Moore Wesleyan than not?

In Jeremy Smith’s thorough and interesting post raising questions about whether Beth Moore’s Bible study materials should be used in United Methodist settings, the criticism of Moore comes down to a few points.*

She is too literal in her reading of the Bible. She appeals too often to special revelation. She is too “Calvinist” for a United Methodist church teacher. I put Calvinist in quotes because the primary criticism leveled in this area needs further conversation.

Here is what one person who Smith quotes said about Moore:

From the Esther study, the main [problem] is her extreme doctrine of Providence. She believes, states, and teaches that everything that happens in our lives is an event caused by God, in order to teach us, or help us, etc. God causes everything to happen, whether good or bad. She goes on and on about it extensively, almost every lesson.

This comment is understood as a way that her Calvinism is at odds with a Wesleyan theology. In particular, the people Smith quotes and his own comments point out the pastoral problems created by such a position.

It is certainly the case that a strong view of God’s providence probably is not well-suited to the preached theology in most United Methodist congregations. How we got to where we are is a story others can trace. All I know is that John Wesley would not have nearly so difficult a time with this aspect of Moore’s theology as some of us seem to have.

Wesley distinguished between “bad things” that people do or cause and events we would call natural.

Human sin is the cause of the evil that we do. Tragedy and “bad things” that happen as the result of human sin are not God’s doing, although they are the ultimate result of a choice God made. In creating us in his image, God gave humans liberty. In abusing that liberty, we bring all manner of evil into the world.

But when it came to natural disasters such as earthquakes or human suffering caused by disease, Wesley was quite ready to say God was the cause. Here is what he wrote to one woman who was struggling with bad health.

Awhile ago I was concerned at hearing from Edinburgh, that you were unwell; although I could not doubt but it was ordered well by an unerring Providence, as a means of keeping you dead to all below, and of quickening your affections to things above. … And yet, it is certain, nature shrinks from pain, and that without any blame. Only in the same moment that we say, “If it be possible, let this cup pass from me,” the heart should add, like our great Pattern, “Nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.”

Wesley does depart from the extreme determinism of a Rick Warren (and I presume Beth Moore) when Warren says that every human choice and action is determined by God. Wesley leaves room for human choice. When a man punches you in the face, it is the man and not God doing it.

But it is wrong to suggest that Wesleyan theology (at least if by that we mean theology rooted in John and Charles Wesley’s theology) has anything but a strong doctrine of God’s providence. Precisely because Wesley believes God works good for all his creatures he also believes that he does work things that we call evil. Because he believes God works justice, he believes God inflicts judgement.

In Smith’s post, the question is raised about stillborn children. People wonder how it could possibly be a good pastoral response to suggest God killed a child to work “a plan” or “for the good” of the mother.

Of course, a pastor does not launch into such a lecture at the bedside of a mother who lost a child. If someone asks why something happened, the honest answer is that we do not know. We do not understand. We cannot parse the workings of human sin and God’s providence that lead to a particular painful outcome.

To claim we know for certain that God would never do such a thing is just as much a sin of pride as saying we know for certain that God killed a baby. We do not know. Only God does.

---

*Note: I have had very little exposure to Moore, so I am taking what I read on Smith’s blog as representative.