If you regularly attend a church in any form of Protestantism, chances are that your church has undergone what is generally called a "stewardship campaign" in the last couple of months. Unquestionably 'money' is one of the most touchy subjects in church because of the stereotype established (rightly or no) that "the church is out to get your money." Still, finances are necessary for the life of the church so that the lights can be on, there's sufficient space and seating, etc. for the people who congregate together in one place to worship. Accordingly, churches establish a theme to speak on the importance of giving. To do so in a way that is encouraging and not guilt-riding is a delicate line to walk. Sometimes I feel like the pastor (or whoever may be speaking during those services) are walking around on egg shells, trying to avoid the perception that they are giving a guilt trip. To be sure, guilt trips are no fun, but I'd rather run the risk of people incorrectly perceiving my motives in speaking the truth found in the adage of "gain all you can, save all you can, give all you can" than to tickle ears saying, "Just give whatever you want." In any case, it's fairly typical (from what I understand and have experienced first-hand) that this campaign takes place in the few weeks leading up to Advent because the finance committee needs to establish a budget for the coming year. The 'stewardship campaign' is consummated in some form or another where the congregants send in their pledges for what they will contribute in the coming year.
Moving along...as I've mentioned in a couple of other posts (and I'm only a few posts into this blog), John Wesley had A LOT to say about money, and particularly the use of/management of it in the life of Christians. With that in mind, I went back to his sermon 'The Good Steward' expecting to hear the same sort of stuff found elsewhere in Wesley's other sermons on the subject of money. Much to my surprise, the emphasis upon "giving" and finances was not as central to his homily, though it was certainly an important aspect of it.
The sermon was addressed to nobility (a rarity among the Wesley corpus), and accordingly it is one of the more erudite sermons he composed. Yet it was also one of the most deeply convicting of his sermons. Had he stuck to money and what it means to be a good steward of the "stuff" with which we are entrusted, that would have been convicting enough. But for Wesley, stewardship is not merely a discipline or management issue...it's about sanctification. He reaches back to his tutelage under William Law and spoke of the 'stewardship of life itself.' So the question is not simply "What have you done with the money and materials that God has entrusted to your care?" The question is much bigger: "What have you done with the whole life that God has entrusted to you?" In other words, to see this in light of the 'Parable of the Talents,' the talents God gives are more than just gifts, money, and other things that we may typically call "stuff." Talents are everything that make up who you are: your mind/thoughts, your tempers and affections, your actions, your relationships, your tongue/speech, your hands & feet, your soul/breath...everything, even (or perhaps I should say, "especially") the grace God bestows upon and in you. How is your stewardship of all of these, consisting both of tangibles and non-tangibles?
If you think about it, this really makes sense. All of life itself is a gift from God. What if we really treated all of life that way? That would drastically change not only what we do with our money, but also what we do with the things that enter or approach our mind ('hold them in obedience to Christ'), our time, our physical abilities, our words, our attitudes, our education...again, everything. It's only been a day since I've re-read this sermon, but I'm telling you that God's grace triumphed more in me today than in any day in recent memory, because I realized that I am called to be a steward for my whole life.
Now I close with tying this to the beginning of the post: What would a 'stewardship campaign' that emphasized all of this look like? Would it really be any different than a resounding call to sanctification?
30 November 2010
29 November 2010
Victory in Advent
In my reading of John Wesley's sermons in reverse chronological order, I came across 'The End of Christ's Coming' within the last week. I thought that the sermon was apt for the beginning of Advent, where we prepare the way for remembering Christ's first coming while longing expectantly for his second coming. Wesley's text for the sermon is 1 John 3:8 - "For this purpose was the Son of God manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil." The purpose for the Incarnation, John tells us, is to bring triumph over and, ultimately, an end to all evil. Obviously, this mission is still being lived out seeing that evil (& its fruits) covers the face of the earth. But the reign of God in Christ has been inaugurated and awaits its consummation. That, to me, is a pretty good way of looking at this season of Advent.
One of the key passages for this season comes from the prophetic words of Isaiah, in which we find Christ entitled the 'Prince of Peace.' I find, therefore, a bit of a paradox in this title in light of Christ's mission of "destroying" the works of the devil. That's what led me to post on twitter the other day: "The Prince of Peace came to wage war on evil & destroy the works of the devil."
