A Reconfiguration of Power: The Basic Trajectory in John Wesley's Practical Theology

A Reconfiguration of Power:
The Basic Trajectory in John Wesley's Practical Theology[1]

Kenneth J. Collins

In an age when human life has been devalued through numerous wars, the instrumental use of the unborn, the exploitation of the poor, and an arrogant use of power, it is surprising that the Wesleyan community has not responded to this repudiation of human dignity by drawing on John Wesley's doctrine of God, in particular his understanding of the Trinity, as well as on his anthropology which specifically affirms that human beings are ever created in the image of God. For example, in terms of the former emphasis, only two articles of any note have appeared on Wesley's teaching on the triune God.[2] And though much more has been done with respect to Wesley's anthropology, few of these studies treat the issue of oppression and the abuse of power which emerge from an autonomous-and usurping-conception of humanity.[3]

To address this deficiency, the following essay will maintain that, since Wesley considered the essence of God to be fundamentally relational (holy love) at its core, human redemption, as a restoration of the imago dei, consequently involves the undermining of autonomous, self-possessive pride-a pride which is the engine of human oppression. Furthermore, this essay will demonstrate that, according to Wesley, God is humble and lowly, not simply as revealed to creation (Matt. 11:28) but also in terms of the divine nature itself since each of the persons of the Godhead is other and relationally directed. In light of this, it is not surprising to learn that Wesley highlights the salient virtue of humility, which expresses a proper relation to others, in his sermon "The Circumcision of the Heart," as very conducive to human sanctification and betterment.

Moreover, it will be argued that, given Wesley's understanding of the nature of God and the requisites for human redemption and liberation, salvation is necessarily communal in nature. That is, salvation ever involves a death to sinful independence, pride, and exploitative self-will to become a part of a larger and more meaningful whole, namely, the body of Christ, the community of the redeemed, the church. More importantly for the task at hand, this essay will contend that Wesley's conception of God as well as his understanding of human salvation jointly evince a transvaluation of "power." Accordingly, in a setting of relational trust, where the sinful self now humbly acknowledges the higher realities of God and the church, surrender brings power; submission to that which is greater than the self brings strength. Put another way, the old sinful independence is now judged as the enslavement that it always was and connectedness to others is deemed liberation.

This essay will conclude by noting that the power of the church, as a community of the redeemed, according to Wesley, constitutes a different kind of power than the grasping, acquisitive, self-absorbed power of the sinful self and oppressive communities which are rife in the world. To be sure, it is the "otherness" of this power, informed by love and strengthened by community, which is both remarkably attractive and healing, and it is the uncanniness of this power that characterizes the distinctiveness of the church's mission to a hurting world.

I. God as Triune

A. Wesley On Trinitarian Language. Though the terminology of "Trinity" and "triune"[4] surface in Wesley's writings, his usual way of referring to the Godhead is basically descriptive, not systematic, a way which keeps close to the biblical idiom. Thus, Wesley often refers to the Godhead as the Three-One God as revealed, for example, in his letter to Miss Ritchie in 1777 in which he writes: "Do you never lose your consciousness of the presence of the Three-One God? And is your testimony of his Spirit, that you are saved from inward sin, never obscured?"[5] And a few years later, in 1785 to be exact, Wesley depicts the coming eschatological renewal, in his sermon "The New Creation," as a time when there will be

a greater deliverance than all this; for there will be no more sin. And, to crown all, there will be a deep, an intimate, an uninterrupted union with God; a constant communion with the Father and his Son Jesus Christ, through the Spirit; a continual enjoyment of the Three-One God, and of all the creatures in him![6]

Beyond this, in 1789, Wesley explores the experiential dimensions of the Godhead for a life of piety in his letter to Mrs. Cock in which he questions: "How is it with you now, my dear friend? Is your soul now as much alive as ever? Do you still find deep and uninterrupted communion with God; with the Three-One God; with the Father and the Son, through the Spirit?"[7]

Wesley's preference for the nomenclature of Three-One and his reluctance, at times, to use the term "Trinity" grew out of a number of considerations. First of all, Wesley took exception to the religious bigotry and intolerance that would burn a person at the stake for not using the specific term Trinity. Thus, in reference to Calvin's treatment of Servetus, Wesley exclaims: "I think them very good words [Trinity and Person]. But I should think it very hard to be burned alive for not using them; especially with a slow fire, made of moist, green wood."[8] Although the irony of this ungodly action was lost on Calvin, it clearly was not lost on Wesley.

