JOHN WESLEY AND HIS ANTECEDENTS: THE EASTERNIZATION OF BIBLICAL SANCTIFICATION Mark Snoeberger Detroit Baptist Seminary Introduction: In my presentation yesterday I suggested that the doctrine of regeneration and sanctification did not develop as rapidly in the earliest days of the Reformation as did the doctrine of justification. Specifically, I suggested that due to their fixation on justification, some popular expressions of the Lutheran branch of the Reformation flirted with the error precipitated by Paul in Romans 6:1—“Continuing in sin that grace may increase”—and earned a reputation (probably harsher than was deserved) for being “antinomian.” Though this popular Lutheran error survives today, especially among those who see progressive sanctification as a matter of “reckoning on” or rehearsing Christ’s justifying work, I suggested that the majority of the Reformers (those of the Reformed branch of the Reformation especially, but also most from the Lutheran branch and many from the Anglican branch too) adopted a corrected model that recovered the importance of Christ’s regenerating work as the experimental or animating seat of progressive sanctification. Note the diagram below: Justification (the Righteousness/ forensic benefit) Right Standing Union with Christ Regeneration/Definitive Sanctification/ Sanctification (the Holiness experimental benefit) The Reformed corrective, however, was not the only historical solution to the primitive Lutheran problem. On the continent, especially, pietism emerged as the major populist solution to the “de- sanctification of the world.”1 As important as pietism was in John Wesley’s development (and also that of his brother Charles), however, it was his enthrallment with the ancient mysticism of 1Carter Lindberg fingers this as the singularly defining feature of the pietist movement in his “Introduction” to The Pietist Theologians, ed. Carter Lindberg (Oxford: Blackwell, 2005), 2. 1 2 the Eastern Church that was likely the more substantive influence on his thinking. In this presentation we will look at both of these antecedents to Wesley’s theology. Wesley, the Via Media, and Links to Eastern Orthodoxy John Wesley was a lifelong Anglican, and felt the influence of that church from infancy to his grave. And while Wesley’s novel ideas strained his Anglican ties at times,2 Wesley opposed separating from Anglicanism3 and ever insisted that the doctrines of Methodism were the doctrines of the Church of England.4 Of course being an Anglican did not necessarily settle Wesley’s soteriology. The Church of England was scarred by bitter division during the seventeenth century between Laudian “high” churchmanship and English Puritanism. The differences between the two groups were manifold, but centered about three major issues: (1) the issue of centralized Church authority, which the Puritans resisted and the Laudians asserted; (2) discrepancy between eastern and western church influence in the sphere of soteriology, with the Puritans emphasizing a “Western, forensic, and juridicial soteriology” and the Laudians a “more Eastern, imparted, and therapeutic soteriology”;5 and a related issue, (3) conflict over Calvinism and Arminianism, on which issue the Puritans were almost unanimously Calvinistic and the Laudians inclined toward Arminianism. On the first issue Wesley was a bedfellow with the Puritan nonconformists, but on the latter two issues, issues more critical to this study, Wesley sided with the Laudians against the Puritans.6 Laudian Anglicanism, with its emphasis on ancient church tradition and centralized authority is something of an anomaly within the Reformation. Many historians, in fact, choose not to recognize Anglicanism as a branch of the Reformation at all because of these features, as they are arguably incompatible with the spirit of the Reformation. Nonetheless, Anglicanism found distinction from Rome in what they often called a via media, rejecting many of the Western traditions central to Romanism and adopting distinctively ante-Nicene and Eastern traditions. As such, Anglicanism proved more susceptible than other Reformed groups to the unique deviations 2For a comprehensive survey of which see Frank Baker, John Wesley and the Church of England (London: Epworth, 1970). 3See esp. Wesley, “Reasons Against a Separation from the Church of England,” in WJW 13:225–32; also the following from a personal letter on the topic: “It is very possible to be united to Christ and to the Church of England at the same time; that we need not separate from the Church, in order to preserve our allegiance to Christ; but may be firm members thereof, and yet ‘have a conscience void of offense toward God and toward men’” (Letter of January 10, 1758 to the Rev. Mr. Toogood of Exeter, in WJW 10:506). As late as 1787 Wesley would write, “When the Methodists leave the Church of England God will leave them” (Letter of March 25, 1787 to Mr. Samuel Bardsley, in WJW 12:504). 4This theme he reiterates time and again. See, e.g., his Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion, in WJW 8:46–247. 