Now if you've any studying on atonement theology, you will be well aware of the language of 'Christus Victor' which points to Christ, who in the Incarnation and through his death, has wrought victory over the powers of evil and darkness, and (in the words of Irenaeus) "destroy[ed] the knowledge of evil and introduc[ed] and provid[ed] for the knowledge of good." Although Wesley himself didn't put as much emphasis upon this model as he did upon language of guilt & punishment (the key words for 'penal substitution' atonement theology), it is encouraging to see that he embraces the language of victory over evil in this instance, and links it to the work of Christ.
To return to the sermon in view, Wesley contends that the "works of the devil" are simply, "sin and its fruits." The 'remedy' (i.e., Christ's Incarnation) then must serve to undo or "right" all these works. Therefore, we clearly see that it is not solely for our 'justification' for which Christ came into the world, died, and rose again. It is also for our 'sanctification' and 'glorification.' Wesley contends: "Be not content with any religion which does not imply the destruction of all the works of the devil, that is, of all sin." That destruction is still in process.
Because until death, "the last work of the devil" according to Wesley (and the Bible, too), is destroyed then the remedy is still being applied. This is the content of our hope: our future bodily resurrection! We anticipate the 2nd coming in Advent and the content of that coming is the general resurrection, which will follow the lead of Christ's resurrection some 2000 years ago. And when we are raised to see and inhabit the new heaven and new earth, we will know that the "works of the devil" have been completely destroyed. Until then, we praise the King who was born in a stable and pray, "Even so, Come quickly Lord Jesus!"
27 November 2010
Post on Zeal @ the Weekly Wesley
I did a guest post for the Weekly Wesley on John Wesley's take on "zeal" - distinguishing right zeal from wrong zeal. Check it out! Read Aaron's other posts while you're at it! Good stuff!
19 November 2010
Money
I'm sure this is an issue that I'll revisit on a later date, and that's okay, because we need to be reminded frequently about the wise use and management of the money with which we are entrusted. The Bible says more about money than almost any other subject. John Wesley, being an homo unius libri (man of one book), naturally also had a lot to say about money. He talked and wrote about it again and again and again. I don't plan to cover his entire corpus in this post, but, according to my pattern of reading his sermons in reverse chronological order, will focus on how this theme hits at the heart of two of his later sermons, 'Causes of the Inefficacy of Christianity' and 'The More Excellent Way.'
I won't rehash everything he says but in 'Causes...' Wesley says plainly that the root of Christianity ineffectiveness has to do with the unwillingness of so-called Christians to daily take up our cross and follow Jesus. It is a failure of genuine discipleship. And, to bring the matter of money into the equation, this is most evidenced by an awareness that "Christianity, scriptural Christianity, has a tendency in process of time to undermine and destroy itself." This seems like a strange statement, but Wesley's reasoning behind this observation makes sense: "Wherever true Christianity spreads, it must cause diligence and frugality, which, in the natural course of things, must beget riches - and riches naturally beget pride, love of the world, and every temper that is destructive of Christianity." This demonstrates why we must understand discipleship (including the management of finances) as a lifelong process and not a one-time transaction. Wesley had three rules for how to manage money: "Gain all you can, Save all you can, Give all you can." The spelling out of these "rules" were given in an earlier sermon, to which I may return sometime later, but in this sermon ('Causes...') Wesley indicates that this process is cyclical and what happens more times than not is that people obey the first two rules and not the third. Here's what he says about that: "And yet nothing can be more plain than that all who observe the two first rules without the third will be twofold more the children of hell than ever they were before...Many of your brethren, beloved of God, have not food to eat; they have not raiment to put on; they have not a place where to lay their head. And why are they thus distressed? Because you impiously, unjustly, and cruelly detain from them what your Master and theirs lodges in your hands on purpose to supply their wants!" So...as long as we gain and save, we must...we MUST give... "Otherwise I can have no more hope of your salvation than for that of Judas Iscariot." Wesley's message to the Methodists here can be no clearer. How much of the inefficacy of Christianity today has to do with our failure in living according to this?
