In preparation for my taking the 2018 challenge (posted, below), I was reading the "Introduction" to Kenneth Cain Kinghorn's John Wesley on Christian Beliefs: The Standard Sermons in Modern English, Vol. 1, 1-20. Among the quotable material in the "Introduction" are the following:
"To the best of my knowledge . . . the doctrines we preach are the doctrines of the Church of England; indeed, the fundamental doctrines of the Church, clearly laid down, both in her Prayers, Articles, and Homilies." - John Wesley.
This quote expresses at least a part of what it means when I talk about being "Wesleyan/Anglican." This expresses the continuity between Methodism (broadly understood) and Anglicanism. It expresses the idea that my friend, the Rev'd. Tom Miles, often talks about, viz., that Nazarenes fit in the Anglican tradition.
The second quote follows directly after the one, above:
Wesley did not see himself as an innovator, but as a transmitter. His position paralleled that of
Vincent of Lerins (c. 450), who stated only that orthodoxy consists of "what has been believed
everywhere, always, and by all." Wesley said to his followers, "I, and all who follow my
judgment, do vehemently refuse to be distinguished from other men, by any but the common
principles of Christianity - the plain, old Christianity that I teach, renouncing and detesting all
other marks of distinction."
This is my own understanding of the role of a theologian and preacher. It fits nicely with both Thomas Oden and N.T. Wright's position. Some seek to come up with something "new." But those of this view seek to proclaim the same old message in new ways. - There is a huge difference.
4 comments:
If Wesley was keeping to the doctrine of the Church of England, then why don't his Articles of Religion match the ones from the Church of England? He deleted several from the original Church of England's 39, including the ones about predestination and election, the creeds, works done before justification, of Christ alone without sin, etc. It sounds like he was substituting his Arminianism for the Reformed theology of the Church of England, which sets him apart from classical, reformed Church of England theology, IMHO.
Dan,
Thank you for your comment! You have asked a very good question.
With respect, I think you are incorrect on more than one count. First, Wesley always held to the 39 Articles of the Church of England. He never deviated from such. The Articles that you reference were indeed given by Wesley to the Methodists in North America, along with a slightly abbreviated Prayer Book. However, in England, Wesley, himself, continued to use the 1662 BCP. Part of his rationale for the Methodist version of the BCP was a simplifying for their "wilderness" setting.
Second, if you wish to assert that a Calvinist reading of the doctrine and liturgy of the CoE is part and parcel of CoE doctrine, itself, I submit that you are incorrect. I have heard many a Calvinist make this argument, but such does not make it so. Many an Arminian has embraced all the whole of the 39 Articles. Wesley was not the first or the last to do so. As for Article 17, it is entirely consistent with Arminian theology in that God is said to have chosen such "in Christ." In this regard, I would ask where you find Wesley accused of denying the articles in his own setting, without his giving a clear defense. Most often, the fight between Calvinists and Wesley revolved around the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism, but it is not over Article 17, as such. That is a much more recent "attack." That, in itself, implies that, during Wesley's time the heated debate had more to do with the "interpretation" of the article. And so, I would suggest that while one may indeed affirm CoE theology as a Calvinist, one can equally do so as an Arminian. Such has been the case since before John Wesley. (For example, read Whitefield's attacks on Wesley. Where do you find him attack Wesley as not holding to the doctrines of the CoE, as such? You certainly see him arguing for a Calvinist position over Wesley's Arminian position, but where do you see him arguing that Wesley did not hold to the doctrines of the CoE?) . . .
. . . Wesley's preaching and teaching can be shown to support the other referenced articles. If you read Morning and Evening Prayer, for example, in the American Methodist BCP, you will find the Apostles' Creed, despite the loss of the Article.
- Why, then, did he leave off certain articles when providing the BCP for the American Methodists? (Remember, he, himself, continued to espouse and use the 1662.) - Frankly, I don't know why he left certain ones off, given his own teachings and assertions. It is frustrating, for example, that he left out the Article on the creeds, in particular. Admittedly, the rationale for leaving out Article 17 is likely in order to free the American Methodists to a degree from any possible Calvinists interpretation within the American church, whereas he had to deal with the so called "Calvinistic Methodists" in England. After all, there is continually the need to assert how Arminianism understands this article (as I have, here), and it certainly leaves open the door for a Calvinist reading (just as, I would argue, it is more natural to read articles 10 & 11 from an Arminian perspective). - It seems that, as James White has suggested, Wesley's intent in his revision of the Articles (again for American Methodists) is to insist only on central Christian doctrines and to avoid unnecessary controversy (cf. White's notes). Again, he is very aware of the new American setting for those Methodists.
And so, I would note, you have not indicated any place where Wesley's teaching/preaching has been in contradiction or out of the step with the doctrines of the CoE. Instead, you have done only two things. First, you argue from the fact that he excised a number of the 39 Articles for the American Methodists. However, it does not follow that he has anywhere denied or taught anything inconsistent with any of those articles. And, second, you have asserted that the "classical" CoE theology is "Reformed." This, Wesley denied (as do I).
In contrast to your argumentation, Wesley, again and again (as expressed in the quotes), asserts that all that he teaches and preaches is nothing other than the doctrines of the CoE.
So, I hope that that helps to answer your question.
Todd+
Thanks for responding to my comments. It does answer the question I posed. I agree with you that the Church of England is not entirely Calvinist, but it does hew fairly closely to "Reformed" doctrine. Another area where I have problems with Wesley is the concept of entire sanctification. If Adam and Eve could not lead a sinless life in the Garden with God as their companion and directly available to them with his physical presence, I don't see how entire sanctification can stand as a reasonable doctrine, unless you grant some power of the Holy Spirit that did not exist with God himself. I see the natural extension of this ending up with the Salvation Army where there aren't any sacraments, and everybody is saved and only stays saved if you just perform enough good works (an oversimplification, to be sure, but not that far off the mark) and are obedient.
I'm using the experience part of the Wesleyan quadrilateral here, and I come down firmly on the side of total depravity. I believe that Luther is much closer to the truth with "Simul justus et peccator." My only quandry is what is it that will make us entirely sanctified when we are resurrected, at least those of us who are elected to eternal life :-), to inhabit the new heaven and new earth when Jesus returns? Jesus has already atoned for our sins and yet we continue to sin in our earthly existence. Adam and Eve had direct, everyday access to God and they still sinned. What is going to be different when Jesus returns or will our resurrected selves still sin?
Post a Comment