Commonplace Holiness blog

My Morning Reading

Fri, 16 May 2008 09:36:17 -0400

Here are some interesting articles I came across this morning with the help of Rowland Croucher’s John Mark Ministries site:

Love Thy Neighbor: The religion beat in an age of intolerance
By Tim Townsend

EXCERPT:

"If even Jesus could be divisive, what can be expected of the sinners who call themselves his followers? And how about his contemporary American disciples, who sport anonymous Internet handles and spend their days trolling blogs dedicated to the disparagement of other faiths? What about those who insist that Jesus himself have a stronger voice in the U.S. Congress?

"As a reporter covering religion at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch for the last four years, I’ve been a witness to attitudes and language on my beat that would make veteran political reporters cringe. Even the blog I wrote for the paper, The God Beat, became such a target for corrosive, hateful comments that I was forced to shut it down."

The Legal Challenges of Religious Polygamy
By John Witte, Jr.

EXCERPT:

"The question of religious polygamy is back in the headlines – this time involving a fundamentalist Mormon group on a Texas ranch that has retained the church's traditional polygamist practices. Many of the legal questions raised since this group was raided are easy. Under-aged and coerced marriages, statutory rape, and child abuse are all serious crimes. Those adults on the ranch who have committed these crimes, or intentionally aided and abetted them, are going to jail. They have no claim of religious freedom that will excuse them, and no claim of privacy that will protect them. Dealing with the children, ensuring proper procedures, and sorting out the evidence are all practically messy and emotionally trying questions, but not legally hard.

"The harder legal question is whether criminalizing polygamy is still constitutional. Texas and every other state still have these laws on these books. Can these criminal laws withstand a challenge that they violate an individual's constitutional rights to private liberty, equal protection, and religious liberty? In the nineteenth century, none of these rights claims was available. Now they protect every adult's rights to consensual sex, marriage, procreation, contraception, cohabitation, sodomy, and more. May a state prohibit polygamists from these same rights, particularly if they are inspired by authentic religious convictions? What rationales for criminalizing polygamy are so compelling that they can overcome these strong constitutional objections?"

Judaism’s Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism Rejected Homosexuality
By Dennis Prager

EXCERPT:

"When Judaism demanded that all sexual activity be channeled into marriage, it changed the world. The Torah's prohibition of non-marital sex quite simply made the creation of Western civilization possible.

"Societies that did not place boundaries around sexuality were stymied in their development. The subsequent dominance of the Western world can largely be attributed to the sexual revolution initiated by Judaism and later carried forward by Christianity.

"This revolution consisted of forcing the sexual genie into the marital bottle. It ensured that sex no longer dominated society, heightened male-female love and sexuality (and thereby almost alone created the possibility of love and eroticism within marriage), and began the arduous task of elevating the status of women.

"It is probably impossible for us, who live thousands of years after Judaism began this process, to perceive the extent to which undisciplined sex can dominate man's life and the life of society. Throughout the ancient world, and up to the recent past in many parts of the world, sexuality infused virtually all of society."

Exaggerated Convert Figures Could Cost Lives
By Dr Patrick Sookhdeo

EXCERPT:

"Converts from Islam to Christianity are increasingly concerned about a number of reports in recent months which have cited astounding statistics on conversion. It is true – and a matter for thankfulness to God – that more Muslims are now coming to Christ than at any other time in history. However, they are not converting on the vast scale alleged in some reports. These false reports, often initiated by non-Christians and then circulated by Christians, are a matter of grave concern, not just for those who love truth and accuracy, but also for the many individuals whose lives are being endangered by the publicity given to the exaggerated figures.

"Muslims view apostasy from Islam as bringing shame and humiliation on the Muslim community. Publicising that there are large numbers of converts deepens the shame and loss of face. Many Muslims believe that shame is best removed by the shedding of blood and may therefore set out to kill not only the converts themselves, but also those seeking to evangelise Muslims, whether national evangelists or Western missionaries. Some may go even further and seek to get revenge and restore the honour of Islam by attacking any available target they associate with the “Christian” West."

Questions About Initial Repentance

Wed, 14 May 2008 18:29:55 -0400

I had some trouble initially getting into Kenneth J. Collins' book The Scripture Way of Salvation. Part of the problem for me is that I'm really fond of Randy Maddox treatment of Wesley's teachings in Responsible Grace: John Wesley's Practical Theology. Collins was forcing me to take a new look at Wesley's teachings.

And, some of what he said was troubling to me. so, I couldn't get very far because the text kept raising questions for me.