A couple of years prior to this sermon, Wesley wrote 'The More Excellent Way,' which isn't wholly about the use of money (I'll likely post more about the overall tenor of this sermon in another post as it should be read in comparison with Wesley's early sermon, 'The Almost Christian'), but the last section is devoted to the same issue as explained above. In this sermon, though, Wesley gives a specific example how one living in accordance with the more 'excellent way.' Today, a typical ethical exhortation I hear given to Christians is "live within your means," a fancy way of saying budget according to your income. While this is certainly more generous and favorable than some of the prosperity junk out there, it is still a far cry from the practice of the early Methodists, who went by the rule that after providing for the needs (and that rather strictly understood...not confused at all with "wants") of yourself and your immediate family to "give away all that remains." Wesley cites one example: "One of them had thirty pounds a year. He lived on twenty-eight and gave away forty shillings. The next year receiving sixty pounds, he still lived on twenty-eight, and gave away two and thirty. The third year he received ninety pounds, and gave away sixty-two. The fourth year he received a hundred and twenty pounds. Still he lived as before on twenty-eight, and gave to the poor ninety-two. Was not this a more excellent way? ... Fix your purpose to 'gain no more'. I charge you in the name of God, do not increase your substance! As it comes daily or yearly, so let it go; otherwise you 'lay up treasures upon earth'." This man didn't get a bigger house because his income increased. He didn't get a healthier horse. He didn't increase the size of his library anymore than normal. That's discipline! In bringing his argument to a close, Wesley asks a question that we would do well to ponder before going to purchase something that we don't need but really just want in order to follow the pattern of the world. How often have I thought, "I really don't need this and perhaps I shouldn't buy it, but God will forgive me"? Wesley suggests this piercing thought: "How can you on principles of reason spend your money in a way which God may possibly forgive, instead of spending it in a manner which he will certainly reward?" May we remember this thought, and live accordingly, as we seek to embody the gospel in this "rich" culture.
By the way, for a really great blog post on the lost emphasis of caring for the poor in the worship & liturgy of the Church and a longing to recover it, check out this post by Jonathan Powers.
I won't rehash everything he says but in 'Causes...' Wesley says plainly that the root of Christianity ineffectiveness has to do with the unwillingness of so-called Christians to daily take up our cross and follow Jesus. It is a failure of genuine discipleship. And, to bring the matter of money into the equation, this is most evidenced by an awareness that "Christianity, scriptural Christianity, has a tendency in process of time to undermine and destroy itself." This seems like a strange statement, but Wesley's reasoning behind this observation makes sense: "Wherever true Christianity spreads, it must cause diligence and frugality, which, in the natural course of things, must beget riches - and riches naturally beget pride, love of the world, and every temper that is destructive of Christianity." This demonstrates why we must understand discipleship (including the management of finances) as a lifelong process and not a one-time transaction. Wesley had three rules for how to manage money: "Gain all you can, Save all you can, Give all you can." The spelling out of these "rules" were given in an earlier sermon, to which I may return sometime later, but in this sermon ('Causes...') Wesley indicates that this process is cyclical and what happens more times than not is that people obey the first two rules and not the third. Here's what he says about that: "And yet nothing can be more plain than that all who observe the two first rules without the third will be twofold more the children of hell than ever they were before...Many of your brethren, beloved of God, have not food to eat; they have not raiment to put on; they have not a place where to lay their head. And why are they thus distressed? Because you impiously, unjustly, and cruelly detain from them what your Master and theirs lodges in your hands on purpose to supply their wants!" So...as long as we gain and save, we must...we MUST give... "Otherwise I can have no more hope of your salvation than for that of Judas Iscariot." Wesley's message to the Methodists here can be no clearer. How much of the inefficacy of Christianity today has to do with our failure in living according to this?
