TOWARD A WESLEYAN ECCLESIOLOGY

H. Ray Dunning

There are several reasons why a doctrine of the church is on the theological agenda for today. Not the least is the rent condition of the seamless robe of Christ. This concern is expressed on many fronts. Hans Kung puts it well, "Ecumenical efforts spring not from indifferentism, much though this might suit our modern age, but from a new awareness of God's desire that all might be one." 1 Others have been preoccupied with the ineffectiveness of the church in today's situation and have proposed new forms of church structure to enable the church to be the church.

My proposals attempt to address the issue of ecclesiology as a component of Wesleyan systematic theology. It would seem that in this way the distinctives of a Wesleyan understanding can best be brought to light. In the Fall of 1981 I presented to this Society my perceptions of what it meant to do systematic theology in a Wesleyan mode. The further I went in my own work the more convinced I became that those proposals provided a valid norm for authentic Wesleyanism and were firmly grounded in the theological commitments of Mr. Wesley himself.

At that time I suggested that the primary concern of the systematic theologian was the identification of a distinctive point of view from which doctrines could be developed and which could even be used, when necessary, to criticize Wesley on particular teachings. This is what Nicholas Wolterstorff and others have called a "control belief." In brief, my suggestion was that this control belief was soteriology perceived as an ellipse with two foci: justification and sanctification. This balanced relationship between the two major soteriological doctrines can be found repeatedly in Wesley's works. A statement from his sermon on "God's Vineyard" is representative:

It is, then a great blessing given to this people, that as they do not think or speak of justification so as to supersede sanctification, so neither do they think or speak of sanctification so as to supersede justification. They take care to keep each in its own place, laying equal stress on one and the other. They know God has joined these together, and it is not for man to put them asunder: Therefore they maintain, with equal zeal and diligence, the doctrine of free, full, present justification on the one hand, and of entire sanctification both of heart and life, on the other; being as tenacious of inward holiness as any Mystic, and of outward, as any Pharisee. 2

This central focus is to be interpreted in the setting of prevenient grace I through and through informed by Christology.

Clarence Bence has demonstrated that this center informs Wesley's ecclesiology. He says, "the most striking and ever-relevant feature of Wesley's ecclesiology is its soteriological focus, an emphasis that shaped almost every aspect of his thought and action." 3

Two major elements must be addressed in seeking to formulate an ecclesiology: (1) the nature and (2) the function of the church. The former explores the identifying marks of the church while the latter speaks to God's purpose in calling into being a people for His own possession. Unfortunately, some discussions concentrate on one to the exclusion of the other. But both are needed for a full-orbed picture. In a simple putting of it, the church is both a "saved" and "saving" community.

It is terribly easy to commit an ad hominem fallacy when attempting to work with Wesley's own understanding. That is, it could be argued that his views were the result of his peculiar situation vis-a-vis the Church of England. There is doubtless much truth in this but I would hope that we can discover that many of his pronouncements were more fundamentally derived from his wide-ranging theological commitments.

There is also an imminent danger of falling victim to a red herring but neither the nature of the church nor the shape of its function can be confused with particular historical, cultural or sociological forms. This seems so obvious as not to need mentioning, but it is a trap so often not avoided. It is no doubt this situation which gave rise to Wesley's statement that "a more ambiguous word than this the church, is scarce to be found in the English language." The institutional church so often identifies its structures and methods of carrying out its mission with eternal verities and as a result ceases to be a viable expression of the body of Christ. The way out of this trap is to insist on understanding the church theologically.

What I would suggest is that Wesley took the multiple traditions which he inherited and sought to appropriate them in a creative eclecticism to which his soteriological focus gave coherence. Perhaps they always remained in some tension with each other but then the via media always holds divergent views in tension-that is its genius. One truth is balanced by another to avoid a one-sidedness.

By Wesley's day, three major ecclesiologies had emerged. There was the Catholic view which defines the church in terms of ministry and which insists that the true church is in the Apostolic tradition. This approach emphasizes the objective holiness of the church and the presence of Christ maintained in the church through the sacraments.