5William H. Shontz, “Anglican Influence on John Wesley’s Soteriology,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 32.1 (Spring 1997): 36. Shontz argues that this is the primary point of division between the sparring parties. Indeed, while authority is often argued as the key point of disagreement, it probably would not have come to so sharp a head had conflicting soteriologies not served as a catalyst and fuel for dissent. 6In should be noted that with the rise of “evangelicalism” (Arminainism/Wesleyanism) and decline of Puritanism in the Anglican Church, the “low” church developed both in character and name into a “latitudinarian” or broad church. With this shift the low view of historical tradition continued, but the originally Calvinistic character of the earliest “low” churchmen was replaced by a decidedly anti-Calvinistic one. For now, however, the early, Puritan expression of the “low” is of immediate interest to this study. 3 of Eastern Orthodoxy, and specifically for our study, (1) the idea of iterative “states” of Christian experience and (2) the orthodox doctrine of theosis.7 Wesley reflects this tendency, following his father’s lead in asserting the priority of the early Church Fathers, chiefly those “who wrote before the Council of Nice,” but also “St. Chrysostom, Basil, Jerome, Austin; and, above all, the man of a broken heart, Ephraim Syrus.”8 Of these, Ephraim and also his fellow-desert ascetic Macarius provide the greatest influence (at least in terms of citation) on Wesley.9 A few notable highlights merit observation here. Wesley and the Alexandrian Tradition: Clement of Alexandria Wesley’s study in the Church Fathers was broad, extending from the second century forward, with Clement of Alexandria (c. 155–c. 220) his earliest major influence. Clement’s influence in Wesley is well documented, most thoroughly in Neil Anderson’s Definitive Study of Evidence Concerning John Wesley’s Appropriation of the Thought of Clement of Alexandria.10 Wesley claimed to have used a text from Clement as the basis for his Character of a Methodist,11 and he 7 Theosis is the doctrine that the end of salvation is realized in the deification of the believer. The doctrine is generally attributed first to the statement of Irenaeus that “we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.38.4, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1:522; cf. also 3.19.1, in ibid., 1:448–49). Capitalizing on texts such as 2 Peter 1:4 (that believers “become partakers of the divine nature”), this understanding was adopted by Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Athanasius, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, and countless other lesser-known fathers of the Eastern tradition. Some of these, following the lead of neo-platonic principles, expressed the idea of theosis in almost pantheistic terms. However, most orthodox theologians have withdrawn from this extreme expression, choosing instead a kind of theosis describable in terms of the communicable attributes of God, including not only immortality and divine “energies,” but also the prospect of true impeccability (perfection) and “perfect love” before surrendering the human nature, i.e., in the present life (see, e.g., Daniel B. Clendenin, Eastern Orthodox Christianity [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003], 117–37; Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, trans. members of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius [London: J. Clarke, 1957]). The claim to theosis in Wesley has been rejected by some Wesley scholars (see, e.g., Kenneth J. Collins, John Wesley: A Theological Journey [Nashville: Abingdon, 2003], 199). But as we shall see below, Wesley’s foremost informing sources (both orthodox and Anglican) and especially the language of his hymnody make the charge of theosis in Wesley an eminently believable one (see, e.g., Harald Lindström, Wesley and Sanctification [reprint of the 1946 Nya Bokförlags Aktieforlaget ed.; London: Epworth, 1950], 159; Albert Outler, ed., John Wesley [New York: Oxford University Press, 1964]; Ted A. Campbell, Wesley and Christian Antiquity [Nashville: Abingdon, 1991]; Randy Maddox, Responsible Grace: John Wesley’s Practical Theology (Nashville: Abingdon, 1994); an entire issue of Wesleyan Theological Journal (issue 26.1 [Spring 1991]); and, S. T. Kimbrough, ed., Orthodox and Wesleyan Spirituality, (Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2002). 8“An Address to the Clergy,” in WJW 10:484. Austin (Augustine) stands out here as the only distinctively Western Father among these (Jerome might be included here as one of the principle doctors of the Western Church, but his extensive sojourns and training in the East render him nearly equally a product of the East as of the West). 9For a helpful cataloging and sense of the respective “weight” of these influences on Wesley, see the indices to Wesley’s Works; also Campbell’s catalog of Wesleyan antecedents in Wesley and Christian Antiquity, 125–34.