Second, Wesley made an important distinction between the fact and the manner of the Trinity, as revealed in his letter to Miss March in 1771 in which he writes: "The mystery does not lie in the fact 'These Three are One,' but in the manner of accounting how they are one. But with this I have nothing to do. I believe the fact. As to the manner (wherein the whole mystery lies) I believe nothing about it."[9] Given this distinction, Wesley naturally did not insist on assent to the Athanasian Creed for salvation,[10] nor did he require the use of the words "Trinity" or "person" for the sake of orthodoxy.[11] In each instance, Wesley was content to let the unsystematic biblical language remain.

Nevertheless, such reserve on Wesley's part does not mean that he failed to explore the significance of the nature of this Three-One God, especially in terms of the process of human redemption. In fact, Wesley was so impressed with Marquis de Renty's claim that he bore about him an experimental verity, "a plentitude of the presence of the ever-blessed Trinity,"[12] that he used this observation as a kind of standard by means of which he assessed the experience of the Methodists. Thus, while Wesley was preaching in Bristol in 1786, he observed one who could say with Monsieur De Renty, "I bear with me an experimental verity, and a plentitude of the presence of the ever-blessed Trinity."[13] Earlier, during the 1770's, Wesley had considered Christian experience in terms of the presence of the Trinity, but he indicated that such spiritual depth pertains not to babes but only to "fathers in Christ."[14] Beyond this, Wesley suggests something of a correlation between the persons of the Trinity and the maturation of human spiritual experience when he observes in 1777 that Charles Perronet, a trusted friend, was led "at first to Jesus the Mediator... Afterwards, he had communion with the Father, next with the Spirit, and then with the whole Trinity."[15]

Interestingly enough, at one time Wesley had actually believed that all those who were perfected in love had the experience of the distinct persons of the Father, Son, and the Spirit in their souls and of the oneness of the Godhead, but he eventually changed his mind on this issue. In 1787, for example, in a letter to Lady Maxwell, Wesley points out:

I think there are three or four in Dublin, who likewise speak clearly and scripturally of having had such a manifestation of the several Persons in the ever-blessed Trinity. Formerly I thought this was the experience of all those that were perfected in love; but I am now clearly convinced that it is not. Only a few of these are favored with it.[16]

So then, on the one hand, the experience of the distinct persons of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, as in the case of Charles Perronet, is apparently reserved only for the spiritually mature; on the other hand, not all who are perfected in love will enjoy such a gracious experience. For whatever reason, Wesley did not offer an explanation as to why some who were perfected in love enjoyed this experiential knowledge of the Trinity while others did not. What remains important, however, is that some of the Methodists, Miss Ritchie and Miss Roe (later Mrs. Rogers) among them, did indeed receive such grace. The question now becomes, what is it about the nature of the Trinity that a spiritual and experiential knowledge of the Three-One God is apparently reserved only for the pure in heart. Does such an association provide any clues concerning the being of God, the nature of spiritual experience, and the larger processes of redemption? It is to these questions that we now turn.

B. The Nature of God. It is quite clear that Wesley read at least two of the Cappadocian Fathers since there are several references in his writings to Basil of Caesarea and Gregory Nazianzen. More importantly for the task at hand, the idea that the Godhead is essentially a relation of persons in love and whose persons are ever other-directed, so developed in the writings of the Cappadocians, surfaces in Wesley's own thought, especially when he considers love itself to be God's reigning, darling attribute. In his treatise Predestination Calmly Considered, for example, Wesley observes:

So ill do election and reprobation agree with the truth and sincerity of God! But do they not agree least of all with the scriptural account of his love and goodness? that attribute which God peculiarly claims, wherein he glories above all the rest. It is not written, "God is justice," or "God is truth" (although he is just and true in all his ways). But it is written, "God is love," love in the abstract, without bounds; and "there is no end of his goodness."[17]

The effulgent other-directedness of the love of God is also evident in Wesley's treatise Thoughts Upon God's Sovereignty, where he points out that God, out of sheer freedom and no doubt as an expression of love, brought forth the Creation through "his own sovereign will."[18] Elsewhere, in his sermon "Salvation by Faith," Wesley underscores the freedom, grace, and sheer favor of God in bringing humanity into existence.[19] "All the blessings which God hath bestowed upon man," Wesley observes, "are of his mere grace, bounty or favor: his free, undeserved favor, favor altogether undeserved, man having no claim to the least of his mercies."[20]

