What do you mean by "Wesleyan"?

[Eric Frey]

I just began reading Kenneth Collins' new book on Wesleyan theology. I have only started, but I began wondering exactly what is meant by "Wesleyan"? We claim to be "Wesleyan," what do we mean when we say that?

How would you explain this to a friend who wants to know what "Weslyans" believe?

[Hans Deventer]

How would you explain this to a friend who wants to know what "Wesleyans" believe?

I think that is the very subject of the book. So I don't really understand the question. You don't agree with Collins?

But from a lay perspective, if you start with the 5 points of the Remonstrants and add some holiness to the mix, you've give some indication of what Wesleyan is.

[Eric Frey]

Like I said, I've only read one chapter. I know he is going to tell us what he thinks it means to be Wesleyan and I am looking forward to his response. As a church we have labeled ourselves as "A Church in the Wesleyan Tradition." From what I have read so far, I feel safe in guessing that there will be some differences between what Collins says and our doctrine. So what do we mean by Wesleyan.

On a personal leverl, I describe myself as Wesleyan and many others on here say they are Wesleyan. There are certainly no shortages on differences of doctrine and belief on naznet. I am wondering what one has to believe in order to claim to be Weslyan? What make one Wesleyan?

For instance, Wesley publishsed a "Sunday Service" for the Methodist Churches in America. We certainly do follow Wesley in things related to worship, yet we still claim to be Wesleyan. What, then, do we mean when we say we are a Wesleyan?

Or perhaps asked another way...would Wesley consider us Wesleyan?

Does that clarify the question?

[Jamie Wayne]

Or perhaps asked another way...would Wesley consider us Wesleyan?

In some ways I suspect not - Wesley was much more of a fan of liturgy and the Eucharist, for examples.

[Hans Deventer]

As a church we have labeled ourselves as "A Church in the Wesleyan Tradition." From what I have read so far, I feel safe in guessing that there will be some differences between what Collins says and our doctrine. So what do we mean by Wesleyan.

Well, obviously the American Holiness Movement has become a specific expression of the "Wesleyan Tradition". It has always considered itself to be a true heir, though. And the discussions between those that favour the AHM and those that would rather see more of a true Wesley approach, have been long and complicated.

With very broad strokes you could say the the AHM majored on the idea of the instantaneous and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and individuality, while Wesley focussed on groups and was of course much more high church, as Jamie already mentioned. Then of course it was John Fletcher who started the accent on the age of the Spirit and off we go into endless discussions. The Wesleyan Theological Journal has filled volumes of this discussion in the 1980's, and I haven't heard it was ever resolved.

Again, like I wrote, a short description of Wesleyan would be the 5 points of the Remonstrants and the attainability of holiness in life. That's what we mean by Wesleyan.

I don't think our doctrine as expressed in the Articles of Faith differs a great deal from what Collins is saying though, so I have to admit I'm still not that clear on your question, unless my short description above is what you are looking for.

[Ian Gentles]

Maybe best to say, a Wesleyan is a person who seeks for the fullness of love as Wesley did. I prefer Wesley's to those of the AHM, to be truly Wesleyan we must look to Wesley's teachings and not what others say.

[Roland Hearn]

I just began reading Kenneth Collins' new book on Wesleyan theology. I have only started, but I began wondering exactly what is meant by "Wesleyan"? We claim to be "Wesleyan," what do we mean when we say that?

How would you explain this to a friend who wants to know what "Weslyans" believe?

It would take a lot to answer the question even close to adequately. There are some starting points that are probably helpful, though. Much of what Wesley was was a reflection of his roots. You find a heavy emphasis on the church traditions but at the same time he was a pragmatist preaching in the fields when deep within he almost recoiled at the idea. He was heavily influenced by the Armenian view of free will. He saw holiness as a present reality, which is probably the starting point for most people that claim to be Wesleyan. He was a dynamic thinker rather than a static thinker, he didn't see things as resolved nearly as much as those that come after him would like him to, which makes his perspective perfect for a post-modern world.

