I once heard an Anglican leader speak of certain movements and groups as "Wesleyan in name only." (And, I think he meant to say that if we “Wesleyans” were really so “Wesleyan” we would all be in the Church of England.)

I was amused by his pronouncement. (I felt he was just exposing his ignorance.)

But, it got me thinking: what does constitute faithfulness to the Wesleyan tradition? I don't think anyone agrees with Wesley about everything he said. And, there are passages where Wesley seems to contradict himself (though I'm sure he would deny any such thing).

Wesley's thought was such a (wonderful, I think) amalgamation of diverse influences and themes. One is left wondering: what is determinative of adherence to this tradition? The answer is less than obvious.

Some in the contemporary Holiness movement believe that they can hold to Dispensational theories about the end times and still be "Wesleyan" because of their belief in "entire sanctification" as a distinct faith experience.

Some in the United Methodist Church are uncomfortable with the "entire sanctification" message, but still consider themselves "Wesleyan" in other ways. (A colleague of mine wrote a “Wesleyan Companion” to Rick Warren’s Purpose Driven Life that declared Wesley’s “entire sanctification” doctrine to be heresy. I found that amusing also.)

In both cases — and several others I didn't mention — one can nonetheless discern a certain "Wesleyan" influence.

When you add to this the notion that Wesley believed that a "Methodist" was nothing more than a true and faithful *Christian* (sincerely living the life of faith), then it's not even clear that Mr. Wesley would have cared if any of us were "Wesleyan" at all — but only that we were serving God with our whole heart.

1. "The task of discerning [Wesley's] theology, however, was not so much one of deriving the principles of his thought and action as it is one of discerning the impulse for and direction of his spiritual pilgrimage as a maturing person in company with a band of fellow-travellers who were trying to embody the imitatio Christi in order to transform the world, which was at the same time a transforming experience for them. Wesley was not so much interested in speculative theology; his concern was 'practical divinity,' as he called it -- the practice of Christian discipleship, 'having the mind of Christ and walking as he walked.' Adherence to a set of rules or adoption of a set of beliefs was not as important as conforming to a divine pattern of virtue and walking in the footsteps of Christ."
   

2. — Richard P. Heitzenrater, Wesley and the People Called Methodists Abingdon, Nashville 1995 p. 322.
   

While it was true that John Wesley was loyal to the Church of England throughout his lifetime, it is also true that he took some steps (much to the chagrin of his brother Charles), which he considered "necessary", that gave an independent identity to the Methodist movement. Particularly important in these were the ordaining of Thomas Coke as "superintendent" of American Methodism, and his allowing of the lay preachers in Scotland to administer the sacraments.

Under the leadership of Francis Asbury, American Methodism has had a very independent existence and history. The M.E. Church in American never considered itself part of the Church of England, and Asbury felt no necessary compulsion to follow John Wesley's directions, either. Francis Asbury was in the habit of referring to John Wesley as "our old Daddy." I think it was both affectionate and irreverent at one and the same time. Affectionate regard: yes. Obedience: no.

The American forms of "Wesleyanism" have certainly been shaped by the American experience.

But, I'd sure hate to say that any were "Wesleyan in name only," however.

— Craig L. Adams