There was also the Classical-Protestant interpretation which emphasized the Word and the sacraments as creative of the church. Third was the Believer's church position where the emphasis was upon the personal experience and holiness of the individual believers who then constitute the church.

All these appear to find their appropriate place in Wesley's thought. Frank Baker's analysis could really encompass them all even though he speaks explicitly of only two when he refers to the basic views to which Wesley seemed to give support:

One was that of a historical institution of bishops and inherited customs, served by a priestly caste who duly expounded the Bible and administered the sacraments in such a way as to preserve the ancient tradition on behalf of all those who were made members by baptism. According to the other view the church was a fellowship of believers who shared both the apostolic experience of God's living presence and also a desire to bring others into this same personal experience.4

There were also present, at least among Protestant groups, four emphases which Wesley also appropriated for his own: "living faith," Biblical preaching, the sacraments and discipline. Usually the emphasis was upon one or two of these to the disparagement of the others. One can also connect these with our particular formulation of Wesley's soteriological center and thus understand how each could have its proper place in his ecclesiology.

Three of them are obviously present in the Anglican article of faith to which he gave loyalty:

The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men in the which the pure word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly administered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.

I would suggest that while all four of the elements are present in Wesley's understanding and are essential to a full orbed Wesleyan ecclesiology, the priority of place goes to "living faith." In explicating the Anglican article he points to the fact that an authorized Latin translation renders "faithful men" as "a congregation of believers" thus showing that it refers to men endued with living faith In his sermon on the church, he uses as a text Ephesians 4:1-6 and interprets the "one faith" of which the text speaks as that faith "which enables every true believer to testify with St. Paul, 'the life which I now live, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.'" 5

This claim is further supported by his emphasis upon the Spirit which indwells, with different degrees of completeness, all persons who are of the church. Thus the church is composed of all "persons in the universe whom God hath so called out of the world . . . to be 'one body,' united by 'one Spirit'; having 'one faith, one hope, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all and in them all." 6

The centrality of "living faith" is further highlighted by his refusal to acknowledge the second article of the Anglican creed which excludes, among others, the Church of Rome. As Daniel Berg points out, Wesley's refusal to approve this paragraph is because of his catholic spirit, and points out furthermore, how he was unwilling to identify the preaching of the word and the duly administered sacraments as exclusive marks of the church. Both points defer to the priority of "living faith." As Wesley described his reasons:

I dare not exclude from the Church catholic all those congregations in which any unscriptural doctrines, which cannot be affirmed to be the "pure word of God," are sometimes, yea, frequently preached; neither all those congregations in which the sacraments are not "duly administered." Certainly if these things are so, the Church of Rome is not so much as a part of the catholic church; seeing therein neither is "the pure word of God" preached, nor the sacraments "duly administered." Whoever they are that have "one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith and one God and Father of all," I can easily bear with their holding wrong opinions, yea, and superstitious modes of worship: Nor would I, on these accounts, scruple, still to include them within the pale of the catholic Church - neither would I have any objection to receive them, if they desired it, as members of the Church of England. 7

Thus, as Dan Berg argues, unity is a more Biblical mark of the church than either word or sacrament. But, we might add, this unity is the product of the "living faith" of the believer which knits him into a bond of love with all other believers. If the substance of "living faith" is love, as Wesley often insists, the result is a catholic spirit since love sets aside differences of opinion, modes of worship or forms of church government as nonessential and embraces every believer with the words: "If your heart is right as my heart is right, give me your hand."

In his notes on Acts 5:11, he describes the church as ". . . a company of men, called by the gospel, grafted into Christ by baptism, animated by love, united by all kinds of fellowship, and disciplined by the death of Ananias and Sapphira." Thus, along with living faith we have introduced here the element of discipline. In the text for his sermon, mentioned above, he finds in the exhortation to "Walk worthy of the vocation wherewith we are called" a basis for stressing the importance of a disciplined life as essential to the church being the church.

This brings us to speak about the element of discipline. A powerful theological support for his inclusion of discipline as an important ingredient in the church is the place of sanctification in his soteriological center. This would entail a call for the church to be a holy community.