For example: Chapter 2 of Collins' book concerns the topic "Convincing Grace and Initial Repentance." Here Collins explains that in Wesley's theology repentance & actions which indicate a repentant attitude are absolutely essential as a prelude to Christian faith. While such repentance does not justify, it is a necessary prelude to faith. Chapter 3 of Collins' book moves on to the topic of Justification by Faith. He begins by reminding us of the three states of spiritual development that JW often mentions: Natural —> Legal —> Evangelical.

"A natural man has neither fear nor love; one that is awakened, fear without love; a babe in Christ, love and fear; a father in Christ, love without fear."
— John Wesley, Explanatory Notes on the NT: 1 John 4:18).

So, if we assume Wesley was right and that Initial Repentance is an absolutely necessary prelude to saving faith, several questions arise.

1. In this view the preacher's role in relation to seekers is to awaken a sense of guilt in order to lead them to repentance. Isn't it? So, rather than addressing religious seekers on the topic of "Twelve Keys to a Happy Marriage" (or some such thing) the topic should be "God's Moral Demands and Your Guilt." Always. Shouldn't it? If we assume that the progression through the spiritual states is Ignorance —> Fear —> Love than one assumes that the spiritual seeker is in a state of ignorance and needs to enter the stage of fear to open the way to evangelical faith. So, the preacher's role is to inculcate a sense of guilt in the hearer: the Fear of God.

For many years in the Wesleyan movement this scheme was followed. Many of the 19th Century revival preachers advocated first preaching the Law, and only when people felt duly convicted, then preaching grace. And, Wesley is advocating this.

Is this what you commonly hear on Sunday morning? How often do you hear it? For preachers: Is this the way you preach? Is this the way you would even want to preach? If we don't preach this way are we barring people from the way of salvation by keeping them from genuine repentance? Why has this type of preaching been so largely laid aside? How can this be related to the current emphasis on the Inclusive Church? Can it be? Does it become: "The door is open to everyone to come and hear what sinners they are"?

Does the message of repentance (as the necessary prelude to faith) need to be restored today, and if so, how can this be done?

2. Wesley's theology assumes that a neat division can be made between the Moral Law and the Ceremonial Law. While Christian believers are not in any way obligated to keep the various ceremonial laws given to Israel, the Moral Law is eternally binding. This view seems pretty naive. In fact, the more you think about it, the more difficult it becomes to disentangle these. The OT itself does not indicate any such division, though NT teaching and practice does seem to necessitate making such a distinction. But, to preach the Law in order to bring people in the Natural state into the Legal state (repentance) assumes that we can state specifically what God demands & prohibits. So, we must assume that knowledge of the Moral Law of God is available to the preacher.

Let's take a currently controversial topic as a case in point. Some people feel that the Biblical prohibitions against same-gender sex have continuing relevance, while others think that these prohibitions are conditioned by the times in which they were given (or maybe are only apparent prohibitions & their real meaning is different). But, this raises a wider issue. Is there really is any distinctive Judeo-Christian teaching on sexuality & sexual behavior since, after all, it would all be conditioned (to a greater or lesser extent) by the times in which it was given? So is any of it part of the Moral Law? Why would we insist on one traditional part (like monogamy in sexual relationships — an implication from Matthew 19, etc.) and relax traditional prohibitions on another (like same gender sex)? Can a preacher speak against divorce? You see the drift of this... I won't go on. But, my point is that prohibitions on certain sexual behaviors which were seen as being part of Moral Law would now be seen by some as a part of the Ceremonial Law.

On the other hand: a lot of people feel a lot of guilt about their sexuality. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? is that a preacher's opportunity, or is adding to this guilt-feeling unhealthy?

The OT Law (both in its Moral & Ceremonial aspects - assuming for the moment that those could be in any way disentangled — served as a boundary between Israel and the surrounding cultures. "You shall be holy to me; for I the LORD am holy, and I have separated you from the other peoples to be mine." (Leviticus 20:26 NRSV). Here also is the call to "holiness of heart and life" characteristic of Wesley's teaching. Can this be applied to our day? Is part of the function of the Law to make the Community of Faith a distinctive body within society? Being in any sense a Holy people assumes some sort of distinction.

But, again this works against both the Seeker-sensitive and Inclusive models of the faith community. The call to Holiness would be a call to distinctiveness: some people in / some people out. So, to what extent does the notion of Law even relate to current day ministry at all?

So: was Wesley just totally wrong about the necessity of Initial Repentance? Or: was he essentially right and is the church currently moving in the wrong direction?