A couple of years prior to this sermon, Wesley wrote 'The More Excellent Way,' which isn't wholly about the use of money (I'll likely post more about the overall tenor of this sermon in another post as it should be read in comparison with Wesley's early sermon, 'The Almost Christian'), but the last section is devoted to the same issue as explained above. In this sermon, though, Wesley gives a specific example how one living in accordance with the more 'excellent way.' Today, a typical ethical exhortation I hear given to Christians is "live within your means," a fancy way of saying budget according to your income. While this is certainly more generous and favorable than some of the prosperity junk out there, it is still a far cry from the practice of the early Methodists, who went by the rule that after providing for the needs (and that rather strictly understood...not confused at all with "wants") of yourself and your immediate family to "give away all that remains." Wesley cites one example: "One of them had thirty pounds a year. He lived on twenty-eight and gave away forty shillings. The next year receiving sixty pounds, he still lived on twenty-eight, and gave away two and thirty. The third year he received ninety pounds, and gave away sixty-two. The fourth year he received a hundred and twenty pounds. Still he lived as before on twenty-eight, and gave to the poor ninety-two. Was not this a more excellent way? ... Fix your purpose to 'gain no more'. I charge you in the name of God, do not increase your substance! As it comes daily or yearly, so let it go; otherwise you 'lay up treasures upon earth'." This man didn't get a bigger house because his income increased. He didn't get a healthier horse. He didn't increase the size of his library anymore than normal. That's discipline! In bringing his argument to a close, Wesley asks a question that we would do well to ponder before going to purchase something that we don't need but really just want in order to follow the pattern of the world. How often have I thought, "I really don't need this and perhaps I shouldn't buy it, but God will forgive me"? Wesley suggests this piercing thought: "How can you on principles of reason spend your money in a way which God may possibly forgive, instead of spending it in a manner which he will certainly reward?" May we remember this thought, and live accordingly, as we seek to embody the gospel in this "rich" culture.
By the way, for a really great blog post on the lost emphasis of caring for the poor in the worship & liturgy of the Church and a longing to recover it, check out this post by Jonathan Powers.
16 November 2010
The First and the Second Table
Continuing in the strand of the last post, I want to add on a longer quotation from another sermon of Wesley, "The Unity of the Divine Being." Perhaps I am performing a strange practice, but I am currently reading his sermons in reverse chronological order, based on the Anthology compiled by Outler & Heitzenrater. The purpose for my doing this particular practice is merely to see what else stands out in terms of progression of Wesley's theology by seeing where he arrives and then tracing back through the journey that took him there. Not surprisingly, therefore, many similar themes stand out in the sermon under review here ("The Unity of the Divine Being") as the one referenced in my previous post ("On Living without God"). The two sermons were written one year apart.
After reading this one, I am really intrigued by the similarities of the religious trends between Wesley's day and our own...particularly on the congruence of the Deism that had infiltrated the Church of the 18th century and what is now being called "moralistic therapeutic deism" that describes the backbone-less gospel of "kindness" that most of our youth are hearing in the Church. Hear below Wesley's own diagnosis and insightful critique...
"How great is the number of those who, allowing religion to consist of two branches, our duty to God and our duty to our neighbour, entirely forget the first part, and put the second part for the whole, for the entire duty of man. Thus almost all men of letters, both in England, France, Germany, yeah, and all the civilized countries of Europe, extol 'humanity' to the skies, as the very essence of religion. To this the great triumvirate, Rousseau, Voltaire, and David Hume, have contributed all their labours, sparing no pains to establish a religion which should stand on its own foundation, independent on any revelation whatever, yeah, not supposing even the being of a God. So leaving him, if he has any being, to himself, they have found out both a religion and a happiness which have no relation at all to God, nor any dependence upon him.
"It is no wonder that this religion should grow fashionable, and spread far and wide in the world. But call it 'humanity', 'virtue', 'morality', or what you please, it is neither better nor worse than atheism. Men hereby wilfully and designedly put asunder what God has joined, the duties of the first and the second table. It is separating the love of our neighbour from the love of God."
I'm deeply intrigued by this terminology of "the first and the second table." Obviously Wesley sees the interdependence of the 2 great commandments, but to couch them in terms of "table" indicates that there is a sacramental value to this livelihood, even placing the analogy of a marriage upon the relationship between the commandments.
Now, while I've written certain things in the last couple of posts that may cast "kindness" in a negative light, I certainly don't want to negate its importance, but rather to point out that a kindness that will effect change for the better in us and in those around us will be one grounded on the love of God (that God has first loved us and that we love God in return). Accordingly, "Gratitude toward our Creator cannot but produce benevolence to our fellow-creatures." The kindness God demonstrates is not a doting one, but a costly one (viz., the cross) and one that "leads us to repentance," if I recall the words of St. Paul correctly, which concurs with Jesus' words in St. John's Gospel (12:32): "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself."