Paul Bassett points out that a major cause of divergent ecclesiological understandings between Luther and Calvin is the latter's teaching on the "third use of the law." Finding no positive place for the law in the Christian life, Luther did not include discipline in his understanding of the church, whereas Calvin's view gave him a more positive doctrine of sanctification and an important place for discipline in the church. 8 Wesley agrees with Calvin against Luther here and thus consistently includes this element in his ecclesiology.

Howard Snyder makes much of the place of discipline in Wesley's societies and attributes the rapid growth of Methodism to it. 9 Of course it should be added that Wesley's discipline was teleological in nature and not legalistic. Its purpose was to hasten one along in his pursuit of holiness.

If "living faith," with the concomitant of discipline, is central to Wesley's ecclesiology, how could he or Wesleyan theology affirm the "churchly" ecclesiology of bishops and sacraments? Is this an unresolvable tension? I think the answer may lie in his confidence in prevenient grace. The established church with its rituals and ministry and measure of continuity with the church universal, past and present, provides a stability that guards against the splintering of the body of Christ. Also there is a sense in which objective holiness is maintained in this connection. It is true that Wesley is never content with imputed, but insists upon imparted holiness as a true evidence of the church. But these churchly settings would provide a context within which prevenient grace could function with the possibility of the renewal of the church. Schism from the church would limit the possibility of those with a "living faith" serving as leaven to influence the larger body.

This brief discussion centers on Wesley's complex understanding of the being of the church. But, we would argue, the function of the church is also perceived from the same soteriological perspective. Wesley declares in a letter:

What is the end of all ecclesiastical order? Is it not to bring souls from the power of Satan to God, and to build them up in His fear and love. Order, then, is so far valuable as it answers these ends; and if it answers them not, it is worth nothing. 10

Frank Baker notes how early on Wesley came to a pragmatic understanding of the function of the church, form being subservient to mission. He also calls attention to the interesting note that this is the result of the use of the element of experience as one component of the so-called quadrilateral. 11 Hence his full theological methodology comes into play when one takes into account the whole perspective on the church.

Colin Williams is at least partly correct when he observes that for Wesley, "mission is the primary mark of the church." 12 Thus we may conclude by noting that while there are distinctive features created by his peculiar circumstances, Wesley seems to have captured the central emphasis of the New Testament that the church is a community of people called into being by God for the purpose of carrying out His redemptive mission in the world.

In this light, we may see a new dimension to the traditional mark of the Church known as Apostolicity. Rather than interpreting it to mean some highly questionable line of apostolic succession handed down from the apostles, it may be seen as the continuation of the apostles' mission. This mark is present in the church when, empowered by the Spirit, the members of the body exercise the apostolic witness to the Gospel. Hence it is in the event of function that the church becomes apostolic.

The church has both being and function. It is a community of persons created by the Spirit, called to be witnesses to the Resurrected Christ and messengers of His conquest of the powers of the present age.

Notes

1Hans Küng, The Church (N.Y.: Sheed and Ward, 1967), xii.

2Works, 7:204-204.

3Clarence Bence, "Salvation and the Church: The Ecclesiology of John Wesley," The Church ed. by Melvin E. Dieter and Daniel N. Berg (Anderson, Ind.: Warner Press, 1984), 299.

4Frank Baker, John Wesley and the Church of England (N.Y.: Abingdon Press, 1970), 137.

5Works, 6:395.

6Ibid., 395-396.

7Ibid, 397.

8Paul Bassett, "A Survey of Western Ecclesiology to about 1700," The Church, ed. by Dieter and Berg (Anderson, Ind.: Warner Press, 1984), 211ff.

9Howard Snyder, The Radical Wesley (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1980), 57ff.

10Quoted by Bence, "Salvation and the Church."

11John Wesley and the Church of England, 24f.

12Colin Williams, John Wesley's Theology Today (N.Y.: Abingdon Press, 1960), 209.

Edited by Michael Mattei for the
Wesley Center for Applied Theology
at Northwest Nazarene University
© Copyright 2000 by the Wesley Center for Applied Theology

Text may be freely used for personal or scholarly purposes, provided the notice below the horizontal line 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.