A Thinking Reed

John Wesley – Mere Christian?

Written by

Lee M.

in

Via Jonathan at The Ivy Bush comes this interesting article on a discussion between two Methodist theologians arguing that the UMC needs a greater emphasis on doctrine. Though I don’t know much about John Wesley, what struck me in the article’s description of his theology was how much he drew on other Christian traditions, and not just those of the Reformation.

For instance, it suggests that Wesley had a somewhat Catholic view of the relationship between justification and sanctification, and that his views on original sin were closer to Eastern Orthodoxy than the Western Augustine-influenced tradition (the Orthodox believe, I think, that we inherit a tendency toward sin, but not the guilt of our ancestors’ sin – i.e. we are not born guilty as some in the Western tradition seem to have held). And I think I recall reading elsewhere that Wesley was a lifelong high-church Anglican with a strong Eucharistic piety who believed in receiving the Sacrament frequently (not exactly common practice in today’s Methodist churches, I believe).

I guess my point is that there’s been a lot of interest in some Protestant quarters for recovering some of the treasures of the pre-Reformation (and pre-schism?) church. Could Wesley be a resource here?

Comments

2 responses to “John Wesley – Mere Christian?”

  1. Joshie

    As the token Methodist here I guess I should respond

    Wesley was very eclectic, he was a voracious reader and had no denominational bias when it came to seeking out what he saw as Biblical doctrine. This I think was a product of his via media Anglicanism as much as his own personality.

    Not being a very systematic theologian even compared to someone like Luther, his precise view on a lot of issues like that is often hard to pin down, and I think that explains confused nature of that debate. But the closest to a summery of his thought on original sin may be from the 25 articles of faith of the Methodist church:

    “Article 7- Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and of his own nature inclined to do evil, and that continually”

    So while referance is not made to being born guilty, the article does speak of humanity’s inherently corrupt nature, and the next article goes on to speak of the inability of humans to respond in faith without the previnient grace of God.

    At any rate I think Wesley, while her certainly though doctrine was important, emphasized that faith must be felt, experienced, sung and expressed in love. Jones hits the nail on the head I think when he identifies the love of God (in both senses) as the cetral principle in Wesley’a theology. This is something that was lost on all sides in the Reformation except perhaps the anabaptist radicals and something the Wesleys brought back to the Anglican tradition in the same way the Pietists brought it back to the Lutheran tradition.

    Reply
  2. Joshie

    egads, I have forgetten the point once again.

    I think yes Wesley can be a good resource here. He had a knack for recognizing what was good in all the traditions of his day but he still stood for something. And recognizing that God is love is a great way to start out in seeking to recover some things that may have been lost in our churches nowadays. As is singing together, worshipping together and reading lots of books!

    Reply

Leave a reply to Joshie Cancel reply

More posts