Further clues to John Wesley's understanding of the triune God as holy, outgoing, energetic love are found in some of the trinitarian hymns which he selected for publication from those penned by his Brother Charles. In hymn 248 (of the 1780 collection), for example, Charles wrote :

And when we rise in love renewed,

Our souls resemble thee,

An image of the Triune God

To all eternity.[21]

Elsewhere, in hymn 253, the younger brother wrote with the elder's considerable approval:

Soon as our pardoned hearts believe

That thou art pure, essential love,

The proof we in ourselves receive

Of the Three Witnesses above.[22]

Though John Wesley has much to say about the Trinity and the love of God, there is no evidence that he ever read the third Cappadocian, Gregory of Nyssa, nor did he develop the idea of perichoresis, so important to Gregory, in any significant way. This is something of an oddity, to be sure, because the general flavor of Wesley's theology, especially in its valuations of love, humility, and service, resonates quite well with Gregory's emphases. Clearly, Wesley could have strengthened his soteriology as well as his anthropology by a more serious consideration of what modern theologians call the "economic" Trinity or what the Eastern orthodox refer to as the "energies" of God. In other words, it would have been better if Wesley had explored the revelation of the Three-One God both in creation and in the history of salvation and in a way which would have underscored perichoresis or coinherence with respect to the divine activity. But for whatever reason, Wesley chose not to pursue this theme.

At any rate, additional clues to Wesley's understanding of the nature of God can be garnered from his Christology where there is no essential difference between the Christ who is revealed to us, as self-giving humble love, and what God essentially is. Commenting on Christ's triumphal entry into Jerusalem, not on some sleek dark stallion, the favorite of Roman generals and dignitaries, but atop a donkey, Wesley underscores the deep humility of the Savior which undermines our normal valuations. Wesley explains:

Was it a mean attitude wherein our Lord then appeared? Mean even to contempt! I grant it: I glory in it: it is for the comfort of my soul; for the honour of his humility, and for the utter confusion of all worldly pomp and grandeur.[23]

On a more contemporary note, the twentieth-century theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer referred to Christ as "the man for others," as one who was the servant of all. Wesley would have understood such wisdom.

Add to these preceding observations on the divine love and freedom Wesley's clear teaching that humanity was created in the image and likeness of God, and we begin to get an understanding that men and women were created for nothing less than fellowship with God, that they were brought into being to participate in the intimacy of the divine life, and that out of this communion, the love of neighbor would invariably flow. Put another way, the communal nature of the Three-One God, whose essence is aptly expressed in the relations of love, suggests that human beings evince that image in which they were created, not in isolation nor individualistically, but as they are drawn out of themselves, as they transcend themselves, in both the love of God and neighbor.

II. Humanity as Created for Relationship with God

Since the Three-One God is relational in nature, a communion of holy love, and since humanity itself was created for fellowship with the triune God, it is not surprising to learn that Wesley describes the root of human evil, not in terms of pride as do other theologians such as Augustine, but in terms of the language of relationships, of unbelief and alienation in particular. Put another way, the root of all sin for Wesley is faithlessness, a perverted relationship to God, out of which all other evil flows. Commenting on John 16:9, for example, Wesley explains: "Unbelief. . .is the confluence of all sins, and binds them all down upon us.[24] Even more emphatically, Wesley points out with respect to Hebrews 3:12 that "unbelief is the parent of all evil, and the very essence of unbelief lies in departing from God, as the living God - the fountain of all our life, holiness, happiness."[25] Elsewhere, in his sermon "On the Fall of Man," Wesley again underscores unbelief as the primal factor and exclaims: "Here sin began, namely, unbelief. The woman was deceived, says the Apostle. She believed a lie: she gave more credit to the word of the devil than to the word of God."[26]

For Wesley, then, a lack of faith in God, the desire to be independent, is the true foundation for the subsequent evils of pride and self-will. Again, out of alienation and unbelief, pride and self-will inevitably flow; out of alienation and unbelief every other evil disposition emerges. That this assessment is correct is also borne out in Wesley's further comments as he considers the solution to the problem of human wickedness: "As Satan began his work in Eve by tainting her with unbelief, so the Son of God begins his work in man by enabling us to believe in him."[27]

