Kevin Newburg Two personal statements

I began my academic pursuits at Northern Illinois University in the fall of 1979 where I had a double major in History and Political Science. In my second year of study I became actively involved with the university’s forensic program, joining the intercollegiate debate team, I later served as the organization’s president for one year. I consequently added a minor in Communication Studies. I intended to pursue a Law degree following my undergraduate work. After completing three and one half years of what had become a five year program, I was miserable. I had been avoiding or disagreeing with a call into ministry for approximately five years and had become quite disillusioned with my chosen career path. In the meantime, the opportunity for me to transfer to Point Loma College (now Point Loma Nazarene University) became a legitimate choice as my parents had moved to San Diego and my father had accepted a position on the faculty of PLC. I was raised in The Church of the Nazarene in Illinois. While this was at times a very positive experience, people in the church were typically very caring, supportive and encouraging, overall it was somewhat discouraging. At that time, in those places, the church was very legalistic, falling very squarely on the American Holiness Movement and Phoebe Palmer side of the Wesleyan divide. Most of my pastors had little if any formal education, completing the home course of study to achieve the educational requirements for ordination. Not surprisingly then, most of the sermons, Christian education and instruction about the faith that I received was woefully inadequate. (I can vividly recall becoming angry during the course of my first New Testament Introduction class that no one had ever taught me these basic concepts.) Still there was the nagging “call” and there was Point Loma on the Pacific coast, a school which by all outward appearances was not legalistic. I bargained with God that I would transfer, take the requisite religion classes, give Him the opportunity to confirm the call, and if the confirmation did not materialize I would still head off to law school. The call was confirmed, the classes were very interesting, and the Nazarenes in the religion department had a different concept of Holiness than that which I had previously been exposed to. Frank Carver, Reuben Welch, Herb Prince, John Lown, Jerry McCant and a few other professors introduced me to a world of theology that not only pricked my curiosity but inspired me to learn more. I enjoyed their company so much that I decided to pursue my MA in Theology at Point Loma before heading east to the Nazarene Theological Seminary. While at Point Loma I was introduced to Mildred Wynkoop’s “Theology of Love,” to Buber’s “I and Thou,” to Wesley’s “A Plain Account of Christian Perfection” as well as to biblical criticism (Lown was in the Jesus Seminar at the time), systematic theology and church history. I especially enjoyed my MA classes in which approximately half of the class (five or six out of ten to twelve students) were pastors who made the weekly trip to campus to complete their master’s degrees. The pastors were always asking questions that were off the subject, but at the same time right on the mark. When we talked about 5th century heresies they would ask about the concepts people in their churches were promoting and discover that very few ideas are actually new. They forced the professors and the direction of those classes to move in an integrative direction as current church issues were addressed biblically, historically and theologically, it was wonderful. We, I had gotten married, headed off to NTS with expectations of the same colloquial pattern being continued for the next two years. Alas, the NTS experience, while very good and highly beneficial was much more orthodox in large part because of class size. Throughout those two years my love of theology and history continued to grow, fed not only by classes on Wesley but also by the rare seminar on subjects as challenging as Reinhold Neibuhr, taught by Al Truesdale. Of nearly equal significance to my pastoral development while at NTS was the internship I had during my second year. I applied for and was hired to be the Ministry Intern at the Overland Park Christian Church, Disciples of Christ. The senior pastor was Forrest Haggard, he had been at the church for thirty years. My supervisor was Jeff Crosno, who was himself a former Intern and NTS graduate. Working at a church was nothing new for I had held two positions previously at San Diego First Church of the Nazarene, yet the OPCC experience was tremendously enlightening. I was taught how to make hospital calls by those who visited as many as five hospitals a week. I performed my first weddings as well as my first funeral, for an 80 year old suicide victim, the first question the family asked me was whether their father was in hell. I received nurture and instruction and thought seriously about defecting to the DOC. While there I was introduced to Lyle Schaller’s writings, books which I