(I should note, on the other hand, that a demand for repentance not grounded in kindness will also fall flat. Go to most any display of screaming street preaching to see how this rings true.)
However, if we leave the duties of the first and second table joined, loving God and neighbor, then people will be drawn into a higher degree of happiness and existence than we will have ever known.
After reading this one, I am really intrigued by the similarities of the religious trends between Wesley's day and our own...particularly on the congruence of the Deism that had infiltrated the Church of the 18th century and what is now being called "moralistic therapeutic deism" that describes the backbone-less gospel of "kindness" that most of our youth are hearing in the Church. Hear below Wesley's own diagnosis and insightful critique...
"How great is the number of those who, allowing religion to consist of two branches, our duty to God and our duty to our neighbour, entirely forget the first part, and put the second part for the whole, for the entire duty of man. Thus almost all men of letters, both in England, France, Germany, yeah, and all the civilized countries of Europe, extol 'humanity' to the skies, as the very essence of religion. To this the great triumvirate, Rousseau, Voltaire, and David Hume, have contributed all their labours, sparing no pains to establish a religion which should stand on its own foundation, independent on any revelation whatever, yeah, not supposing even the being of a God. So leaving him, if he has any being, to himself, they have found out both a religion and a happiness which have no relation at all to God, nor any dependence upon him.
"It is no wonder that this religion should grow fashionable, and spread far and wide in the world. But call it 'humanity', 'virtue', 'morality', or what you please, it is neither better nor worse than atheism. Men hereby wilfully and designedly put asunder what God has joined, the duties of the first and the second table. It is separating the love of our neighbour from the love of God."
I'm deeply intrigued by this terminology of "the first and the second table." Obviously Wesley sees the interdependence of the 2 great commandments, but to couch them in terms of "table" indicates that there is a sacramental value to this livelihood, even placing the analogy of a marriage upon the relationship between the commandments.
Now, while I've written certain things in the last couple of posts that may cast "kindness" in a negative light, I certainly don't want to negate its importance, but rather to point out that a kindness that will effect change for the better in us and in those around us will be one grounded on the love of God (that God has first loved us and that we love God in return). Accordingly, "Gratitude toward our Creator cannot but produce benevolence to our fellow-creatures." The kindness God demonstrates is not a doting one, but a costly one (viz., the cross) and one that "leads us to repentance," if I recall the words of St. Paul correctly, which concurs with Jesus' words in St. John's Gospel (12:32): "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself."
(I should note, on the other hand, that a demand for repentance not grounded in kindness will also fall flat. Go to most any display of screaming street preaching to see how this rings true.)
However, if we leave the duties of the first and second table joined, loving God and neighbor, then people will be drawn into a higher degree of happiness and existence than we will have ever known.
10 November 2010
Holy Living and Orthodoxy
If you follow me on twitter you may recall a stream of quotes last night that came from John Wesley that had to do with God's concern more for our actions, tempers, and character than with our "ideas" or "concepts." Put simply, holy living is more important than orthodox opinions. I recall Brian MacLaren asserting in one of his trilogy installments of the A New Kind of Christian series that we followers of Christ should be more concerned with being good than being right. That is certainly a sentiment with which I resonate, but I also see how someone can easily run with this notion to such a degree that the gospel is reduced to a gentle suggestion to be nice to everyone...or put more aptly...to "therapeutic moralistic deism". By the way, I'm not suggesting that MacLaren's assertions are in line with that nor that Kenda Dean & others responding to "therapeutic moralistic deism" are rebutting anything by MacLaren.
(Sidebar: Kenda Dean's book on the subject, Almost Christian, is also the title of one of John Wesley's earliest sermons. Given that Dean is a Methodist pastor and that she quotes from Wesley's sermon by the title [and also one by George Whitefield], it is clear she is connecting the two. Not surprisingly, therefore, the contexts into which they were both speaking are remarkably similar.)
Though Wesley's sermon 'The Almost Christian' has a considerable amount of punches to throw in this avenue, I'm drawn more toward what was perhaps his last sermon 'On Living without God' (1790). What I find remarkable about Wesley is that he is a master of "not throwing out the baby with the bath water." If something, be it a doctrine, practice, or idea, was being abused, he always called to reject the abuse but to let the proper use of that thing remain. The same holds true to orthodox opinions and holy living.