But Wesley not only considered unbelief in terms of the origin of sin, the Fall of humanity in particular, but he also viewed it as on ongoing problem that even characterizes, to a certain degree, the hearts of the children of God. To be sure, the tendency "to self-will, to atheism, or idolatry and, above all, to unbelief, whereby, in a thousand ways, and under a thousand pretences, we are ever departing, more or less, from the living God," forms the basis for the repentance of believers, a topic which Wesley explores in a number of his sermons.[28] Thus, even after they are justified and born of God, believers still feel in their heart "sometimes pride or self-will, sometimes anger or unbelief. They find one or more of these frequently stirring in their heart, though not conquering."[29] Naturally, this characteristic of the Christian life indicates the continuing need of believers to be in a proper relation to a God of love and to trust in the grace of the Most High.

Though unbelief is the root of sin in Wesley's eyes, its irreducible essence, it is almost immediately manifested in the form of autonomous pride. Commenting on the fall of Eve, Wesley remarks: "So unbelief begot pride. She thought herself wiser than God, capable of finding a better way to happiness than God had taught her."[30] In this context, as elsewhere in Wesley's writings, it is important to realize that pride is not a particular vice such as greed or envy; it is not a species of "moralism," but refers to a far more serious "existential" and systemic problem: that is, it refers to the establishment of the self (and its will) as the highest value in life. For example, in correcting Thomas Maxfield, a fanatic who was disrupting the Evangelical revival in the early 1760s, Wesley alludes to more than simply a character defect or vice when he writes:

But I dislike something which has the appearance of pride, of overvaluing yourselves, and undervaluing others; particularly the Preachers; thinking not only that they are blind, and that they are not sent of God, but even that they are dead; dead to God, and walking in the way to hell...[31]

Moreover, Wesley's critical and sophisticated understanding of the nature of pride also took account of those intellectual movements during the Enlightenment of his own age which celebrated, among other things, human autonomy. And though such leading thinkers as Kant still affirmed the importance of belief in a higher being, their thought was often used to sustain a practical if not a theoretical atheism in the sense that the self was now "free" to draw simply from its own resources-what in Wesley's estimation was otherwise an apt definition of sin. For Wesley, on the other hand, the moral law which informs ethical and spiritual life does not represent the rational insights of a largely self-legislating self; instead it represents the will of an evoking, holy God who transcends us in being, power and glory.

III. The Path of Return: Faith and Humility

If the diagnosis of human ills, according to Wesley, is ultimately unbelief and penultimately pride, then the prescription, the way back to health and salvation, to the Three-One God of relational love, should entail not self-assertion, not self-aggrandizement nor autonomy, but both faith and humility. And this is precisely what is found in Wesley's writings. Indeed, though earlier in his life Wesley had confused sanctification with justification, particularly when he was in Georgia, after 1738 he clearly taught that faith and grace mark the path of return, that they point the way not only to acceptance by a holy God but also to human integrity.[32]

Few can read Wesley's writings without soon discovering that his definition of faith is remarkably sophisticated. Faith not only is a "species of belief," an "assent to a proposition upon rational grounds,"[33] it is not only a spiritual sense, a "divine evidence of things unseen,"[34] but it is also-and perhaps most importantly of all - a sure trust and confidence in Jesus Christ.[35] This last sense of faith, which is often referred to more technically as fiducia, is prevalent in Wesley's writings after 1738 and formed the basis of much of his preaching throughout his life.

Though it is remarkably clear that Wesley taught both justification and sanctification by grace through faith from 1738 forward as the antidote to the evil of alienation and unbelief,[36] and though his consideration of faith as a redemptive grace has received much scholarly attention, his other soteriological prescription which addresses the penultimate problem of human pride has virtually been neglected by Methodist theologians and historians.[37] Such neglect has often led to a skewed reading of Wesley's soteriology where Wesley's valuations are not informed by the significance of humility, as they should be, but by other more mundane considerations.[38] Moreover, since the grace of humility has to do with the issues of power, self-reference and of proper relationships to both God and humanity in a significant way, it is again difficult to comprehend such inattention. In fact, there are over one hundred and fifty references to humility in Wesley's writings, many of which serve as a clue to his overall soteriology as will be apparent shortly.

