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.