Wesleyan Theological Journal Volume 31, Number 2, Fall 1996 The New Creation: A Wesleyan Distinctive Theodore Runyon 5 Comparative Patterns of Church Historiography: North America and Southern Africa David P. Whitelaw 20 Pietistic Influence on John Wesley: Wesley and Gerhard Tersteegen J. Steven O’Malley 48 Theosis and Sanctification: John Wesley’s Reformulation of a Patristic Doctrine Michael J. Christensen 71 Reification of the Experience of Entire Sanctification in the American Holiness Movement Al Truesdale 95 The Inverted Shadow of Phoebe Palmer Charles Edwin Jones 120 The American Holiness Movement’s Paradigm Shift Concerning Pentecost Victor P. Reasoner 132 Supernatural and Sanctification: Comparison of Roman Catholic and Wesleyan Views John E. Culp 147 John Wesley’s “Evangelical” Theology of Infant Baptism G. Stephen Blakemore 167 Presidential Address: Reuniting the Two So Long Disjoined: Knowledge and Vital Piety Donald A. D. Thorsen 191 Book Reviews 210 Editor Barry L. Callen EDITOR’S NOTES The thirty-first annual meeting of the Wesleyan Theological Society convened in November, 1995, on the campus of Northwest Nazarene College in Nampa, Idaho. The program theme was “Sanctification and the New Creation,” planned under the direction of Dr. Kenneth Collins. Most of the articles appearing in this issue are revised and edited versions of select papers presented on this occasion. The addressings of this significant theme range in setting from the ancient East (Michael Christensen) to the new South Africa (David Whitelaw). Theodore Runyon keynotes the theme, identifying it as a crucial Wesleyan distinctive. Other writers trace aspects of the theme (1) in the American Holiness Movement (Al Truesdale, Charles Jones, and Victor Reasoner), (2) in relation to other Christian traditions (John Culp and Steven O‟Malley), and (3) in relation to the controversial issue of infant baptism (Stephen Blakemore). Donald Thorsen‟s Presidential Address is also featured, along with another announcement of the new Wesleyan Theological Society Endowment Fund. Several important books related to the Wesleyan theological tradition have been published recently. Six of these are reviewed in this issue. We read in 2 Corinthians 5:17 that “if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation; everything old has passed away; see everything has become new!” This is a promise, a possibility, the invitation of divine grace, the challenge of each believer and of the contemporary church as journeys of faith and efforts at mission proceed in the midst of our troubled world. May the contents of this issue bring insight and encouragement along the way. BLC 4 THE NEW CREATION: THE WESLEYAN DISTINCTIVE by Theodore Runyon Is it appropriate to speak of “Wesleyan distinctives”?[1] Does this not give the impression that we are about the sound the trumpets and attempt to prove the superiority of Wesleyan theology over all alternatives? My own commitment to ecumenism is too deep and too long-standing for that kind of chauvinism. However, I am well aware that ecumenical theology is not produced in a vacuum, nor does it originate out of whole cloth. It emerges from the creative confrontation of various historic traditions in interaction with the present needs of the church and the world. And this is possible only if the traditions are conscious of their heritages and seek to share them. Therefore I ask whether there is a distinctive contribution that the Wesleyan tradition has to make to ecumenical theology and to the whole church? This is indeed my contention, and this is why I believe that we as Wesleyans have a responsibility to retrieve our tradition. “Retrieval of tradition” is a rich notion first clarified by Martin Heidegger, then utilized by Karl Rahner, and more recently by David Tracy. “Human historicity is such,” claims Heidegger, “that when we go back to a text [or a tradition] we unavoidably bring to it out of our cultural milieu questions which -force the text to yield answers not heard before. Some- ____________ [1] I am aware that most dictionaries do not allow “distinctive” to be used as a noun, but I was pleased to find this nounal use endorsed by the OED, which defines a distinctive as “a distinguishing mark or quality, a characteristic.” 5 thing genuinely new comes to light. Granted that this occurs within human subjectivity, it is not subjectivistic because it arises out of the sensus plenior of the text [or tradition] itself.”