In considering the value of humility for pagan antiquity, Wesley took exception to the ancient Roman language itself, even with the improvements of the Augustan age, since it "did not afford so much as a name for humility (the word from whence we borrow this, as is well known, bearing in Latin a quite different meaning)."[39] In fact, in classical Latin, as the late Albert Outler correctly pointed out, humilitas was always a negative term whose meaning ranged from "'lowness' (of stature or status) to 'insignificance' to 'baseness.'"[40] However, in terms of a specifically Christian context, which is much more informative, Wesley explored the broader category of poverty of spirit and humility in two distinct though very positive ways. Accordingly, for Wesley, "initial" poverty of spirit and humility are inextricably tied in with repentance, and "subsequent" poverty of spirit and true Christian humility pertain to the ongoing reception of the love of God and its consequence for the Christian life.

Of the former terms Wesley maintains in his writings that the foundation of all true religion is spiritual poverty and that "real Christianity always begins in poverty of spirit,"[41] that is, in the conviction of sin and in the renunciation of ourselves. Here, then, poverty of spirit, initially understood, is linked with self-knowledge, humility and repentance. Moreover, observe in this context that the phrases "poor in spirit," or "poverty of spirit" do not refer to the material or economic condition of the sinner, but refer to something far more basic and systemic, as revealed in Wesley's following comments:

This sense [an economic reading] of the expression 'poor in spirit' will by no means suit our Lord's present design, which is to lay a general foundation whereon the whole fabric of Christianity may be built; a design which would be in no wise answered by guarding against one particular vice; so that even if this were supposed to be one part of his meaning, it could not possibly be the whole.[42]

Again, the very demand of John the Baptist and Jesus for repentance prior to the reception of the kingdom of heaven demonstrates that it was a spiritual kingdom to which they were directed, as Wesley aptly points out, and that "no wicked man, how politic, brave, or learned soever, could possibly be a subject of it."[43] The phrase "poor in spirit," then, concerns not economic relations, relations to substances or things, but personal relations, relations to both God and humanity who confront the self or the group as a genuine other, as a real "Thou." So then, that which is most precious in the Christian faith is never a thing or substance, but always a person. Simply put, the giver is the gift.

The poor in spirit, then, at this initial stage, are all those of whatever outward circumstances who "have that disposition of heart which is the first step to all real substantial happiness."[44] Again, the poor in spirit are those who are penitent, who are convinced of their sin and utter helplessness, and who have a just and realistic sense of their inward and outward sin and of their improper relation to a God of love. The humbled sinner is convinced, Wesley states, "that he is spiritually poor indeed; having no spiritual good abiding in him. 'In me (saith he) dwelleth no good thing; but whatsoever is evil and abominable.'"[45]

As valuable as the humility which is associated with repentance is (and initial poverty of spirit for that matter), it must not be confused with true Christian humility, as Harald Lindstrom correctly points out.[46] That is, the former disposition of the heart occurs in the context of conviction and accusation and is often marked by fear of God, regret over past sins, and guilt. The latter dispositions of subsequent poverty of spirit and true Christian humility, however, which take rise after (or concomitant with) justification and the new birth, grow out of a sense of "being loved and reconciled by God."[47] In his sermon, "Upon Our Lord's Sermon on the Mount, Discourse I," Wesley explains:

Then thou learnest of him to be "lowly of heart," And this is the true, genuine, Christian humility, which flows from a sense of the love of God, reconciled to us in Christ Jesus. "Poverty of spirit," in this meaning of the word, begins where a sense of guilt and of the wrath of God ends; and is a continual sense of our total dependence on him for every good thought or word or work; of our utter inability to all good unless he "water us every moment."[48]

This means, of course, that when Wesley urged his followers to be humble in the sense of having the mind of Christ, he was not referring in the least to initial poverty of spirit or to initial humility which always entail a consciousness of sin. Instead, he was pointing to the meek and lowly mind, characteristic of Christ, which is expressive of the love of God and which arises out of a grateful reception of divine grace. Indeed, the humility of Christ is not associated with the self-knowledge that emerges from a painful perception of the "distance" between God and humanity, but is intricately identified with the divine righteousness itself. In his sermon "The Lord Our Righteousness," Wesley elaborates:

His [Christ's] internal righteousness is the image of God, stamped on every power and faculty of his soul. It is a copy of his divine righteousness, so far as it can be imparted to a human spirit. It is a transcript of the divine purity, the divine justice, mercy, and truth. It includes love, reverence, resignation to his Father; humility, meekness, gentleness; love to lost mankind, and every other holy and heavenly temper; and all these in the highest degree, without any defect, or mixture of unholiness.[49]