Gallup Poll Gives Methodists Highest Positive Ratings

Wed, 14 May 2008 07:45:42 -0400

United Methodist Communications
Office of Public Information
810 12th Ave. S.
Nashville, TN 37203
www.umcpresscenter.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 27, 2008

Contact: Diane Denton
(615) 483-1765 (cell)

Gallup Poll Gives Methodists Highest Positive Ratings

Methodists have the highest positive ratings of religious and spiritual groups in the United States, new research by the Gallup Panel shows.

Ninety-six percent of the 1,005 persons interviewed during the March poll had either a positive or neutral view of Methodists. Four percent had an overall negative view of Methodists. The survey used the broader category of Methodists rather than United Methodists specifically.

Methodists are one of the four U.S. religious groups with strongly positive ratings. The others are Jews, Roman Catholics and Baptists. Broader groups of “evangelical Christians” and “fundamentalist Christians” did not fare as well, but still rated more positively than negatively, according to an analysis of the survey.

Methodists received the highest marks in the total positive and net positive categories of the survey of “Americans’ Views of U.S. Religious and Spiritual Groups.” The 45 percent net positive rating is the result of subtracting the 4 percent negative rating from the 49 percent total positive rating. Forty seven percent of the respondents gave Methodists a “neutral” rating.

As a matter of comparison, Jews had a 42 percent positive rating, Baptists 35 percent, and Catholics 35 percent.

The random, demographically weighted poll was conducted March 24-27, 2008. Gallup says it has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

What We Are About

Tue, 13 May 2008 13:09:45 -0400

THIS IS WHAT WE ARE ABOUT.

"It helps, now and then, to step back and take a long view.
The Kingdom is not only beyond our efforts, it is even beyond our vision.
We accomplish in our lifetime only a tiny fraction of the magnificent enterprise that is God's word.
Nothing we do is complete, which is another way of saying that the Kingdom always lies beyond us.
No statement says all that should be said.
No prayer fully expresses our faith.
No confession brings perfection, no pastoral visit brings wholeness.
No program accomplishes the church/ministries’ mission.
No set of goals and objectives includes everything.
This is what we are about.
We plant seeds that one day will grow or maybe die.
We water seeds already planted, knowing that they hold future promise.
We lay foundations that will need further development.
We provide yeast that produces effects far beyond our capabilities.
We cannot do everything and there is a sense of liberation in realizing that.
This enables us to do something and do it very well.
It may be incomplete but it is a beginning.
A step along the way.
An opportunity for God's grace to enter and do the rest.
We may never see the results.
But that is the difference between the master builder and the worker.
We are the workers, not master builders. We are ministers, not messiahs.
We are prophets of a future that is not our own."

— Archbishop Oscar Romero (I found this several years ago in the Journey Into Freedom newsletter and saved it on my HD. Where they found it, I do not know.)

The Gospel of the Comforter

Sat, 10 May 2008 11:28:25 -0400

Amazing. I actually finished editing Daniel Steele’s 1898 book The Gospel of the Comforter this morning.

The link on the Books page is now active also.

As far as I know, this is the only complete edition of this book currently available on the Internet. There is an edited edition at the Wesley Center, but as I recall it’s maybe ten chapters or so. The book has 36 chapters and a fairly long Appendix.

Toward a Wesleyan Eschatology

Fri, 9 May 2008 06:38:40 -0400

The question often comes up about where Wesley and Wesleyans fit in the familiar end-time schemas of a-millennial, post-millennial and pre-millennial (in it’s pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib flavors). People looking for information often find that there seems to be little available.

Here’s the reason. John Wesley doesn't fit any of these exactly. He has been claimed by both pre-millennialists and post-millennialists. And, individual quotations from his works can be lifted out both to support or refute both viewpoints.

First, let me note Wesley’s approach to the book of Revelation, as a way of introducing and illustrating the problem.

His interpretation of the book of Revelation (for example) followed the notes in the commentary of Johann Albrecht Bengel (1687-1752), the Gnomon Novi Testamenti. As a result of this, Wesley’s approach to the book of Revelation is not in the "Futurist" school of interpretation, in the first place. Bengel's approach to the book of Revelation was idiosyncratic and partially "historicist" in nature.

