William J. Abraham, “Wesley for Armchair Theologians,” (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005)
Professor Abraham (Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University) has written an excellent introduction to John Wesley for those who have little or no familiarity with him. This series titled Armchair Theologians, of which the current book is but one of six (with the others covering Aquinas, Augustine, Barth, Calvin, Luther), offers an acute and concise summary of the theology of each person; however, the writer of each book within the series aims to make the deep theological insights of the person studied accessible to the masses. It is no different with Abraham’s volume. Indeed, Abraham explicitly states that his offering is a fresh interpretation of Wesley, one in which it is attempted to make Wesley come alive for the beginning inquirer. It should be noted that Wesley is ever needed to ‘come alive’, so to speak, within our own generation, as Wesley would have little tolerance for the insipid lemonade often spewed from pulpits within the spiritual lineage of Wesley’s offspring (including Methodists of various varieties, and Pentecostals, to name two), as Abraham himself intimates. Wesley’s method of preaching, in contrast to our own often, consisted of a presentation of a little bit of good news, the presentation of what was/is wrong within humanity (the bad news), followed by a presentation of the Good News. It is precisely for this reason that Wesley offers the church such an interesting and stimulating dialog partner for today’s environment.
Moreover, the implicit Ecumenism in Wesley is laudable. For instance, Wesley was a Roman Catholic insomuch as he insisted that humanity is intrinsically good; Pentecostal insomuch as he was insistent of the present day experience of the Spirit; Lutheran insomuch as he insisted on justification as the primal doctrine within Christianity; and Reformed insomuch as he was adamant that one would fight sin until the last day of breath partaken. For these reasons, Wesley is a theological oddball to everyone, and though not novel in any of his ideas, nonetheless Wesley is novel in his synthesis of various theological doctrines. Regarding this attempted synthesis, Abraham notes that Wesley vexed him in his youth, as Wesley was an amazingly complex, diverse, and (at times) inconsistent theologian. Due to the growth within Wesley’s theology over the years of his life and writing (which Abraham counts as inconsistency, note), Wesley often posited contrary assertions to that which he had previously published. However, any theologian who is in a relationship with God that is nurtured will similarly show such ‘growth’ from the onset of his theological writings to the end of them.
Abraham’s thesis for the entire project is to show that Wesley’s theology is at foremost an intellectual one, springing from the traditional faith of the mother church (Roman Catholic, i.e.), and established by the creeds of the first six centuries of the Common Era. Many of us who are familiar with the traditional (and I deem, accurate) depiction of Wesley, as has arisen over the last two plus centuries of Christianity, will find many points of Abraham to be somewhat distressing. However, this book is a good read, for a number of reasons. First, it rightly summarizes Wesley’s core doctrines. Second, it gives an excellent overview of the years prior to Wesley’s death, which saw the exorbitant growth of Methodist (which originally was a pejorative term, note) meetings within Europe, as well as in the newly found and colonized North American continent. Third, it gives one many notions to grapple with, which may sharpen and hone one’s understanding of Wesley’s life, his desires (torn though they may be at times), and his vision for his renewal movement within Anglicanism.
Though Wesley himself never desired to begin a new denomination, intending instead to remain as a renewal movement within Anglicanism, Abraham notes that it was inevitable that fracture would occur with his renewal movement and the Anglican Communion at large. Moreover, Abraham makes the strong assertion that several actions by Wesley (e.g., his allowing an Eastern Orthodox priest to ordain various members of the Anglican Church to administer the sacraments, as well as Wesley’s own ordination of others to do the same), actually furthered the fissure between his movement and the Anglican Communion. So then, Abraham implicitly asserts that Wesley himself pushed his movement toward independence from the Church of England. Abraham asserts that Wesley’s attempt to belie predestination, but at the same time also posit the notion of preveinent grace, was contradictory. And though by no means the scholar that Professor Abraham is, I nonetheless counter that Wesley was attempting to keep apparently dichotomous vantage points in tension, much like the Apostle Paul did in respect to grace and law. Abraham asserts that Wesley’s attempted harmonization was/is less than compelling, which I believe to be a little harsh. In due regard to these challenges to Wesleyan orthodoxy, if there be such a thing, Abraham’s volume is nonetheless heartily recommended by this student of Wesley for the readers of the Wesleyan Theological Journal.
Bradford McCall