One could point toward those quotes I streamed through twitter last night as saying that Wesley was really just concerned with being good and didn't really care about theology or orthodoxy. After all these statements are given in the closing of the sermon: "I believe the merciful God regards the lives and tempers of men more than their ideas. I believe he respects the goodness of the heart rather than the clearness of the head; and that if the heart of a man be filled (by the grace of God, and the power of his Spirit) with the humble, gentle, patient love of God and man, God will not cast him into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels because his ideas are not clear, or because his conceptions are confused. Without holiness, I own, no man shall see the Lord; but I dare not add, or clear ideas."
Let me tell you after I read that, I began to question the necessity of theological education and wondered if I have been heading down a futile path all this time. But then I was reminded that though Wesley considered holy living as more important than orthodox doctrinal adherence, it is clear that theology, for Wesley, is the servant of piety. Therefore, to be more holy and grow in grace, it's best to get acquainted with what this grace that God gives does for us and enables in us.
Furthermore, Wesley's description of one "living without God" is that such a person is a "practical" atheist...not that the person literally disbelieves in a god, but that one lives as though there isn't. He even distinguishes between "Christianity" and "morality" (not altogether different than the subject matter of Dean's book): "From hence we may clearly perceive the wide difference there is between Christianity and morality. Indeed nothing can be more sure than that true Christianity cannot exist without both the inward experience and outward practice of justice, mercy, and truth; and this alone is given in morality. But it is equally certain that all morality, all the justice, mercy, and truth which can possibly exist without Christianity, profiteth nothing at all, is of no value in the sight of God, to those that are under the Christian dispensation."
What matters, therefore, for those who hear of the good news of Christ, is not just being good and nice, but a 'new creation'...which is gained by being in union with Christ. That union, to me, is what brings these together.
(Sidebar: Kenda Dean's book on the subject, Almost Christian, is also the title of one of John Wesley's earliest sermons. Given that Dean is a Methodist pastor and that she quotes from Wesley's sermon by the title [and also one by George Whitefield], it is clear she is connecting the two. Not surprisingly, therefore, the contexts into which they were both speaking are remarkably similar.)
Though Wesley's sermon 'The Almost Christian' has a considerable amount of punches to throw in this avenue, I'm drawn more toward what was perhaps his last sermon 'On Living without God' (1790). What I find remarkable about Wesley is that he is a master of "not throwing out the baby with the bath water." If something, be it a doctrine, practice, or idea, was being abused, he always called to reject the abuse but to let the proper use of that thing remain. The same holds true to orthodox opinions and holy living.
One could point toward those quotes I streamed through twitter last night as saying that Wesley was really just concerned with being good and didn't really care about theology or orthodoxy. After all these statements are given in the closing of the sermon: "I believe the merciful God regards the lives and tempers of men more than their ideas. I believe he respects the goodness of the heart rather than the clearness of the head; and that if the heart of a man be filled (by the grace of God, and the power of his Spirit) with the humble, gentle, patient love of God and man, God will not cast him into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels because his ideas are not clear, or because his conceptions are confused. Without holiness, I own, no man shall see the Lord; but I dare not add, or clear ideas."
Let me tell you after I read that, I began to question the necessity of theological education and wondered if I have been heading down a futile path all this time. But then I was reminded that though Wesley considered holy living as more important than orthodox doctrinal adherence, it is clear that theology, for Wesley, is the servant of piety. Therefore, to be more holy and grow in grace, it's best to get acquainted with what this grace that God gives does for us and enables in us.
Furthermore, Wesley's description of one "living without God" is that such a person is a "practical" atheist...not that the person literally disbelieves in a god, but that one lives as though there isn't. He even distinguishes between "Christianity" and "morality" (not altogether different than the subject matter of Dean's book): "From hence we may clearly perceive the wide difference there is between Christianity and morality. Indeed nothing can be more sure than that true Christianity cannot exist without both the inward experience and outward practice of justice, mercy, and truth; and this alone is given in morality. But it is equally certain that all morality, all the justice, mercy, and truth which can possibly exist without Christianity, profiteth nothing at all, is of no value in the sight of God, to those that are under the Christian dispensation."