Here are Wesley’s introductory comments to his notes on Revelation from his Explanatory Notes on the New Testament.. Notice: (1.) his reluctance to comment on the book of Revelation at all and (2.) his heavy dependence on Bengel:

"It is scarce possible for any that either love or fear God not to feel their hearts extremely affected in seriously reading either the beginning or the latter part of the Revelation. These, it is evident, we cannot consider too much; but the intermediate parts I did not study at all for many years; as utterly despairing of understanding them, after the fruitless attempts of so many wise and good men: and perhaps I should have lived and died in this sentiment, had I not seen the works of the great Bengelius. But these revived my hopes of understanding even the prophecies of this book; at least many of them in some good degree: for perhaps some will not be opened but in eternity. Let us, however, bless God for the measure of light we may enjoy, and improve it to his glory. The following notes are mostly those of that excellent man; a few of which are taken from his Gnomon Novi Testamenti, but far more from his Ekklarte Offenbarung, which is a full and regular comment on the Revelation. Every part of this I do not undertake to defend. But none should condemn him without reading his proofs at large. It did not suit my design to insert these: they are above the capacity of ordinary readers. Nor had I room to insert the entire translation of a book which contains near twelve hundred pages. All I can do is, partly to translate, partly abridge, the most necessary of his observations; allowing myself the liberty to alter some of them, and to add a few notes where he is not full. His text, it may be observed, I have taken almost throughout, which I apprehend he has abundantly defended both in the Gnomon itself, and in his Apparatus and Crisis in Apocalypsin. Yet I by no means pretend to understand or explain all that is contained in this mysterious book. I only offer what help I can to the serious inquirer, and shall rejoice if any be moved thereby more carefully to read and more deeply to consider the words of this prophecy. Blessed is he that does this with a single eye. His labor shall not be in vain."

So, now you're seeing a clue to why there is no systematic teaching on Wesleyan eschatology. We are forced to look into Wesley's teachings for hints about eschatology.

Tyreman, the great Wesley biographer, claimed that Wesley was a Pre-millennialist (or "chiliast" as they used to say). Others have also sought to defend this thesis. However, there are statements within Wesley's writings that do not fit well with the pre-millennial schema (or, at least its modern manifestations).

In the 19th Century Holiness teachers and American revivalists were generally Post-millennialists. They believed that evangelistic activity and social reform would usher in a great age of faith and peace and justice — thus, their evangelistic and missionary passion. Daniel Steele (one of my favorites, as you may have noticed) defended the idea that Wesley's teachings fit best with the Post-millennialist schema. This argument is in the book Jesus Exultant (one of the books I have not scanned yet, sorry to say, though I think there is a PDF @ the Wesley Center).

One brief quote:

"Even Tyreman, while calling Wesley 'a millenarian,' admits in reference to his 'Notes on Rev. xx.' and his sermons on 'The Great Assize,' 'The General Deliverance,' 'The General Spread of the Gospel' and 'The New Creation,' that 'there may be found in some of them statements scarcely harmonizing with the millenarian theory.'"
— Daniel Steele, Jesus Exultant (1899) Chapter 2.

But, Steele's opinions on the subject of eschatology can also be found — at much greater length — in an online edition of another one of his books. Steele's lengthy critique of Dispensationalism can be found here:

A SUBSTITUTE FOR HOLINESS OR ANTINOMIANISM REVIVED THE THEOLOGY OF THE SO-CALLED PLYMOUTH BRETHREN EXAMINED AND REFUTED by Daniel Steele

This book contains a chapter entitled:

"WAS WESLEY A PREMILLENNIALIST?"

Steele cannot actually claim Wesley as a post-millennialist. Wesley just wasn't that consistent. Steele can only honestly claim that Wesley's views fit well with the post-millennial scheme that became popular among holiness preachers in the 19th Century.

Other interesting reading related to this topic:

WESLEYAN RESERVATIONS ABOUT ESCHATOLOGICAL "ENTHUSIASM" by Michael Lodahl

And, especially:

PROCESSIVE ESCHATOLOGY: A WESLEYAN ALTERNATIVE by Clarence L. Bence

Bence writes:

"It is one thing to advocate a Wesleyan eschatology; it is quite another to propose any definitive statement on the end times which would satisfy more than a handful of Wesley scholars. Wesley himself contributes considerable ambiguity to the subject. It is not as simple as quoting a few selected passages from Wesley's works, for many of Wesley's apocalyptic interpretations reflect the prevailing views of his own century and thus are anachronistic to present day understanding. Wesley accepted a view which Ernest Sandeen calls "historical pre-millennialism" a view interpreting the Book of Revelation as largely a description of past events in the history of the Church. The apostle John looked into the future and described what he saw in the apocalyptic language of woes, pestilences, calamities and destruction. According to Wesley and his contemporaries, these prophecies had already been fulfilled with amazing accuracy in the conquests of Rome, the Germanic invasions and the spread of Islam. The severe persecutions of Christians before and after the Reformation certainly qualified as the great woes described by John in chapters 9-17. For Wesley, the Anti-Christ had already appeared in the later middle ages in the form of the Roman papacy. Only the closing events of history, described in the final chapters of the Apocalypse remained to be fulfilled. Wesley and many of his contemporaries expected the Beast and False Prophet to appear in Rome at any moment, and certainly before the end of the eighteenth century. From his Notes on the book of Revelation, it appears that Wesley concurred with the calculations of the German writer, Johann Bengel, who predicted that on or about 1836 the conflict with evil would reach its climax in the destruction of the Beast and False Prophet, and the binding of Satan for one thousand years.

"None of these great eschatological events took place before Wesley's death in 1791. And despite considerable millenarian excitement in the 1830s and 40s, nothing of great significance occurred as Wesley had forecast. The older position of historical pre-millennialism was largely replaced by post-millennialism; and by the end of the nineteenth century, yet another pre-millennial interpretation espoused by the dispensationalists Darby and Scofield vied for the allegiance of evangelical Christians. In a number of interesting articles and pamphlets, both pre- and post-millennialists of the Wesleyan tradition claimed the founder as a member of their ranks and offered dubious proof-texts from the writings of Wesley to substantiate their claims. (Both were partially correct; Wesley accepted Bengel's rather bizarre belief in two millennia — a thousand years during which Satan is bound and the church prospers on earth, followed by another thousand year reign of Christ and his saints.) Unfortunately, both pre- and post-millennialists failed to grasp the historical and theological distance between Wesley's understanding and their own. And we too would be ill served if we simply resorted to Wesley's Notes on the New Testament to formulate a Wesleyan alternative to modern day eschatologies.

"In fact, the question might properly be raised whether apocalyptic speculation has any place in Wesleyan eschatology. Given the large body of material that Wesley either wrote himself or edited, very little of it deals specifically with the events or personalities associated with the end times. One must turn to sermons on the great judgment, eternity or hell's to glean details on Wesley's view. It is only in the Notes on the New Testament that one finds specific interpretations of dates, places and names. And here Wesley readily acknowledges his own ignorance concerning such matters and his almost total reliance on the work of others."

I suppose one can look at this as an advantage of the Wesleyan perspective or as a disadvantage. The followers of John Wesley are not tied to any particular end-time schema. We are free to weigh each for their truth claims and for their congruence to an optimism founded on confidence in God’s grace.

— Craig L. Adams

Becca is Right (Again)

Wed, 7 May 2008 15:32:00 -0400

Over at Becca's General Conference 2008 blog John Meunier & I both questioned whether there was any significance to the recommended amendment approved (in the latter part of GC) to the Constitutional statement on church membership. The change is that the words "without regard to race, color, national origin, status, or economic condition" are to be removed from the sentence.

Becca felt that this was a significant change.

I disagreed. In fact, I went so far as to suggest that this could be interpreted as a "conservative" move since the named groups are no longer to be given special protection.

However, it turns out that Becca is right. I was wrong. (I have to work with her on the West Michigan Youth Council. This sort of thing happens often.)

This recommended amendment (which has to be approved by the AC's) has the UM conservatives worried. This arrived today from Dr. Riley B. Case of the Confessing Movement:

“Evangelicals and others are very much concerned about an amendment to the Constitution Article IV which, while innocuous sounding, is really about homosexuality and the push to approve homosexuality by judicial means. The article as it now stands reads: "All persons without regard to race, color, national origin, status, or economic condition, shall be eligible to attend its worship services..and become professing members.." The new language drops the words without regard to race, color, national origin, status, or economic condition so that the sentence reads: "All persons shall be eligible..to become professing members.." Since "all persons" means all persons this means no restrictions can be placed on membership for any reasons; the practice of homosexuality being just one example. One does not need to repent, or accept Christ, or believe the doctrines, or be committed to the church as long as the person is willing to receive the vows understood as he or she chooses to understand them.

“An activist Judicial Council could well interpret the Constitutional article to overturn prohibitions on the ordination and appointment of practicing homosexual.

“Since constitutional amendments need to be ratified by two-thirds of the annual conferences, this matter will be up for a great deal of discussion in the coming weeks.”

Good grief.

(Have I ever mentioned that I hate church politics. Does this mean that a future GC will be discussing what specific behaviors might make a person ineligible for membership in a UMC?)

Grace & the Unevangelized

Tue, 6 May 2008 13:56:31 -0400

I’ve noticed that there have been some popular-level theological books lately that advocate Universal Salvation. I’m not at all pleased with this trend. A colleague of mine here in West Michigan said to me that he really believes God has a secret plan to save everyone.

Well, all I can say is that it certainly is a secret, okay.

Now, to be perfectly honest, I have to say that I have no special fondness for the Doctrine of Hell. Yes, I know it is a part of the teachings of Jesus. But, the notion of God’s super-secret plan of universal salvation has a certain appeal to me. On the other hand, it seems totally wrong, unfair and downright disrespectful to foist Christian Salvation on (for example) Christopher Hitchens, who clearly doesn't want it, and wouldn’t appreciate it anyway. And, the notion of Universal Salvation seems to me to undermine any call to faith or holy living in this life.

From what I read at the Cokesbury site, it appears that Bishop Willimon's new book Who Will Be Saved? also attempts to make the case for Universal Salvation as well. Maybe not. I guess we’ll all have to read it to find out for sure.

But, the question of "Who Will Be Saved?" is an interesting question, nonetheless. And, historically, theologians in the Wesleyan tradition have come to distinctive conclusions about this. While Wesleyan theology does not teach or imply Universal Salvation it does teach Universal Grace. To us the scope of grace is seen as being wider than it might be from some other points of view.

Here is what I mean.

Originally, John Wesley gave to the American Methodist Church a statement of faith. He took the 39 Articles of the Anglican Church and edited them down to 25 Articles.

These serve as the Statement of Faith for the United Methodist Church today, along side the Confession of Faith of the former Evangelical United Brethren church.

In whittling the 39 Articles down to 25 he obviously left several out. And, it is sometimes interesting to notice which ones he left out.

For example, the following article was left out:

XVIII. Of Obtaining eternal Salvation only by the Name of Christ

"They also are to be had accursed that presume to say, That every man shall be saved by the Law of Sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that Law, and the light of Nature. For holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved."

And, this may seem strange. This notion is a common idea in modern evangelical thinking. Salvation is only in the name of Jesus. What could be wrong with this? And, indeed, there is a danger in reading too much into Wesley's editing of the 39 Articles. It may be that he thought this was unnecessary or redundant.

But, I think there is more going on here. I think this omission is significant. I think Wesley felt that this Article was in conflict with the following Scriptures:

"Then Peter began to speak: 'I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right.'" (Acts 10:34,35, NIV).

and

"For God does not show favoritism. All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God will judge men’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares." (Romans 2:11-16, NIV).

I think he also felt it was in conflict with the idea of the universality of the atonement by which some of the benefits of Christ's death were given to all people (prevenient grace).

Wesley left the issue of the salvation of the unevangelized strictly in the hands of God.

Wesley scholar Randy Maddox writes:

"By the 1780s Wesley .... now claimed that initial universal revelation enabled people to infer not only that there was a powerful, wise, just, and merciful Creator, but also that there would be a future state of punishment or reward for present actions. More importantly, he suggested that God may have taught some heathens all the essentials of true religion (i.e., holiness) by an 'inward voice.' That is, he raised the possibility that Prevenient Grace might involve more than simply strengthening our human faculties and testifying to us through creation. It might also provide actual overtures to our 'spiritual senses'! With provisions such as this, some people would surely pursue virtuous lives, and the late Wesley appeared willing to acknowledge some attainment. However, he was quick to add that such cases would be less pure and far less common than in the Christian dispensation. Moreover, he was convinced that these persons would not have the assurance that is available to Christians through the Spirit."

and:

"Then how does Wesley believe that God will deal with the unevangelized? Will they be 'saved'? Given his understanding of salvation as recovered holiness (not merely forgiveness), this issue had two dimensions for Wesley. At its most abstract level, it was simply the question whether those who lack definitive Christian revelation will be summarily excluded from eternal blessing. At a more concrete level it was the question whether such persons can or must develop at least a degree of holiness in this life, which is the Christian foretaste and condition of final salvation (for Wesley).

