by,
Howard A. Snyder

The Wesleyan Theological Society never has existed in a vacuum. From its beginning it has reflected influences of the larger church and society. So it also has been during the Society’s third decade. The Society’s history continues to be marked by a variety of external and internal pressures. In these brief reminiscences of the last ten years I want to mention three transitions in the life of this theological community.

The Wesleyan Theological Society was formed officially as "A fellowship of Wesleyan-Arminian scholars." Often the term was hyphenated "Wesleyan-Arminian," indicating a kind of equal weight between the two terms: To be Wesleyan was to be Arminian. In the last five years the Society increasingly has described itself as "Wesleyan/Holiness" or "Wesleyan Holiness" rather than "Wesleyan-Arminian." Why?

The change from "Wesleyan-Arminian" to "Wesleyan/Holiness" occurred officially with the constitutional revision adopted in 1991. Previously the first item of the Bylaws’ "Purpose" section had read, "To encourage an exchange of ideas among Wesleyan-Arminian scholars." This was changed in 1991 to read, "To promote theological interchange among Wesleyan/holiness scholars. . . ." This change from "Wesleyan-Arminian" to "Wesleyan Holiness" has been reflected on the front of the annual program brochure since 1992.

What kind of shift in self-consciousness is suggested by this seemingly minor word change? It seems to signal two things. First, it is a shift from a more theological to a more historical emphasis. Or, to use George Lyons’ phrase, it is perhaps evidence that "We have become more descriptive than normative" in our theological work.¹

In the early days of WTS, the important thing was to understand, articulate, and defend a theological perspective (seen to be vital to the church’s integrity and vitality). Increasingly the task is seen as describing historically and reviewing critically the Wesleyan theological tradition, especially in its North American embodiments, with some degree of interaction with other traditions and the various academic disciplines. Increasingly, Wesleyan scholars (at least those represented at WTS) see themselves more as heirs of a particular tradition (the nineteenth-century Holiness Movement) than as defenders of a particular theological system.

Second, and relatedly, the shift from "Arminian" to "Holiness" signals a growing theological and historical awareness that John Wesley’s theology is not to be defined primarily in terms of an Arminian-Calvinist polarity, but in a much more multi-faceted way.² For most WTS members today, it seems, "Wesleyan-Arminian" has the feel of past controversies, while "Wesleyan Holiness" locates one better on today’s ecclesiastical landscape.

A second tendency discernible over the past decade has been a gradual move from exclusiveness to inclusiveness in certain areas. Since "exclusive" is often taken negatively and "inclusive" positively (or vice versa), I hasten to add that I am speaking descriptively, net evaluatively. This shift is, of course, related to the developments I mentioned above. It is easier to be inclusive if one is simply describing, not defending.

In its early years, WTS was almost exclusively composed of scholars, pastors, and denominational leaders representing the smaller Wesleyan Holiness denominations, plus United Methodists associated with Asbury Theological Seminary—all the direct heirs of the Holiness Movement. The doctrinal statement and membership requirements were more exclusive than they are now. The Society never met at United Methodist seminaries. In its thirty-year history WTS has, I believe, met only twice at any of the official United Methodist seminaries. Coincidentally, these exceptions occurred on the Society’s twentieth and thirtieth anniversaries: at Emory University (Candler School of Theology) in 1984, and at United Theological Seminary in 1994.

In several respects WTS has become more inclusive over this past decade. The most obvious, and structurally the most significant sign of this shift was the Society’s constitutional revision adopted in 1991.³ The key changes were (1) the adoption of the Christian Holiness Association’s statement of faith, in place of the previous WTS Doctrinal Statement, (2) the addition of "Affiliate Member" and deletion of "Associate Member" categories, and (3) the discontinuation of the Membership Committee. The principal effects of these changes were (1) to open membership in the Society to those "who are interested in the work of the Society but do not wish to become full members," whether for doctrinal or other reasons, and (2) to make the level of membership more a matter of individual choice than of the Society’s rules. More subtly, these changes also made membership in the Society more a matter of identification with a tradition than of creedal commitment.

The broadening of the Society during the past decade is seen also in the names of guest lecturers or presenters, including Mortimer Arias, Dale Brown, Theodore Jennings, Canon Aichin, and Craig Blaising.

Another significant example of increasing inclusiveness is the growing openness toward Pentecostal scholars. At one time, even to invite a Pentecostal to speak at WTS was highly controversial. Now a few Pentecostals are members of our Society, one of our members has served consecutively as president of the Society for Pentecostal Studies and president of WTS (Donald Dayton, 1988-90), and we are considering a possible joint meeting between WTS and SPS.