What matters, therefore, for those who hear of the good news of Christ, is not just being good and nice, but a 'new creation'...which is gained by being in union with Christ. That union, to me, is what brings these together.
05 November 2010
Prevenience & Justification
Though not exactly the same issue I raised yesterday, something related to the issue of Wesley's theology of infancy is our understanding of what prevenient grace is and what its benefits for humanity include. Spelling that out would take quite a while and though I'll likely be speaking about them from time to time, I want to focus my energy here on a particular aspect of prevenience; namely, how it is understood as a deletion of the guilt of original sin (or, "original guilt").
Original guilt is a topic that is often ignored in Wesleyan theological circles. This could be because of several reasons. I think the main ones are because original guilt is often misunderstood and it is seen as unimportant because our associated guilt with Adam has been cleared by the atonement in Christ. In order to make sure it is understood correctly, we must be careful to differentiate between "original" guilt and "actual" guilt. Put directly, all humans (everywhere & always) are guilty (in some sense) of original sin. Though it may sound like I'm speaking out of both sides of my mouth, guilt (in this sense) does not necessarily correspond to complicit action by all members of the guilty "party." In other words, we are guilty by association under the federal headship of our first parents. Where this is seen most poignantly in Wesley's thought, as far as I can tell, is in his description of the "natural man" and his application of the Ephesians 2:3 passage which says we were "by nature children of wrath."
This brings us to the second reason that "original guilt" is often ignored: that it has been negated by the atonement in Christ. To me that is a valid reason to not stress the point too much because although we may have a concept of "natural man" (i.e., one that is utterly without the grace of God), we do not know of any actual humans of which we can speak of in this way because God has endowed (preveniently graced, if you will) a measure of free will and "the light which enlightens everyone who comes into the world" through Christ's incarnation. If this grace offered in the atonement, which Wesley and I understand to be a "universal" one, removes the guilty status of all humans (at least until they actualize sin for themselves individually), then would we not say that prevenient grace is actually "justifying" in some sense? If so, then we may need to re-examine our understanding of "justification" and/or our understanding of "prevenient" grace because Wesley was adamant about not confusing the two. Thoughts?
Original guilt is a topic that is often ignored in Wesleyan theological circles. This could be because of several reasons. I think the main ones are because original guilt is often misunderstood and it is seen as unimportant because our associated guilt with Adam has been cleared by the atonement in Christ. In order to make sure it is understood correctly, we must be careful to differentiate between "original" guilt and "actual" guilt. Put directly, all humans (everywhere & always) are guilty (in some sense) of original sin. Though it may sound like I'm speaking out of both sides of my mouth, guilt (in this sense) does not necessarily correspond to complicit action by all members of the guilty "party." In other words, we are guilty by association under the federal headship of our first parents. Where this is seen most poignantly in Wesley's thought, as far as I can tell, is in his description of the "natural man" and his application of the Ephesians 2:3 passage which says we were "by nature children of wrath."
This brings us to the second reason that "original guilt" is often ignored: that it has been negated by the atonement in Christ. To me that is a valid reason to not stress the point too much because although we may have a concept of "natural man" (i.e., one that is utterly without the grace of God), we do not know of any actual humans of which we can speak of in this way because God has endowed (preveniently graced, if you will) a measure of free will and "the light which enlightens everyone who comes into the world" through Christ's incarnation. If this grace offered in the atonement, which Wesley and I understand to be a "universal" one, removes the guilty status of all humans (at least until they actualize sin for themselves individually), then would we not say that prevenient grace is actually "justifying" in some sense? If so, then we may need to re-examine our understanding of "justification" and/or our understanding of "prevenient" grace because Wesley was adamant about not confusing the two. Thoughts?
04 November 2010
What if Wesley Would Have Reproduced?
A few days after my eldest (Sam) was born, I ran into one of my college professors as I was getting some essentials for our newborn: diapers, formula, etc.
Upon sharing the jubilant news of the arrival of Sam into our home, my professor said, "I'll pass onto you what one of my mentors, Dr. Kinlaw, passed onto me when I had my first child: 'Now your theological education really begins'."
