Two Problems with Wesley's Teaching on Perfection
One of John Wesley's distinctive teachings involved what came to be known as "Christian perfection" or "entire sanctification." Wesley taught that Christians can and should experience a second act of God's grace enabling them them to love God and their neighbors perfectly in thought, temperament and intention. Both inner experience and outward action would then flow solely from pure love. As is the case with any person, Wesley's views on the matter changed over time, and the precise formulation of his ideas varied from occasion to occasion.
Consistently, however, Wesley averred that Christian perfection did not consist of freedom from physical infirmities or errors of judgment. For Wesley, these matters paled in insignificance compared that the mighty work that God sought to do in the heart of the the believer. Entirely sanctified Christians perfectly fulfill the law of love and so do not sin - at least in the most important sense of that word - even if they make mistakes based on faulty knowledge or bodily weaknesses.
For me, these two matters make "entire" sanctification moot as a matter of Christian doctrine.
Mind, Body and Spirit
As modern science learns more about how the brain functions, it increasingly difficult to separate the human body from its thoughts, emotions, desires, intentions, intuitions, self-awareness and inner experiences of every sort. Even spiritual experiences take place in the synaptic activities of the brain. Wesley insisted that we distinguish between true infirmities and moral excuses, and I would be the last to say that humans aren't responsible for their actions. Still, it is no longer possible to compartmentalize human behavior neatly into body, mind and spirit. Mind and spirit take place by means of bodily processes.
It is not just the mentally ill for whom this is significant. It's not as if some people act in less-than-ideal ways because there is something wrong with their wiring, and the rest of us are just free moral agents. We all live to some degree with the infirmities and limitations of the mortal, physical human brain.
Wesley insisted that the perfect Christian can be free from evil tempers (emotions) and evil thoughts. This is no different than insisting that perfect Christians can always be cancer free or have their diabetes cured. God does indeed work miracles of healing, but we live in world that will continue to be broken until Christ appears.If Christians are not free from the physical infirmities characteristic of this age, then our thoughts and tempers are subject to those same infirmities.
Errors of Judgment
Wesley freely admits that we're all wrong about something, and we don't know what it is. We're ignorant, and we're ignorant about our ignorance. Nevertheless, in Wesley's thought, that doesn't keep me from loving God and my neighbor. In my ignorance, I may actually harm you, but if I meant to do you good, then I've done what God wanted of me. This perfect love brings joy to my heart, for my heart no longer has any reason to accuse itself. But what kind of love is it that can be satisfied with good intentions? My ignorance is much more than a mere formality. If I know that I am ignorant, I can NEVER know that I am acting in perfect love toward you. I may be hurting you! What kind of love is that?
This is compounded when I move beyond discrete thoughts and actions to look at the world in all its complexity. I don't exist in isolation, but as part of a world of complex, entangled, systemic problems in which there are not always right and wrong answers, but simply "better" and "worse." In such a world, I can never act with anything approaching perfect love, especially if I take the consequences of my actions into account. I'm not just ignorant about matters of simple fact, but about how my actions ultimately will effect the world. Due to the incalculable complexity of the world's systems, the good I do for one may result in evil for another, or even for the one I presume to help. If I am aware that my comprehension is severely and necessarily limited, then I can never find the satisfaction of knowing that I have loved perfectly. I'll never even know what all the consequences of my actions are.
An Estimate of Wesley and his Peculiar Doctrine
John Wesley's A Plain Account of Christian Perfection is the locus classicus of his teaching on perfection, although he touches on it directly and indirectly in many other writings.
Wesley was a product of his times, and his theology emerged in dialogue by the beliefs, ideals and piety of his age. His own peculiar personality played a significant role as well. He focuses far too much on the inner experience of the Christian. He also sees the Christian life too much in isolation from the body and the complexities of social existence.
Insofar as John Wesley's teaching serves as a remedy for complacency about sin and draws us to desire a more loving union with God and our neighbor, it serves a valuable purpose. It serves this purpose better, however, in the words of his brother Charles' hymns than it does in the rational arguments of John's own writings.
Love divine, all loves excelling, Joy of heaven to earth come down;
Fix in us thy humble dwelling; All thy faithful mercies crown!
Jesus, Thou art all compassion, Pure unbounded love Thou art;
Visit us with Thy salvation; Enter every trembling heart.Breathe, O breathe Thy loving Spirit, Into every troubled breast!
Let us all in Thee inherit; Let us find that second rest.
Take away our bent to sinning; Alpha and Omega be;
End of faith, as its Beginning, Set our hearts at liberty.Come, Almighty to deliver, Let us all Thy life receive;
Suddenly return and never, Never more Thy temples leave.
Thee we would be always blessing, Serve Thee as Thy hosts above,
Pray and praise Thee without ceasing, Glory in Thy perfect love.Finish, then, Thy new creation; Pure and spotless let us be.
Let us see Thy great salvation Perfectly restored in Thee;
Changed from glory into glory, 'Til in heaven we take our place,
'Til we cast our crowns before Thee, Lost in wonder, love, and praise.
To that, I can say, "Amen."
See my subsequent post Wheat and Tares Together Sown for a model that brings together Wesley's "real change by the power of the Spirit" with Luther's simul justus et peccator.
Filed under: Articles
October 16th, 2009 at 2323
Interesting discussion, Mitch.
Do you think Wesley was wrong in his Scriptural interpretation? He was pretty convinced that Scripture - and not his own brain - was the source of the doctrine of perfection.
October 17th, 2009 at 1045
John, I'm not sure how to reply to that question in the space of a comment. The subject of Wesley's use of scripture is a pretty big one. So, a couple of other points first.
I really wanted to engage Wesley's teaching at the level of rhetoric and logic. My simple point here is that EVEN IF you think Wesley got the scripture right, his two exceptions are pretty big deals. Wesley brings them up to toss them aside. In my view, they are at least as significant as Mr. Wesley's major point about the transforming work of God. You could almost turn the doctrine on its head with Wesley's own words, positively teaching the impossibility of perfection while granting the minor concession that one might have pure intentions. It's a matter of emphasis. Once you give these two exceptions their due weight, you wind up with something that looks more Luther's simul justus et peccator.
Mr. Wesley surely did see his ideal picture of religious experience in the pages of scripture, but the place that religious experience occurs in every human being is the brain. If you grant his "infirmities" concession, you are talking about something that affects every aspect of human existence.
Like most people of his age, Mr. Wesley approached the scriptures somewhat differently than I would today, so there's a little "apples and oranges" comparison going on here. If, for example, Wesley strings together quotes from Matthew, Romans and 1 John to make his point, I would want to know how those passages fit within the author's own literary framework. Using that approach, no, I don't think any of the New Testament authors intended to tell the story of God's work in precisely the way that Wesley framed it. Particularly when it comes to Mr. Wesley's (sometimes) teaching about a second, instantaneous transformation that takes place within the human spirit, I think Mr. Wesley in pursuing questions in which original authors had no interest. I don't think any of them would recognize their intention in his construct. The New Perspective on Paul reminds us that Paul was not a 16th century Lutheran or Calvinist. In the same way, we need to remember that none of the Biblical authors was an 18th century Wesleyan.
Given the fact that we are much more interested today in the Bible's diversity and in each author's unique point of view, Christians still approach the text as a whole as the word of God. That's the point of several recent posts on revelation, community, canon, the rule of faith and the pieces of the puzzle. We look for threads that tie the diverse documents together and create a bigger picture. To use a post modern word, we look for metanarratives. Biblical theology is more than the raw sum of its parts.
Wesley's teaching, like that of Calvin and Luther and many others, is an attempt to give us the big picture. Unfortunately, you can't evaluate that purely on the basis of "did he interpret this text correctly." We're answering questions and drawing inferences that transcend the original authors' intent.
Wesley's wrote about this issue directly and indirectly on a number of occasions, quoting hundreds of scriptural passages. Sometimes, in my estimation, Wesley's use of the scripture is consistent with the author's intent. Sometimes he and the author aren't even in the same ballpark. And sometimes I think Mr. Wesley interprets the text in a manner that actually opposes the author's purpose.
In his discussion of 1 John 1:8, for example, Wesley denies the force of the Greek present tense of "we are having no sin." He sees it as "we have not sinned," but that's not what the text says. In my estimation, 1 John 1:8-9 reflects the author's belief that confession of sin is an ongoing requirement for Christians. Wesley and 1 John are on the same sheet of music when it comes to God's intent that Christians put sin behind them and live in a manner consistent with the light of God's love, but Wesley isn't willing for 1 John to be as nuanced in this as the author seems to be.
Wesley is certainly right about one thing: God's work in Christ actually creates a new living reality those who belong to them. This is a thread that I see running through the New Testament texts. As I mentioned at the end of my post, I intend to write something soon about how I synthesize these things in my head: a little Wesley, a little Luther, a little Calvin, all built around Jesus' parable of the wheat and the tares.
October 17th, 2009 at 1322
Thank you for the lengthy response.
I look forward to your next post.
October 20th, 2009 at 1302
Frank Baker, in Representative Verse of Charles Wesley, makes the point that when it came time for publication of the early Methodist hymnbooks, John Wesley (their editor) actually OMITTED the second verse of "Love Divine, All Loves Excelling," due to Charles' ORIGINAL text which read, "Take away our POWER of sinning."
Somewhere along the line, this second verse returned, but was redacted to say "Take away our BENT to sinning," as if the inclination alone--and not the ability--is all that we can ask God to take from us. This doctrine was an ongoing point of dispute between the brothers and, unfortunately for Methodist historical theology, not enough has been made of this dispute.