Thus the circles of WTS have widened in several respects. In part this reflects the broadening interests of WTS members. It also reflects the growing penetration of Wesleyan Holiness scholars into ecumenical and interdenominational forums. Included are the official or quasi-official involvement of WTS in the Oxford Institute of Methodist Theological Studies (1987 and 1992, and earlier), the WCC Faith and Order discussions (going back to the 1980s), the Wesleyan Holiness Women Clergy Conference (1994) and, more informally, the Society for Pentecostal Studies and the AAR/SBL in its Wesley Studies section. Obviously, to date this growing inclusiveness is not much reflected in the ethnic and gender composition of the Society.

A third trajectory of the Society seems to be from the church to the academy. WTS increasingly has become a creature of the academy, and less of the church. I do not mean that earlier leaders and participants in WTS were not scholars, nor that today’s WTS scholars are net significantly church related. That would be untrue. I simply mean that the concerns, presentations, and even procedures of the Society are increasingly those of the academy—the secular academy, in fact—rather than of the church in its historic Wesleyan expressions. For example, it is curious how we can now speak of "the Christ event," a passive construction, when referring to God’s acts in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. This is a sign of how modem and postmodem sensibilities creep into our language and thinking without our even being aware of it.

My impression also is that the content and methodological focus of WTS meetings increasingly reflect the concerns of the academy rather than those of the church. This is probably to be expected, and is not necessarily bad. But it does mean that the WTS runs the risk of overlooking or ignoring crucial issues of church life and experience. To give two examples:

1. With a few notable exceptions, WTS has never seriously and substantively addressed the subject of ecclesiology. For the most part the Society has bypassed both Biblical and Wesleyan understandings of the Church.⁴ This is especially true over the past ten years. Perhaps this tendency reflects the individualism of North American culture as much as it does the biases of the academy. Papers that deal with or mention sanctification assume that the discussion is about individual believers, not about Christian community and mutual accountability. We thus show ourselves to be the heirs of the nineteenth-century Holiness Movement more than of early Methodism.

2. With regard to the interpretation of Scripture, WTS has paid scant attention to Wesley’s conception of the "analogy of faith." Wesley neither developed "a canon within the canon" nor split up history and doctrine within Scripture. Wesley’s use of "the analogy of faith" may be understood as interpreting all of Scripture in terms of the main historical story line of the redemption God has accomplished through Jesus Christ. We are to interpret Scripture according to "the analogy of faith" (Rom. 12:6), that is, "according to that grand scheme of doctrine which is delivered [in Scripture], touching original sin, justification by faith, and present, inward salvation. There is a wonderful analogy between all these; and a close and intimate connexion between the chief heads of that faith ‘which was once delivered to the saints.’ Every article, therefore, concerning which there is any question should be determined by this rule; every doubtful scripture interpreted according to the grand truths which run through the whole."⁵

Clearly the agenda of our discussions has been and must be set in part by the issues of the day. But I raise these examples to highlight the question of whether we are responding to the issues of the academy or to those of the church, and how we negotiate between or integrate the two.

If there is in fact such a shift from the church to the academy, perhaps it is reflected in attendance at WTS gatherings. Though I have no confirming statistics, my impression is that a higher number of pastors and non-academic denominational leaders attended WTS meetings ten or fifteen years ago than is true today. WTS meetings were a place where pastors could get some theological updating and even some inspiration. This is still true to some extent, but the tendency appears to be to have more papers on increasingly technical subjects requiring academic expertise, with less time for informal discussion, worship, and singing.

In summary, the Wesleyan Theological Society over the past ten years has continued a gradual, perhaps inevitable transition. Partly it has been the continuation of developments in the earlier periods of the Society’s history; partly the transition has come in response to new challenges. The Society seems to be in a good position to enter its fourth decade and make a useful contribution to both the church and the larger academic community.

¹George Lyons, Presidential Address, WTS, November 4, 1994.

²Relatedly, there is, it seems, a greater recognition today that Arminius himself should not be seen as a polar opposite to Calvin or Calvinism.

³For comparison, see the WTS Bylaws in WTJ, 25:1 (Spring, 1990), 157-62, and 25:2 (Fall, 1990), 125-30.

⁴During the 1985-95 period, only seven of the articles in the Journal could be considered to be, in a broad sense, ecclesiological.

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.