Not to say that you have to have children to enhance your theology, but the general truth to what he said can't be understated. It is a prime example of how much "experience" plays into the theological enterprise. I could go on and on about how much insight I've gained into the human condition since having children; and it all isn't just about observing the behavior of my kids...learning how to parent & discipline well has been a difficult and (often) painful process to undergo. On the other hand, experiencing the love of a father who would do anything for his children has been invaluable & helps me resonate (to at least some degree) with the benevolence our Father has toward us.
I wouldn't say that my theology has drastically changed in content, but I know the truth of how much I have grown in my understanding of God and humanity.
So given this statement uttered to me in a grocery store, I sometimes wonder what it would have been like had John Wesley had children. As you may know, Wesley was one of 19 children (though only seven lived into adulthood). His brother Charles had children, grandchildren, etc. And though John did marry, it is well documented both from his journals and letters that his marriage was filled with discontent, anger, jealousy, resentment, and a host of other qualities that leave a lot to be a desired. Given John's constant travelling adventures and the difficult relationship he had with his wife, it may be a good thing they didn't procreate. However, we might wonder if they would have conceived & given birth, would Wesley's itinerant tendencies have declined? Some have said that John was really married to the Methodist movement; others that his children were all the Methodists under his leadership. I understand those sentiments, but I'm curious if he would have felt differently had circumstances been different at home.
So of course, the historical impact comes into play with such a wondering...would he have viewed the itinerant system differently? Would his marriage have undergone a change for the better? But I also wonder about what impact, if any, having children would have had upon his theology. This raises the issue, in my mind, of Wesley's theology of infancy. Did Wesley exude consistency on his thoughts regarding infants throughout his theological journey? That's a question I'd like to tackle in the upcoming posts.
03 November 2010
New blog...new focus...
If for some random reason you happen to be reading this, welcome!
I've taken a sabbatical, albeit unintentional, from blogging for a few months and thought I'd pick it back up again with a renewed focus: expounding on the Wesleyan theological heritage, from which I come. I've come to develop a deep appreciate for the Anglican roots of our Methodist movement/tradition (hence the name for the blog) and this will likely be manifest in what follows in the posts of the next days, weeks, months, etc.
Working on a doctoral thesis means that the frequency of my posting will be intermittent so if you follow, please be patient with me. I have other commitments that I won't neglect: primarily to my family (wife & 2 children, ages 3 & 1), deadlines for my project, work, and of course, sleep.
Where you think I'm wrong, let me know, but please be gentle and I will happily dialogue with you.
To give you a foretaste of what's (likely) coming...
The atonement theology (both explicit & implicit) in John Wesley's thought will ever be a significant theme, seeing that it is the topic of my thesis.
Wrestling with the notion of baptismal regeneration. Is this a viable option for Evangelical Protestants, in general, or Methodists (like myself), in particular?
In a related stream: sacramental theology. This is an important issue that we (as Methodists) must develop and converse with one another about as we grow in this vital part of the life of the Church.
Much more, I anticipate, will come to mind and heart...so stay tuned!
I've taken a sabbatical, albeit unintentional, from blogging for a few months and thought I'd pick it back up again with a renewed focus: expounding on the Wesleyan theological heritage, from which I come. I've come to develop a deep appreciate for the Anglican roots of our Methodist movement/tradition (hence the name for the blog) and this will likely be manifest in what follows in the posts of the next days, weeks, months, etc.
Working on a doctoral thesis means that the frequency of my posting will be intermittent so if you follow, please be patient with me. I have other commitments that I won't neglect: primarily to my family (wife & 2 children, ages 3 & 1), deadlines for my project, work, and of course, sleep.
Where you think I'm wrong, let me know, but please be gentle and I will happily dialogue with you.
To give you a foretaste of what's (likely) coming...
The atonement theology (both explicit & implicit) in John Wesley's thought will ever be a significant theme, seeing that it is the topic of my thesis.
Wrestling with the notion of baptismal regeneration. Is this a viable option for Evangelical Protestants, in general, or Methodists (like myself), in particular?
In a related stream: sacramental theology. This is an important issue that we (as Methodists) must develop and converse with one another about as we grow in this vital part of the life of the Church.
Much more, I anticipate, will come to mind and heart...so stay tuned!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)