mine)
5Luke Keefer, "John Wesley: Disciple of Early
Christianity" (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Temple University, 1981), p. 286.
6Wesley, V., p. 277.
7Ibid., VI, p. 149.
8Ibid, p. 287.
|