To be a Wesleyan probably means you see holiness as a present reality accomplished by grace through faith as a part of the provision for salvation. Holiness is something that is part and parcel to the Christian life there is an encounter with God as often as not instantaneous were a person is brought into a sate of perfect love, we call it entire sanctification. To be Wesleyan would mean you would value free will and reject anything that looks like determinism. To be Wesleyan means you are involved in a present linking between faith and life not an ethereal one. To be Wesleyan you would have a catholic spirit. To be Wesleyan you would see graciousness on all nonessentials as essential. While all of those things spin off in many directions and there is endless debate on the applications those are the things I see as being central to what it is to be Wesleyan, there are probably others but off the top of my head those are the ones that most stand out.

[Billie Goodson]

Or perhaps asked another way...would Wesley consider us Wesleyan?

Does that clarify the question?

There is a consideration that should be given to the difference between being "Wesleyan" and being "like Wesley." I think there is a strong difference between holding to the ideas that we define as "Wesleyan" and really being like-minded to the person of Charles Wesley. The same is true of Calvinism. I would even go so far as to say even the difference between Christian, and disciple of Christ. So, my question would be are you speaking of someone holding to the Wesleyan tradition or the idea and person of Wesley.

[Roland Hearn]

There is a consideration that should be given to the difference between being "Wesleyan" and being "like Wesley." I think there is a strong difference between holding to the ideas that we define as "Wesleyan" and really being like-minded to the person of Charles Wesley. The same is true of Calvinism. I would even go so far as to say even the difference between Christian, and disciple of Christ. So, my question would be are you speaking of someone holding to the Wesleyan tradition or the idea and person of Wesley.

Billie, you are definitely right to be a Wesleyan does not mean that you see yourself as committed to seeing things the same as Wesley, although I think the model would probably be John rather than Charles but I think you were having a little, "I wonder who is reading closely" moment. I think Wesley would be happy to consider most people that claim themselves as Wesleyan as precisely that. I think he tended to be very controlling in the things he had control over, so he wouldn't let a lot of people call themselves Methodists if he was in charge of the organization. I think his catholic spirit would say if "if you are trying to think through the issues in the same way as I am I am happy to let you use my name to define that process." Wesley was very inclusive.

[Billie Goodson]

Billie, you are definitely right to be a Wesleyan does not mean that you see yourself as committed to seeing things the same as Wesley, although I think the model would probably be John rather than Charles but I think you were having a little, "I wonder who is reading closely" moment.

Well, at least Charles was a Wesley... Gee, I had to go back and reread my post to see that I had managed to messed it up. At least I picked a reasonably close name -- that is what I get for trying to hurry up a post before my laptop went into hibernate because of the battery. Thanks Roland! Interesting, you used the phrase:

I think his catholic spirit would say if "if you are trying to think through the issues in the same way as I am I am happy to let you use my name to define that process."

Moreland [in his book "Love Your God With All Your Mind"] had a very precise point about Wesley and his admonition for ministers with the statement:
Ought not a Minister to have, First, a good understanding, a clear apprehension, a sound judgment, and a capacity of reasoning with some closeness?"


I read this quote between my post and your followup, then you said something that resonated so closely with it.

[Mike McVey]

So what do we mean by Wesleyan.

It means refusing Eucharist to any woman who refused to marry you! :gen11

I am wondering what one has to believe in order to claim to be Weslyan? What make one Wesleyan?

To claim to be Wesleyan all you have to do is say to yourself, I claim to be Wesleyan. Sadly, this is almost more truth than joke. I would say one who keeps with some spirit of Wesley. Is that the way it should be? ..... probably not, but it works for now.

What, then, do we mean when we say we are a Wesleyan?

The usual response I hear when asking lay people and future pastors, "Not Calvinists! We believe in freewill!"

Or perhaps asked another way...would Wesley consider us Wesleyan?

No. Well maybe. I think Wesley would be offended that we would claim him as our trend-Father. At least I hope he would. Depends on the who "we" are.

[Billie Goodson]

It means refusing Eucharist to any woman who refused to marry you! :gen11


I guess I was not familiar with that tenet of Wesleyan theology. I take it there is some source for that.


To claim to be Wesleyan all you have to do is say to yourself, I claim to be Wesleyan. Sadly, this is almost more truth than joke. I would say one who keeps with some spirit of Wesley. Is that the way it should be? ..... probably not, but it works for now.


Do you think there should be a higher standard? What would you hold as the doctrinal beliefs necessary. Since the Nazarene Church claims to be a based on the Wesleyan Tradition, it seems relevant to determine what this means.


The usual response I hear when asking lay people and future pastors, "Not Calvinists! We believe in freewill!"


So it would seem a more complete answer would be readily offered. I am not convinced your response has added any more insight than the one you quoted.


No. Well maybe. I think Wesley would be offended that we would claim him as our trend-Father. At least I hope he would. Depends on the who "we" are.

Is there any particular reason, or just a general claim. Eric seemed to pose a valid query. He seems to be seeking some level of understanding. If someone from your congregation asked, is this what you would want to offer as your explanation?

[Mike McVey]

I guess I was not familiar with that tenet of Wesleyan theology. I take it there is some source for that.

Legend says that John did this while he was in Georgia.

Do you think there should be a higher standard? What would you hold as the doctrinal beliefs necessary. Since the Nazarene Church claims to be a based on the Wesleyan Tradition, it seems relevant to determine what this means.

First of all, just because someone claims something it does not mean it is true. Second, I am less concerned if someone is Wesleyan than Christian. I think that Wesley was more concerned with that anyways. There is no solid definition/standard for being Wesleyan - it is all interpretation. We are also in the Calvinist tradition because Wesley was a Calvinist. We are also in the Roman Catholic tradition because Calvin was Catholic. Even if I had a standard for what it meant to be Wesleyan, it would be my interpretation.

So it would seem a more complete answer would be readily offered. I am not convinced your response has added any more insight than the one you quoted.

Is there any particular reason, or just a general claim. Eric seemed to pose a valid query. He seems to be seeking some level of understanding. If someone from your congregation asked, is this what you would want to offer as your explanation?

I think a few different people gave serious answers. It does not hurt Eric to make light of his questions. As far as what I would say to someone from my congregation asking, I would answer adequately my interpretation. Yet the fact is most of the students I went to school with communicated that not being Calvinists and believing in freewill were what identified us as Wesleyan. This is also not too different from several Methodist seminary students that I conversed with frequently. This is important as whatever it does mean to be Wesleyan, what is being communicated is what these students say.

Even in our Nazarene denomination, Wesleyan is not distinct or specific. Compare Taylor with Wynkoop or Dunning with Grider. Compare Lodahl with Moore. I have heard a few different African DS's give splendid sermons dealing with a Calvinistic understanding of holiness. They completely (IMO) left out the traits of love and grace that define the kind of holiness Wesley emphasized.

As Roland said, it would take a really long time to answer this question adequately. I thought I would have a little fun with it. Eric's a big boy. I'm pretty sure he can handle it.

[Billie Goodson]

First of all, just because someone claims something it does not mean it is true. Second, I am less concerned if someone is Wesleyan than Christian. I think that Wesley was more concerned with that anyways. There is no solid definition/standard for being Wesleyan - it is all interpretation. We are also in the Calvinist tradition because Wesley was a Calvinist. We are also in the Roman Catholic tradition because Calvin was Catholic. Even if I had a standard for what it meant to be Wesleyan, it would be my interpretation.


To your first point, I would agree. To your second point, I would agree, but that does not seem relevant to the question. As far as no solid definition/standard -- I would disagree. If there is not some tenet of doctrine that the Nazarene Church holds to in their claim to be "Wesleyan" then why do so?
[/QUOTE]

Even in our Nazarene denomination, Wesleyan is not distinct or specific. Compare Taylor with Wynkoop or Dunning with Grider. Compare Lodahl with Moore. I have heard a few different African DS's give splendid sermons dealing with a Calvinistic understanding of holiness. They completely (IMO) left out the traits of love and grace that define the kind of holiness Wesley emphasized.

I would be interested in your comparison, if you have the time. That might be relevant to the discussion, and would be beneficial to me. I have really struggled lately with reasons to remain in the Nazarene Church. That is why I consider this question relevant.

As Roland said, it would take a really long time to answer this question adequately. I thought I would have a little fun with it. Eric's a big boy. I'm pretty sure he can handle it.
I am willing to invest the time. As to your last point, I don't know Eric. I will rely on your knowledge of him in this issue.

[Eric Frey]

I don't think I know either of you personally, but from what I read on Naznet I'd love the oportunity to chat in person sometime. Where is Scottsdale. I'm not too far from PA - about 45 min west of Pittsburgh.

I was not offended by Mike's jesting. I do it alot...although I'm usually too afraid to post it ;) I was reminded of a quote by the distinguished Roy D Mercer..."just how big a boy are ya?"

I'm looking forward to continuing this discussion and will weigh in with my own ideas when I have more time.

Peace,

EF

[Hans Deventer]

I have really struggled lately with reasons to remain in the Nazarene Church. That is why I consider this question relevant.


Now the light is starting to dawn. So the question what is Wesleyan, is related to this point.

Perhaps the next question would be, do you consider yourself to be a Wesleyan, and don't you know if the CotN is? Or are you at loss to define what is Wesleyan at all, and wondering if it is something you want to be identified with? At this point, I'm presuming the latter.

Over here, in our district, we almost always talk about our "Wesleyan/Arminian" theology. The two are rarely separated. Which is why I referred to the 5 points of the Remonstrants (http://www.crivoice.org/tulip.html). The most Wesleyan distinctive added to that would be the attainability of holiness in life, in my view. This is what I would consider the foundation of Wesleyan theology.

[Billie Goodson]

ow the light is starting to dawn. So the question what is Wesleyan, is related to this point.

Perhaps the next question would be, do you consider yourself to be a Wesleyan, and don't you know if the CotN is? Or are you at loss to define what is Wesleyan at all, and wondering if it is something you want to be identified with? At this point, I'm presuming the latter.

Over here, in our district, we almost always talk about our "Wesleyan/Arminian" theology. The two are rarely separated. Which is why I referred to the 5 points of the Remonstrants (http://www.crivoice.org/tulip.html). The most Wesleyan distinctive added to that would be the attainability of holiness in life, in my view. This is what I would consider the foundation of Wesleyan theology.

From much of what I have read on Wesley-Armenian, I think I strongly identify with the theology. I have read Greathouse and Wynkoop on Wesleyan Theology -- if it did not resonate so well within my soul, I would have given up long ago and departed the Church of The Nazarene. So, when it is trivialized, it really makes me stop and go back to the old question of whether or not it is worth sticking it out, or just look elsewhere. With our recent move, that possibility has resurfaced and I want to be very deliberate in selecting a new congregation. To me, if you were to throw out the Wesley-Arminian view, then I would just as soon look elsewhere. I also think it is significant to say "view" because I frankly care nothing for being a disciple of Wesley or any other theologian.

Eric, I am as guilty as anyone of being offhanded at times, I have really tried to cut that down because it does not play well. As in Mike's post, I could not tell if he was joking, or really had problems with the Wesleyan theology. That is why I asked.

[Billie Goodson]

The most Wesleyan distinctive added to that would be the attainability of holiness in life, in my view. This is what I would consider the foundation of Wesleyan theology.

The other primary difference I thought was "grace" -- especially when compared with Calvinism, is this correct? I really struggle with Calvinism's TULIP.

[Hans Deventer]

The other primary difference I thought was "grace" -- especially when compared with Calvinism, is this correct? I really struggle with Calvinism's TULIP.

I don't think Wesley had a very different view on grace, other than that is was free grace in his view, not limited. But he was certainly much closer to Calvinism at that point.

When asked, “Wherein may we come to the very edge of Calvinism?”, Wesley replied, “(1) In ascribing all good to the free grace of God. (2) In denying all natural free-will, and all power antecedent to grace. And (3) In excluding all merit from man; even for what he has or does by the grace of God.”

[Mike McVey]

The other primary difference I thought was "grace" -- especially when compared with Calvinism, is this correct? I really struggle with Calvinism's TULIP.

Yes, prevenient grace is what we have come to describe the type of grace that Wesley espoused. But the way I understand Wesley, the function of grace is to beckon us to become like Jesus (or holy). If there is one thing that I love about Wesley it is that he saw sacraments or symbols of grace everywhere he went. I would go as far to say that living out love and grace are the fundamental elements of the stigma attached to claiming to be Wesleyan. I remember Scott D. preaching a sermon that we always try to separate from the world so much that we forget that we are separating to God. And God in the flesh, Jesus, separated himself by showing love and grace to those who were deemed unlovable. I think that IS demonstrated by Wesley's life and works... at least after he stopped refusing Eucharist to former possible wives :p:basic05:)

[Mike McVey]

I don't think I know either of you personally, but from what I read on Naznet I'd love the oportunity to chat in person sometime. Where is Scottsdale. I'm not too far from PA - about 45 min west of Pittsburgh.

I was not offended by Mike's jesting. I do it alot...although I'm usually too afraid to post it ;) I was reminded of a quote by the distinguished Roy D Mercer..."just how big a boy are ya?"

I'm looking forward to continuing this discussion and will weigh in with my own ideas when I have more time.

Peace,

EF

Scottdale!!! not Scottsdale ;) is about 30 miles SE of Pittsburgh. We should definitely meet up.

As far as how big I am, I would say about 6'8" if I stand up straight and 366 lbs - one for every day of 2008. :) I plan to lose a pound for 2009 ;)

[Rance Gould]

Now the light is starting to dawn. So the question what is Wesleyan, is related to this point.

Perhaps the next question would be, do you consider yourself to be a Wesleyan, and don't you know if the CotN is? Or are you at loss to define what is Wesleyan at all, and wondering if it is something you want to be identified with? At this point, I'm presuming the latter.

Over here, in our district, we almost always talk about our "Wesleyan/Arminian" theology. The two are rarely separated. Which is why I referred to the 5 points of the Remonstrants (http://www.crivoice.org/tulip.html). The most Wesleyan distinctive added to that would be the attainability of holiness in life, in my view. This is what I would consider the foundation of Wesleyan theology.


Thank you Hans for the very informative link. I thank the Lord for all of you folks and the very good discussions on Naznet. We're all in this together on our way to glory. Praise the Lord!

[Billie Goodson]

Yes, prevenient grace is what we have come to describe the type of grace that Wesley espoused. But the way I understand Wesley, the function of grace is to beckon us to become like Jesus (or holy). If there is one thing that I love about Wesley it is that he saw sacraments or symbols of grace everywhere he went. I would go as far to say that living out love and grace are the fundamental elements of the stigma attached to claiming to be Wesleyan. I remember Scott D. preaching a sermon that we always try to separate from the world so much that we forget that we are separating to God. And God in the flesh, Jesus, separated himself by showing love and grace to those who were deemed unlovable. I think that IS demonstrated by Wesley's life and works... at least after he stopped refusing Eucharist to former possible wives :p:basic05:)

The two departures from Calvinism that I remember about Wesley were in predestination (unconditional election) and related to this was irresistible/resistible grace which really go together.

Could it be said that a modern-day Wesleyan, or Wesley-Arminian would hold that prevenient grace allows us to decide at any moment to exercise our free will to believe the gospel and be saved. I am not so sure this view, if it is a correct interpretation of the Wesley-Arminian position is necessarily completely in agreement with Wesley. He held that prevenient grace simply restored the responsiveness of the human soul to grace, allowing us to cooperate with God's extension of grace, but, not necessarily our ability to decide when grace would be offered. He saw the grace as the work of the Holy Spirit, thereby removing the semi-Pelagian aspects of works and faith that some may have argued against him with.

So, have I completely screwed up Wesleyan, or Wesleyan-Arminian theology? I offered the last part because I believe that Wesley had a larger view than the "can't we all just get along" theology that may be intepreted. I do believe he attempted to draw common ground first, and therefor poking people in the eye was not his style -- which is to me in keeping with the approach of Christ further demonstrated by Paul.

An interesting aside:


To claim to be Wesleyan all you have to do is say to yourself, I claim to be Wesleyan. Sadly, this is almost more truth than joke. I would say
The usual response I hear when asking lay people and future pastors, "Not Calvinists! We believe in freewill!"



In pulling through several writings of Wesley in trying to formulate these thoughts, I ran across an interesting quote that seem to speak to your statement Mike -- which should cause us all to stop and think before applying labels

From: The Question, "What Is an Arminian?" Answered by a Lover of Free Grace by John Wesley
(http://new.gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/arminian/)
One word more: Is it not the duty of every Arminian Preacher, First, never, in public or in private, to use the word Calvinist as a term of reproach; seeing it is neither better nor worse than calling names? -- a practice no more consistent with good sense or good manners, than it is with Christianity. Secondly. To do all that in him lies to prevent his hearers from doing it, by showing them the sin and folly of it? And is it not equally the duty of every Calvinist Preacher, First, never in public or in private, in preaching or in conversation, to use the word Arminian as a term of reproach? Secondly. To do all that in him lies to prevent his hearers from doing it, by showing them the sin and folly thereof; and that the more earnestly and diligently, if they have been accustomed so to do? perhaps encouraged therein by his own example!

[Marsha Lynn]

Thanks for the link, Billie. I found the article helpful.

I'm coming in late and confess to not having absorbed every word of every post here, but one thing I'm not seeing is a reference to the practical outcome of predestination.

When conversing with those outside the Wesleyan tradition concerning daily life, I find that there is a gap between us concerning what it means to say that God is sovereign. Not only in our eternal destiny but in every moment of every day, my friends see everything as being either the will of God or the work of the devil.

Did someone die? It must have been his time to go. God willed it. Did the church burn down? Satan is obviously fighting against us. Current events are generally interpreted in the framework of a huge war between two opposite and almost-equal forces - one good, one evil. Mankind is at the mercy of these forces, unable to long resist the call of God (since all of those who discuss such matters are presumably among the 'chosen') and unable to escape the buffeting force of Satan. God is sovereign, but, for some reason, barely keeps the forces of evil from destroying us. We are helpless against these forces and can only pray that God will overcome better tomorrow than He did today.

This may not represent the formal view of the traditions from which my friends come, but when considering one's church affiliation, I'm not sure if it matters whether a particular theology is formalized if one encounters it on a regular basis.

I've shared before that I was quite amazed and pleasantly so when we started our "40 Days of Purpose" and several people in our Nazarene congregation independently questioned Rick Warren's assertion that God had planned every moment of each of our lives long before we were born. I didn't expect people to pick up on that. Apparently, even without formal theological study, people could see that the practical application of the doctrine of free will has to include more flexibility in the universe than that. That's one of the positive points of being associated with the "Wesleyan" movement in my mind.

Of course, the more important point is the optimism of grace. I think hope for more abundant life in God tomorrow than we dream possible today is the best gift we have to offer the world as "Wesleyans".

Marsha