[2] The angle of our questions causes the light to reflect off the facets of the tradition in a new way. Retrieval is therefore not an attempt to repeat the past, nor to honor the past for its own sake, but to allow the past to confront us in the present as it provides a key to unlock a richer future. It is with this in mind that we approach the Wesleyan tradition, a tradition that we are convinced has resources that can benefit the whole church. In pointing to the Wesleyan distinctives, however, we must remind ourselves that Wesley himself was an amazingly ecumenical product. No less than five distinct traditions informed his thinking: Puritanism, Anglicanism, Lutheranism by way of Moravian Pietism, Roman Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy by way of the Eastern Fathers. What marks his approach, however, are the themes he drew from these sources, how he critiqued them, and how he combined them. One of the more basic of the Wesleyan distinctives is the new creation, the very real transformation in the creature and the world which salvation brings about. The note of hope and expected transformation virtually sings its way through many of the sermons produced by Wesley during the final years of his long life. Listen to this passage from his 1783 sermon “The General Spread of the Gospel”: [God] is already renewing the face of the earth: And we have strong reason to hope that the work he hath begun, he will carry on unto the day of the Lord Jesus; that he will never intermit this blessed work of his Spirit, until he has fulfilled all his promises; until he hath put a period to sin, and misery, and infirmity, and death; and re-established universal holiness and happiness, and caused all the inhabitants of the earth to sing together, “Hallelujah, the Lord God omnipotent reigneth!”[3] In their latter days reformers often grow weary, disillusioned by the setbacks which erase the memories of early victories and the first flush of success. Wesley had reason enough to question the future of his move- ____________ [2] William J. Hill, The Search for the Absent God (New York: Crossroad, 1992), 171. [3] John Wesley‟s Works, 2:499. References are to the Bicentennial edition o the Works, unless otherwise specified. 6 ment. He had seen his followers divide and separate over issues that seemed to him of secondary importance. The increase in numbers of Methodists brought with it increased opposition from the Church he loved and to which he was deeply loyal. The sobriety and frugality of Methodists had led to their accumulation of material wealth, causing him to fear that within the movement lay the seeds of its own destruction. Yet, through all the negative signs on the horizon, this note of hope and sure confidence persists. In what is this hope grounded? What were its theo- logical and experiential underpinnings? And is it a hope both accessible and viable not only in Wesley‟s time but today? The Renewal of the Image of God The new creation is cosmic in its overall dimensions and its implications, but for Wesley it is focused in the renewal of persons. “Ye know that the great end of religion is to renew our hearts in the image of God.”[4] This renewing of the image is what Albert Outler calls “the axial theme of Wesley‟s soteriology.”[5] The renewing of the face of the earth begins, therefore, with the renewing of its human inhabitants. This is the pattern followed by the Eastern Fathers whom Wesley admired, linking cosmic redemption to human salvation. This is the renewal that Wesley saw beginning in the hearts and lives of those touched by his movement. The distinctive that sets Wesleyanism apart from the predominant Protestant heritage, however, is Wesley‟s insistence that the renewal of the image of God involves the creature in actual transformation — in no less than re-creation. In “The Scripture Way of Salvation,” Wesley describes it as a “real” as well as a “relative” change in the believer, the actual renewal of the image. Of course, the image of God traditionally has been identified with those unique abilities or capacities within human beings which have set them apart from other creatures. Thus the Deists of Wesley‟s day identified the image with reason, and soon after Wesley the philosopher Immanuel Kant identified it with conscience.[6] Reason and conscience were viewed as capacities resident within human beings that can provide ____________ [4] 2:185. [5] 2:185n. [6] Immanuel Kant, Lectures on Ethics (New York: Harper Torchbook, 1963), 133. 7 access to the divine.[7] Wesley, by contrast, sees the image more relationally, not so much as something humans possess as the way they relate to God and reflect God in the world. In an early sermon Wesley describes human beings as receiving the love of God and then reflecting that love toward all other creatures, but especially toward those likewise called to bear “the image of their Creator.”[8] The image of God, then, was viewed not as a human capability or inherent possession, but as a living relationship made possible by divine, uncreated grace. In this he shared the understanding of image found in the tradition of the Eastern Fathers.