"Wesley's answer to the first question is fairly clear and apparently consistent throughout his life. His conviction of the unfailing justice and universal love of God made it impossible for him to believe that people who lacked knowledge of Christ through no fault of their own (i.e., invincible ignorance) would be automatically excluded from heaven. Accordingly, he repeatedly prefaced claims about the qualifications for eternal salvation with an exemption from consideration of those who received only initial revelation. He argued that Scripture gave no authority for anyone to make definitive claims about them. Their fate must be left to the mercy of God, who is the God of heathens as well as of Christians. This conviction took its most formal expression when he deleted the Anglican Article XVIII ("Of Obtaining Eternal Salvation Only by the Name of Christ") from the Articles of Religion that he sent to the American Methodists."

and:

"The late Wesley (with his more positive estimate of initial revelation) turned to another solution for this problem that had recommended itself to many Christians before him: God will judge the heathens with some discrimination after all; not directly in terms of their appropriation or rejection of Christ, but in terms of how they respond to the gracious revelation (light) that they do receive. This assumes, of course, that some degree of true spirituality or holiness can emerge in response to God's gracious initial revelation — a possibility that the late Wesley was willing to admit. To be sure, this holiness may fall short of Christian standards for final salvation, but the lack would be supplied by divine indulgence."

— Randy L. Maddox, "Wesley and the Question of Truth or Salvation Through Other Religions"

In "A Letter to a Person Lately Joined with the People Called Quakers" John Wesley indicates that he agrees with the following statement of Quaker belief, written by Robert Barclay:

"The benefit of the death of Christ is not only extended to such as have the distinct knowledge of his death and sufferings, but even unto those who are inevitably excluded from this knowledge. Even these may be partakers of the benefit of his death, though ignorant of the history, if they suffer his grace to take place in their hearts, so as of wicked men to become holy."

Preachers and teachers in the Wesleyan tradition have been more willing to allow for the possibility of salvation (through Christ's atonement!) being available to those who are unevangelized than in some other Christian traditions.

Notice these comments from Methodist Holiness writers:

"[The Atonement] affords a basis for the salvation of such pious pagans as live up to their best light. 'They are saved through Christ though they know Him not.' (J. Wesley.) How about the condition of faith in Him? They have the spirit of faith and the purpose of righteousness; that is, the disposition to trust in the object of faith, the historical Christ, were He revealed to them in the Gospel, and a willingness to walk by the revealed law of God were it made known to them. What is your Scriptural authority? Jesus Christ intimates that the judgment day will proceed by the use of a sliding scale. Where much is given much will be required; where little is given little will be required. St. Paul declares: 'There is no respect of persons with God. For as many as have sinned without the written law will be judged by the law written on their hearts.' Peter looking upon a group of God-fearing heathen at the headquarters of Brigadier General Cornelius, declared: 'Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation he that feareth Him and worketh righteousness is accepted with Him.' 'Many shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.' Mr. Joseph Cook, who defends the rectoral theory, advocates the doctrine of salvation by possessing the essential Christ where the historical Christ is unknown. The essential Christ is an obedient attitude of the will toward 'the eternal Ideal required by self-evident truths, which has in Christ, and in Him only, become the historically Real.' In the last day the Judge will say, 'Come, ye blessed,' not only to those who have enthroned the historical Christ in their hearts, but also to those who have exhibited towards His brethren, any forlorn man, the spirit of love, the essential element in the character of Christ -- 'Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of the least of these, My brethren, ye did it unto Me.' The standard is so low as to be applicable to all who know the distinction between right and wrong. The rectoral theory of the atonement needs no probation after death. What effect does this have on the missionary motive? None. That word stands in full force -- Go ye and teach all nations.' While the pagan can be saved without a knowledge of Christ, the Christian cannot be saved while selfishly withholding that knowledge. I believe it is easier for God to save a pagan without the Bible in Bombay than it is to save a professed Christian in Boston without a disposition to send him a Bible; in other words, without a missionary spirit. I repudiate the doctrine of geographical election and reprobation expressed in the saying, 'To exchange cradles would be to exchange destinies.'"

— Daniel Steele, "The Atonement" Half-Hours with St. John's Epistles (1901).

"Experimentally, Methodism, from the very first, has had a plain, practical, Scriptural faith. Starting on the assumption that salvation was possible for every redeemed soul, and that all souls are redeemed, it has held fast to the fundamental doctrine that repentance towards God and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ are the divinely-ordained conditions upon which all complying therewith may be saved, who are intelligent enough to be morally responsible, and have heard the glad tidings of salvation. At the same time Methodism has insisted that all children who are not willing transgressors, and all irresponsible persons, are saved by the grace of God manifest in the atoning work of Christ; and, further, that all in every nation, who fear God and work righteousness, are accepted of him, through the Christ that died for them, though they have not heard of him. This view of the atonement has been held and defended by Methodist theologians from the very first. And it may be said with ever-increasing emphasis that it commends itself to all sensible and unprejudiced thinkers, for this, that it is rational and Scriptural, and at the same time honorable to God and gracious and merciful to man."

— Bishop Willard F. Mallalieu "Some Things that Methodism Stands For" The Fullness of the Blessing of the Gospel of Christ (1903).

Each of these writers would also say that the explicit knowledge of Christ would be of benefit to all people and provide the power of the Spirit to more easily live the life to which God calls us. None of them would affirm universalism.

But, all would affirm that there is grace available — in some form — to all people.

— Craig L. Adams

Colson on Thomas á Kempis

Sun, 4 May 2008 16:18:53 -0400

I was actually quite surprised to run across this:

Copycat Christianity
Revisiting 'The Imitation of Christ'
By
Chuck Colson
Christian Post Guest Columnist
Sun, May. 04 2008 11:40 AM ET
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080504/32249.htm

Excerpt:

"Before there were marketing phenomena like the Purpose-Driven Life and The Prayer of Jabez — each selling millions of copies — there was a little devotional book that went through 6,000 editions and spread all across the world. It was written by a monk in 1418 and centuries later played a significant role in the conversions of both John Wesley and John Newton — and no doubt in the salvation of many thousands of others we will not know until we are in heaven.

"The amazing thing is that The Imitation of Christ by Thomas á Kempis, featured in the latest edition of Ken Boa’s “Great Books Audio” series, has as much for us to gain from it today as it ever has in history."

Bushnell on Preachers

Sat, 3 May 2008 08:27:37 -0400

"Many a time nothing is wanting but to speak as to a soul already hungry and thirsty, or, if not consciously so, ready to hunger and thirst, as soon as the bread and water of life are presented. If the problem is to get souls under sin inspired again, which it certainly is, then it is required that the preacher shall drop lecturing on religion and preach it, testify it, prophesy it, speak to faith as being in faith, bring inspiration as being inspired, and so become the vehicle, in his own person, of the power he will communicate; that he may truly beget in the gospel such as will be saved by it. No man is a preacher because he has something like or about a gospel in his head. He really preaches only when his person is the living embodiment, the inspired organ of the gospel; in that manner [demonstrating] no mere human power, but the demonstration of a Christly and divine power. Such preaching has had, in former times, effects so remarkable. At present we are almost all under the power, more or less, of the age in which we live. Infected with naturalism ourselves and having hearers, that are so, we can hardly find what account to make of our barrenness."

— Horace Bushnell, Nature and the Supernatural: As Together Constituting the One System of God (1858).

I found this quote in the Appendix to Daniel Steele’s The Gospel of the Comforter. The word I added in brackets is just my guess as to what the original may have read. Editing the Appendix to Steele’s book is quite a tedious task, since the type in the original was so small. But, there are some nice quotes there.

SpongeBob checks into Exodus International

Fri, 2 May 2008 20:28:45 -0400

From LarkNews:

GREENVILLE, S.C. — Cartoon actor SpongeBob Squarepants checked into an Exodus International program Wednesday, hoping to leave behind a life of homosexuality he now dubs "duplicitous and shameful."

The celebrity sponge said through a spokesman that he intends to immerse himself in the Christ-centered program.

"For years, SpongeBob has struggled with his sexual identity," said his spokesman, reading from a prepared statement. "He hopes to emerge from this program cleansed."

Other gay children's characters expressed disappointment. Bert and Ernie of Sesame Street told reporters SpongeBob is "denying who he is."

"He's setting us back fifty years," Ernie said from his and Bert's Upper West Side penthouse.

SpongeBob has said in past interviews that his sexual confusion began when he learned his parents were, like all sponges, hermaphroditic, switching gender roles throughout their life cycle.

"It was traumatizing," he says. "It tore a big hole in my personality."

The beloved yellow children's character, who has gained fans because of his guilelessness, hopes to settle down with another sea creature once his show runs its course.

"When syndication kicks in, I can retire and start spawning, like a normal sponge," he told Entertainment Weekly last April.

Link Added

Thu, 1 May 2008 16:03:46 -0400

I am adding the following link to the Sexuality Issue page:

The Church and Homosexuality
By Timothy W. Whitaker
Resident Bishop, Florida Area

from the Florida Conference web site.

It’s well worth reading. I would describe it as “SideB with reservations” (kinda the way I’d describe my own position).

I was alerted to it here:

Bishop Whitaker: Same-sex-attraction and the Church at Daniel McLain Hixon's Gloria Deo: Wesleyan-glican ramblings blog.