Furthermore, though Wesley explores the humility of Jesus not under the heading of the divine righteousness but under the human righteousness of Christ, this characteristic of humility is again descriptive, in some sense, of the divine being since Wesley links it with the very image of God itself. Accordingly, for Wesley, God is not simply meek and lowly as revealed to us in Jesus Christ, but is also essentially humble, other-directed love. Put another way, these attributes, so resplendent in Christ, are expressive of nothing less than the being (in se) of God. Simply put, God as revealed to us in Jesus Christ discloses the very nature of God. The kenotic movement of Philippans chapter two, then, entails not only how God appears to sinful humanity, but also what God actually is: humble, sacrificial, ecstatic love.

This association of love and humility with respect to the divine being, Christology in particular, is paralleled in Wesley's consideration of the dynamics of human spiritual development. For example, Wesley notes in his sermon "On Zeal": "Now, one of the chief properties of love is humility. Love is not puffed up."[50] Elsewhere, in his sermon "On Charity," Wesley affirms the proper estimate of both love and humility when he writes: "As is the measure of love, so is the measure of humility. Nothing humbles the soul so deeply as love."[51] So understood, though love is the source of humility, humility is yet necessary for love; indeed, it is nothing less than the freedom to love, the prerequisite for that abandonment of self which issues in the richest devotion. Put another way, only those meek and lowly in heart are free to love deeply, only those who are directed not towards themselves in sinful pride, but toward others can fathom the deepest recesses of love. In fact, when Wesley explores in several of his sermons one of the chief obstacles to love, namely riches, he reveals that they impede humility as well, so closely are love and humility linked in his thought: "From the love of God, and from no other fountain, true humility flows. Therefore, so far as they hinder the love of God, riches must hinder humility likewise."[52] Again, if "I have not humility, gentleness and resignation," Wesley points out, "I am nothing in the sight of God."[53]

The meekness and lowliness of Christ as descriptive of God, as well as the call which human beings receive to participate in humble, sacrificial love, suggest that the valuations implied in such observations will naturally be in conflict with those valuations which place the self or a particular group at the center of meaning. Here, then, both egotism and ethnocentrism are precluded. Here both selfishness and tribalism, for want of better terms, are repudiated. In addition, since humility is so crucial to both power and love, Wesley's understanding of divine and human power will undoubtedly be different from conventional wisdom which champions self-referential schemes in one form of another as the pathways to power and enhancement. For Wesley, on the other hand, real power is not self-referential nor is it grasping and acquisitive; rather, it is the power to love. Put another way, true power ever entails humility, that is, the self-forgetfulness that issues in the freedom to be for others. "Be humble," Wesley counsels Miss Bolton in 1771, "Let all that mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus. And be clothed with humility."[54]

IV. The Setting of Return: The Church

The path of return to the love of God and neighbor, marked by both faith and humility, can be viewed as a gracious movement from self to others, from independence to connectedness, and from autonomy to community. As a good pastor, Wesley knew all too well that the forces of pride and self-absorption were so strong that unless men and women were invited to practice their faith in a context much larger than themselves, that is, in a community of faith, rebellious self-will and sinful independence would quickly triumph again. "Christianity is a essentially a social religion," Wesley remarks in his "Upon Our Lord's Sermon On the Mount, Discourse IV," and to turn it into a solitary one is to destroy it."[55]

To prevent such a calamity and also in order to sustain and foster faith, Wesley established a number of groups, the design of which was borrowed from the insights of others, that is, from the religious society movement and from the Moravians in particular.[56] Thus, in July 1739, Wesley established the first distinctively Methodist society under the name of the United Society.[57] And though the only condition required for admission to the society was a "desire to flee the wrath to come," once admitted, members were expected to obey the General Rules which took the first two precepts of natural law, among other things, as their guide. Consequently, members of the society were expected to give evidence of their sincerity and earnestness by first of all doing good and secondly by avoiding evil.

