Image via Wikipedia
“John Wesley had good answers for the problems and challenges of his day – for his context – but we need new answers for today.”
United Methodists vary quite a bit in how they react to claims like this one.
To one end of the spectrum are those who really don’t see much point in engaging with Wesley. His context and time were so different that they leave us with few clues to our own. He is a revered but ultimately irrelevant theological ancestor.
To the other end are those who verge on making John Wesley a false idol. (I’ve been accused of this from time to time.) Wesley’s theology, methods, teachings, and example are held up against current church practice and where variance is found it is called error.
I certainly am more at risk of the second extreme than the first. I find it odd to bear the name of the people called Methodist and disdain any connection with the person, the spirit, and the ideas that gave rise to the name of Methodist in the first place.
I am also influenced by the thinking of Alasdair MacIntyre and his notion of a tradition. A tradition is a conversation through time that finds itself continually engaged with certain questions and observes certain mutual understandings about what counts as a good answer to those questions.
For me, the Wesleyan tradition asks vital questions and poses some of the most compelling answers about the nature and meaning of Christianity. When we stop asking the questions that so animated John Wesley’s ministry, we cease to be part of the movement.
We might very well still be in the Christian tradition, but we’ve moved out of the Wesleyan channel into other waters.
Among the questions I hear Wesley asking are:
- What is the true nature of Christian religion?
- How do I get to heaven?
- What is salvation?
- What can I know and experience with regard to my salvation?
- Who does God want to save?
- How do faith and works go together?
The questions themselves are not unique at all to Wesley, but the kinds of answers he gave them and the centrality he placed on them shaped the conversation that would become the Wesleyan tradition.
So, for me at least, being a part of this tradition means wrestling with the same questions Wesley did and at least starting from the position of saying his answers place a burden on me to explain why I find them inadequate if I refuse to accept them but still desire to be among the people called Methodist.
This is why I read and write and think about Wesley so much. For me at least, doing so enriches my experience of the Christian faith.
I am a part-time local pastor serving 
The doctrine of original sin is surely more humbling to man than the opposite: And I know not what honour we can pay to God, if we think man came out of His hands in the condition wherein he is now.
Well said John. Thanks for this post.
Excellent post, John. I like your conclusion that the questions Wesley asked are questions to be wrestled with even today, and that an explanation of their inadequacy must be provided if they are found wanting.
In a recent conversation with someone regarding the Wesleyan quadrilateral I pointed out that John Wesley provided us with A way to authentically live our Christian faith, not necessarily THE way – but that the nature of the quadrilateral is such that one would have to use reason (one corner of the quadrilateral) to demonstrate why it is not a good way.
Thank you, Steve. It means a lot coming from you.
@Chad – I’m glad you liked the post. I’m not completely sure I follow your point. Perhaps if you expanded on it some.
I think Chad’s basic point is that someone would likely have to use the elements of the quadrilateral to make the case against Wesley’s approach, which would just be ironic.
[...] some good thoughts on why you should read John Wesley. [...]
As I have always said, John Wesley was closer to the Calvinist doctrine, than the Arminian, when it came to the question of salvation. Life is short, and eternity is long, is a John Wesley concern. And certainly very Biblical. Has the Methodist Church lost Wesley & the gospel? is a fair question to my mind!
I speak mostly about the British Methodists. But I admire the American Methodist theologian Thomas Oden very much however. Note his many writings, but I love his: The Justification Reader. A small classic surely!
My entire knowledge of Arminianism comes from Wesley, so I’m a bit confused by the comment.
In what ways does he not reflect Arminianism views of salvation?
John,
First, to be fair, Arminianism came out, or was a Calvinist so-called departure, of course associated with Jakob Arminius. In contrast to Theodore de Beze, who asserted that all are individually predestined to eternal life or death, Arminius taught that predestination refers to the general divine decree to effect that all who believe shall be saved. The issue of course is how one gets to “belief”! And Arminianism was condemned by the Synod of Dort.
My point with John Wesley, is that he was/is closer to Calvin as to Sin, and Justification. If you read Wesley he follows Calvin, as to faith alone. At least in the initial aspect of salvation in/for the believer. He agrees with the Calvinistic conception of the foundation on which justification rests or, as he calls it, the source from which the justifying act proceeds. Which is simply God’s grace alone. But it is at the nature of the operation of grace that is the great difference between Wesley and Calvin. Here the two are not the same!
“I believe no good works can be previous to justification; nor, consequently a condition of it. If a man could be holy before he were justified, it would set his justification aside.” – Works, X, 389. See also Works, XII, 71.
And just one year before his death, Wesley wrote: About fifty years ago I had a clearer view than before of justification by faith; and in this, from that very hour, I have never varied, no not a hair’s breadth.” (Sermon CXX, sec. 18.)
Great overview and it confirms what I thought was the case.
You said Wesley was closer to Calvinism than Arminianism on some things. But my understanding is that he was simply Arminian. Classical Arminianism is strong on faith alone and the need for justification. Or so I thought.
My source of confusion is that you point to Wesley’s “Calvinism” as things that I think are consistent with being an Arminian. His Arminianism was his rejection of limited atonement (and hence predestination), his belief that grace could be resisted, and his experience that the saved could backslide.
Or so this is my understanding.
John,
I think historically Wesley was in line with the Reformers, as to Justification and Faith. Note his Moravian friends. To be sure, Wesley stands shoulder to shoulder with Whitefield and the Reformers in his conviction that man is justified by grace thru faith and not by works. This is foundationally Reformed, as to the Anglican Thirty-nine Articles also. Which Wesley read and studied, (see his Journal, Sun., Nov. 12, 1738, etc.)
Since I am myself an Anglican, I have always had an interest in the Wesley brothers, John and Charles. I see them as always Anglican “Reformed” in the sense of Justification. But, as to the full tenets of Calvinism certainly no. But closer to Luther & Calvin in the believers acceptance by faith alone, thru grace alone, in salvation. Indeed, John and Charles were Anglicans of the Reformed and too Catholic nature. We Anglicans call it the via-media: the middle way, again both Catholic & Reformed.
Though I am myself certainly much more Reformed, than classic Catholic. But I was raised Irish Roman Catholic in Dublin in the 50′s and early 60′s, but went to England in my teens. I am 60.
Thank you for the efforts to help this American understand the finer points.
And thank you for visiting the blog in the first place.
Thanks mate! BTW, I love your American Tom Oden, his Paleo(ancient)orthodoxy! Just a good man!