 |
|||||
Reviewed by Philip Wingeier-Rayo, Assistant Professor of Religion and Missionary-in- Residence at Pheiffer University, North Carolina. Wesley for Armchair Theologians by William J. Abraham William J. Abraham has written a concise review of the life and theology of John Wesley in Wesley for Armchair Theologians. The book’s biographical sketch of John Wesley is more anecdotal than systematic in bringing to light scarcely known facts, for example, Wesley was denied communion by the Moravians and he hired an obscure Eastern Orthodox bishop to assist in ordinations (p.109), while glancing over better known and formative experiences such as the Holy Club at Oxford. The anecdotes and the cartoon inserts add some comical relief, although sometimes the comments come off as flip and unbalanced. The obscure facts are helpful new insights for the experienced reader of Wesley, although the new reader might be assisted with a more systematic overview of Wesley’s formative years—afterall Wesley himself placed enough significance on Oxford to name it the first rise of Methodism. To be fair, the book is not meant to be comprehensive and quickly moves on to five watershed moments in Wesley’s intellectual growth: his youthful zeal for holiness through mysticism, his shift to justification by faith at Aldersgate, moving on to Wesley’s publication of “Sermons on Several Occasions and “Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament” in 1764, his publication of Conference Minutes of 1770 and family his resignation to the start of the Methodist Church in North America and ensuing documents. The real strength of the book is the middle section where Abraham outlines Wesley’s order of salvation: prevenient grace, justification, regeneration, sanctification and Christian perfection in chapters four, five and six. Abraham rightly emphasizes the centrality of the doctrine of sin in Wesley’s theology (p.57) as central to the creation, fall and redemption narrative. Abraham also offers a careful analysis on the delicate matters of salvation by faith, the danger of works righteousness and the doctrine of Christian perfection as holiness. Abraham’s strength in these middle chapters is quoting large blocs of primary texts, allowing Wesley to explain the doctrines himself. Where Abraham goes astray is trying to summarize Wesley’s positions without references or footnotes to support his conclusions—some of which are debatable. This could lead the reader to believe that Abraham is offering a personal opinion rather than a faithful reading of Wesley. For example the author states with no footnote or reference, “to be sure, Wesley makes it clear that supplying the spiritual wants of others is more excellent that simply supplying their material wants” (p.114). Taken without a reference or a qualifying statement, a reader could misunderstand Wesley to be completely opposed to social justice ministry or works of charity. Another example is Abraham’s concluding section of God’s providence. Abraham goes as far as calling Wesley a predestinarian barely separating him from Calvinism (p.174). The only distinction he makes between Wesley’s predestination and Calvin’s is the individual’s conditional decision to accept or reject the mercy of God in Christ. Abraham fails to offer footnotes supporting his interpretation of Wesley’s stance on the sovereignty of God. Abraham also fails to show sensitivity to Wesley’s theological maturation throughout his life. Although he traces Wesley’s five watershed moments, Abraham argues that Wesley safely remained an orthodox believer without acknowledging the shifts and developments in his theology. For example, Abraham states that Wesley “has nothing radically fresh or new to say” about the Christian narrative of the creation, fall, redemption, the Trinity or classical Christology (p.41). I do not believe that John Wesley would have been denied preaching in his home church, chased by mobs and criticized if he did not have anything radically fresh or new to say. Wesley’s acceptance of the Moravian faith of assurance is only one example of challenging the orthodox view of salvation by works. Abraham’s insistence on Wesley’s orthodoxy reduces the practical theologian view made prominent view by Richard Heitzenrater in The Elusive Mr. Wesley and others who demonstrated that Wesley’s genius was not as a systematic theologian rather as a folk theologian who adapted his theology (sometimes to the degree of being contradictory) according to the context and challenges in 18th Century England. Wesley for Armchair Theologians is not an introductory textbook for newcomers to the life and theology of John Wesley nor is it intended to be a comprehensive or systematic overview. It is, however, a short, fun and anecdotal review of history with a serious summary John Wesley’s order of salvation from an orthodox perspective. Abraham’s real contribution is not historical, but theological with a helpful summary of Wesley’s central doctrines. 1. Richard Heitzenrater, The Illusive Mr. Wesley, Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2003.
|