There is, however, perhaps no better explanation of the purpose and intent of the Methodist society meeting than that expressed in Wesley's "Nature, Design, Rules of the United Societies." In this treatise, Wesley elaborates:

This was the rise of the United Society, first in London, and then in other places. Such a society is no other than "a company of men having the form and seeking the power of godliness, united in order to pray together, to receive the word of exhortation, and to watch over one another in love, that they may help each other to work out their salvation.[58]

Observe that in the context of the Methodist society, men and women-though they already had the form of religion-were earnestly seeking its power. In other words, the power to live the Christian life in righteousness and holiness was best fostered, according to Wesley, not in a solitary or individualistic Christianity, where the danger of spiritual narcissism was ever great, but in a relational setting of a responsible and accountable community. The band meetings, for example, being of a more intimate nature, entailed confession to others, the bearing of one's soul, among other things, as a suitable means to inculcate the graces of humility and, of course, to deepen a lively faith. Here, then, vulnerability in the face of others, so rejected by the world, led not to weakness and shallowness, as was often mistakenly supposed, but to real power and depth.

But the Methodist societies not only fostered mutual accountability, they also required obedience as well as submission to the structure and rules of the societies in general and to Wesley's spiritual judgment in particular. Indeed, the discipline of the Methodist societies looks similar, in some important respects, to the discipline of a Benedictine community with an abbot as its head. Like Benedict, Wesley emphasized the importance of humility and obedience for spiritual growth.[59] Like Benedict, Wesley exercised a loving yet firm discipline in the societies that sought as its highest end the love of God and neighbor. And though Wesley obviously never held the title of abbot, he actually functioned in a way that essentially made him the spiritual director, par excellence, of the Methodist societal infrastructure. While some scholars, like Southey, view Wesley's significant leadership role (at least initially) as yet another instance of his ambition, such a role was actually required to bring order and spiritual focus to a burgeoning community.[60] "The power I have," Wesley writes, "I never sought: it was the undesired, unexpected result of the work God was pleased to work by me. I have a thousand times sought to devolve it on others; but as yet I cannot."[61] Contrary to Southey, the power which Wesley had received during the course of the eighteenth-century revival was not the fruit of a burgeoning ambition, but the happy consequence of an indefatigable desire to serve.

It was in the context of the Methodist societies that the poor, the neglected, and the despised came to learn of a different power: not the power of self-assertion and pride, not the power of force and coercion, nor even the power of self-will, but of the remarkable and sustaining power of the humble love of God manifested in Jesus Christ and received through the Holy Spirit. Again, in the Methodist society, the poor, so neglected in eighteenth-century England, learned of their high dignity and calling as men and women created in the image and likeness of the Three-One God, a God of satisfying and abiding love. They understood, perhaps for the first time, that their identity was rooted not in themselves, nor in the groups to which they belonged, nor even in the circumstances of their lives, but in the Three-One God who had called them to participate in nothing less than the divine life and who continued to love them in Jesus Christ. This transvaluation, so readily perceived by the poor, is no doubt one of the chief reasons why the common people often heard John Wesley gladly.

V. Conclusion

We have seen how Wesley's depiction of the nature of God as holy love, the essence of the divine being conceived as a community of relations, moved his practical theology in a direction that underscored both selflessness and concern for others. Similarly, we have observed that Wesley's understanding of humanity as created in the image and likeness of a holy and loving God, as well as his consideration of the fall of humanity into unbelief and rebellion, necessarily characterized the way of return for fallen humanity as one of faith and deep humility. Beyond this, we have pointed out that the context of return to a life of holiness and love, given Wesley's understanding of the nature of God and humanity, was not individualistic, but was ever communal in nature and occurred within the therapeutic setting of the church as well as within its parachurch structures such as the Methodist societies.

So then, it should be apparent that all of these doctrines - that of God, humanity, salvation, and the church - are implicatorily related. It is Wesley's seasoned thought on the Three-One God which is actually the lodestar of all, for it had consequence for the remainder of his theology and received practical application in the Methoidist societies themselves where the poor and neglected of eighteenth-century Britain encountered not only genuine and refreshing transvaluation, where they really mattered, but also, and more importantly, a gracious and loving God.

In the Methodist societies, the circle was now complete: the love of God which is ever directed towards the other was actualized among the very least of this world through the proclamation of the gospel. Such a proclamation, which placed a premium on faith, obedience, and humility, no doubt challenged many of the values of the world, with the latter's emphasis on autonomy, self-will, and pride. The proclamation of the gospel in the context of the Methodist societies, then, helped to bring about, at least in a small way, nothing less than good news indeed; that is, it helped to bring about nothing short of the Kingdom of God on earth: the power and liberty to love both God and neighbor in a rich, deep, and satisfying way.

Endnotes: