GEORGE WHITEFIELD AND WESLEYAN PERFECTIONISM:
A Response
by
Leon O. Hynson
Nearly twenty years ago at Princeton, Lefferts Loetscher assigned a major paper for the
Th.M. degree which involved extension of Timothy Smith's thesis in Revivalism and Social
Reform. The task required assessment of Dr. Smith's analysis of the movement from personal
holiness to social sanctification as worked out in social reform movements in pre-Civil
War American history. From about 1960 my thinking with regard to Christian social ethics
had been gradually maturing. Revivalism and Social Reform was surely the key catalyst in
that growing concern which has continued to this time. To see the theology of Christian
holiness modeled in such serious and exciting scholarship was, as it continues to be, a
very vital contribution to the evangelical formulation of a theology for social
transformation.
For his inspiration to hundreds of students of Christian faith and history and for his
exemplary scholarship and modeling of Christian faith, I want to pay tribute to Timothy
Smith.
The paper before this assembly illustrates afresh Tim Smith's correlation of Christian
perfection and reform. Recognizing that his key inquiry has been toward identifying the
agreements and the divergences of Whitefield and Wesley on Christian perfection, the paper
amplifies the moral power which flows from the proclamation of the doctrine of
sanctification. That one theology (i.e., Whitefield's) differs sharply from another (i.e.,
Wesley's) on the temporal possibility of deliverance from the "in-being of sin"
does not cut off the kerygmatic impact and the moral renewal which flows from such
preaching. Dr. Smith suggests that American evangelicalism, presenting the promise of
renewal in the energy of the "sanctifying Spirit," should be credited with much
of the dynamic present in the revolutionary quest for "a republic of virtue." In
other words, the preaching of the doctrine of the sanctifying Spirit, whether in the
modified Calvinism (or modified Wesleyanism) of Whitefield, or the Wesleyan drive "to
reform the nation, and especially the Church" brought about a new moral atmosphere
which pervaded eighteenth century American society.
Dr. Smith indicates that as Whitefield preached in America and interacted with other
evangelical leaders, "the doctrine of the sanctifying Spirit thus became crucial to
the evangelical awakening." (page 67). On the basis of his analysis in the paper, we
may be cautioned not to restrict that doctrine to its Wesleyan forms, but to recognize its
varied expressions in the preaching of Wesley, Whitefield, and others. Smith's frequent
emphasis on "the sanctifying Spirit" as a description of the Wesleyan position
is here broadened. That Whitefield was one with Wesley in affirming a subjective
experience of sanctification in regeneration is cogently argued in the paper.
Dr. Smith has reasserted here, what he so helpfully demonstrated in Revivalism and
Social Reform, that the theology of perfection evokes social change and structural
renewal. Two questions may be raised. First, what are the ethical differences in a
doctrine of the sanctifying Spirit which stops short of full deliverance from the bias of
original sin? Second, how will these differences be fleshed out in social reform? The
"simplicity of intention and purity of affection" affirmed in Wesley's doctrine
of perfection surely possesses the seeds of a higher moral impact on church and society.
The pure in heart know a quality of single minded commitment to God and humanity which
makes their presence in the world to be a fresh display of Christ's holy influence. If the
heart is pure, the vision of God will be discerned by the world in which we move. In the
strength of that purity, we are salt and light which carry out their own preserving and
purifying work, frequently in unobtrusive ways.
The doctrine of perfection incorporates an ethics of promise and fulfillment. The pure
in heart anticipate the moral transformation of their world because they understand that
purity means wholeness, health, freedom from the divided spirit which siphons away the
spiritual force of our lives. To paraphrase certain nineteenth century Methodists, we
believe that the nation and the church may be reformed by the preaching and the exemplary
presentation of holiness.
At the minimal level we recognize a difference in the moral force in the
"entirely" sanctified as they impact their homes, and cities and nations.
To this point my response is related to the latter part of the essay. I wish now to
summarize the first part by making several statements which deal with areas of agreement
and disagreement between Wesley and Whitefield on issues directly relating to
sanctification. Some of these represent initial agreements which were subsequently
modified.
Points of Agreement
1. No sinless perfection is possible in this life (non posse non peccare).
2. The norm and expectation for the Christian life is holy, not sinful, living.
3. This means subjective, personal holiness in the life of the regenerate.
4. The dominion of sin is broken in the regenerate by the power of the sanctifying
Spirit.
5. The regenerate may avoid willful sin (posse non peccare). See Whitefield's
"Marks of the New Birth" in the essay, pp. 67f, including footnote 20.
6. Both hold an ontological or substantialist definition of original sin. They agree
with the Church of England that the "corruption of sin remains in the
regenerate." Thirty Nine Articles, Art. 9.
Disagreement
Whitefield argues that there is no deliverance from the "in-being" of sin in
this life. He professes to struggle with "indwelling sin day by day."1 J. R. Andrews has cited one expression of that struggle:
Punctual himself, he was strict in exacting this quality from others: nothing annoyed
him so much as to have to wait for meals; a delay of even a few minutes he considered a
great fault. In this matter he was often extremely irritable, but his anger was soon over
and his regret at it often expressed. One day having been very angry with his servant for
a want of punctuality and so hurt her feelings, he burst into tears and exclaimed, "I
shall live to be a poor peevish old man, and everybody will be tired of me." This
infirmity of temper he often regretted to his friends. "I have nothing to disturb my
joy in God," he wrote on one occasion, "but the disorder of my passions; were
these once brought into proper subjection to Divine grace, well would it be with me and
happy should I be; but so long must my heart be like the troubled sea, and so long must I
consequently be unhappy.2
Trends
From a point of agreement on the nature of original sin and the sanctification wrought
in the new birth by the Holy Spirit.
1. Whitefield, both theologically and in personal experience, moves toward a Reformed
theology of imputed righteousness which subsequently is modified toward his earlier
emphasis on subjective holiness in the regenerate. However, while Whitefield's gravitation
to a Reformed position is clearly detailed, his subsequent movement in the direction of
his earlier, more Wesleyan, stance is less apparent. Wesley's Sermon at Whitefield's
funeral is cited to affirm that he and Whitefield "had never differed on the great
doctrine that the gift of the Holy Spirit in the experience of regeneration and his
continuing presence thereafter delivered believers from the power as well as the guilt of
sin, enabling them to "walk as Christ also walked." (p. 74). This does not seem
consistent with Whitefield's lament that he had "fallen into sin often." (p.
71). How do we reconcile the disparity between Wesley's affirmation of Whitefield's
theology and Whitefield's own admission of deviation? Was it the neutralizing influence of
the location of Wesley's sermon, i.e., delivered at the funeral sermon for Whitefield in
Whitefield's church? Was Wesley deliberately playing down their decisive differences in
the interest of a ministry of healing mandated by the death of the great pastor of the
flock? In the funeral sermon Wesley surely stressed the deliverance of believers
"from the power as well as the guilt of sin." Whitefield had once agreed to that
claim, but it is not certain, judging from the paper, that he held to it as forthrightly
at the end of his ministry. Smith's laudatory comment concerning Whitefield's
"doctrine of the new birth so exalted that it resembles [what was wrongly thought to
be] Wesley's teaching about sanctification," obviously describes Whitetfeld in
1739-1740, but it seems less evident in the later Whitefield.
2. Wesley moves to the doctrine of a second grace with its corollaries of deliverance
from indwelling sin, and its restriction or qualification of purity of intention, not
expression (or execution).
Problems
Whitefield misunderstood Wesley's doctrine of Christian perfection. He identified it as
sinless perfection. This misunderstanding may have been sustained by Whitefield:
1. Because Wesley failed to clarify it? Irwin Reist implies that Wesley failed to give
prompt attention to clearing up the confusion in Whitefield's mind: "Perhaps if
Wesley earlier had emphasized to Whitefield the concept of love, the instrumentality of
faith (which both he and Whitefield taught was the gift of God), the necessity of
continual growth, and the privilege of a second crisis experience after the new birth, the
latter might have been able to accept the Wesleyan exposition of sanctification."3
2. Because the two were widely separated during these years, Whitefield in America
coming into frequent fellowship with Calvinistic preachers like the Tennents, while Wesley
was laboring in England. The occasions for adequate clarification seem too limited.
Whitefield became as confirmed in his views as Wesley in his.
3. Because some of the Methodists affirmed a deliverance which made sin impossible.
Dallimore cites Whitefield's conversation with Edward Nowers in which the latter professed
it "impossible for him to sin."4 A letter to Wesley dated
11 September 1747 demonstrates Whitefield's belief that the Wesleys had taught sinless
perfection although they were becoming "more moderate."5 By
1763, according to Dallimore, Charles Wesley gave evidence of a gradual weakening in his
view of Christian perfection,6 that is, sinless perfection.
Conclusion
All of us are indebted to Timothy Smith for his demonstration of Whitefield's
commitment to the life of the Spirit in the believer. Given the usual conception of
Whitefield's consistent adherence to Calvinism on the question of imputed righteousness,
it is helpful to recognize the way in which Whitefield wrestled with Scripture, and both
early and late affirmed a theology which was close to Wesley's.
Notes
1See Whitefield's Letter CLXIX to the Rev. Mr. J. W. Works I, p.
156 cited by Irwin W. Reist, "John Wesley and George Whitefield: A Study in the
Integrity of Two Theologies of Grace." The Evangelical Quarterly XLVII, (1975), p.
31.
2J. R. Andrews, The Life of George Whitefield (London: Marshall
Morgan and Scott, (n.d.), p. 117.
3Reist, p. 32. By "earlier" Reist is referring to
Wesley's clarification several decades later.
4Cited by Arnold Dallimore, George Whitefield: The Life and
Times of the Great Evangelist of the Eighteenth Century Revival, II. (Westchester,
Illinois: Cornerstone Books, 1980), p. 66, from Tyerman Whitefield I, p. 478. Dallimore
believes that Wesley espouses a doctrine of entire sinlessness or sinless perfection.
Ibid., pp. 32, 66-67.
5Ibid., p. 239. citing Whitefield Works II, pp. 126-128.
6Ibid., p. 461, citing Tyerman, Life of Wesley II, p. 442.
Dallimore's intensive research on Whitefield deserves much praise. It is flawed by the
author's compulsive need to assert Whitefield's greatness by undercutting Wesley.
Whitefield's genius is assured and Dallimore's affirmation by negation, contrary to his
larger intention, does not give Whitefield the recognition he deserves. The author's
special pleading detracts from the objective picture of Whitefield which is needed by
students of the second great awakening.
|