would use as guides for the next few years. After seminary I served first as an associate pastor at old First Church of the Nazarene in Seattle. My tenure there was short lived as the senior pastor was gone within six months and by polity I was out of a job. From Seattle we were called to Lynden, WA., to a church that was soon to celebrate it’s 25th anniversary. A town of 5,000 in a bucolic setting three miles from Canada, the community was dominated by Dutch dairy farmers and Reformed churches. I did everything Schaller said to do, and nothing much worked, it was rather depressing, and we felt isolated and alone. I got involved with the ministerial association and enjoyed the company of fellow pastors, forming an allegiance with the pastors of the other four churches from inconsequential denominations (the American Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist and Catholic churches). I was honored to be elected president of the association by my reformed colleagues. One of the things I learned during our six years in Lynden is that churches do not like to change. I concluded that it is as if they are a living organism which will do everything it can to maintain homeostasis. In all fairness I believe Schaller had tried to warn me that this might be the case, but I failed to listen. Like the rest of my Nazarene peers I was driven, both by my own expectations, the expectations of the laypeople of my church, by our society in general and by my denomination, to make my church grow. Growing was after all the most important thing a church could do. Not only was I unable to foment lasting growth, I was unable to even mend the not so quiet rift that existed between the old timers and the newcomers in the congregation. It was a difficult church to pastor. I found some solace and some answers to my questions about myself and my role in ministry by reading theology, especially Wesley and Wesleyan theology. I tried to keep up with the Wesleyan Theological Journal and even made it to a Wesleyan Theological Society meeting which I had joined at the completion of my MA. Additionally I had become very interested in Biblical archeology following a three week study trip to Israel. Of course, I continued to pursue my study of the Bible particularly with application to preaching. Along with that latter interest I also continued to explore the richness of worship and to attempt to understand and introduce new concepts to my congregation. We followed the Christian calendar, observed Advent, Epiphany, Lent, Palm/Passion Sunday, Pentecost and Christ the King Sunday. We began the year with a Wesley Covenant Service and celebrated the Lord’s Supper at least monthly. Some members of the congregation adopted these new practices with joy while others refused to even give them a chance, but that was not surprising given my lack of enthusiasm to support their desire to use Sundays to celebrate Mother’s Day, Father’s Day and Independence Day. When we left Lynden we moved to the city of Tacoma, to another old First Church of the Nazarene. For eight and one half years we have enjoyed our church, and our community, finding here a body of believers who truly love God and love us. They have encouraged me to pursue my various areas of interest, to the point that they applied for and received a Clergy Renewal Grant from the Lilly Endowment in it’s inaugural national offering and were thus able to provide my family and I with two summer sabbaticals. They have supported not only my reading of theology but even my presentation of a paper at a WTS meeting. While in Tacoma I have been given the opportunity to continue my study of worship, preaching, history, theology, archeology, church dynamics, and spirituality. All that has been asked is that I share my discoveries with my parishioners. Additionally, they have supported me in my efforts to make a difference in our city through participation in our city’s neighborhoods program. For the last six years I have been on the South End Neighborhood Council, the last three years as it’s chairperson. This organization represents 39,000 residents of a geographically defined area (there are eight “neighborhoods” in the city, of which SENCo has the largest population base). SENCo works with both elected city officials, city staff, as well as other organizations addressing issues of planning, zoning, safety (in 2002 we helped organize 100 block watch groups and shut down more than 20 drug houses), parks, schools, streets, etc. We are given funds to allocate for various projects and generally try to act as liaisons between citizens and the city. Additionally we are in a unique position to apply for various grants. For example, next year we anticipate the completion of a three year long project to raise the necessary funds to convert an abandoned gas station into a pocket park. We have been awarded a grant from Exxon-Mobil of $85,000 and another grant from the EPA of $100,000 (we believe we were the first non municipality to receive that type of grant from the EPA). One of the most rewarding aspects of serving in Tacoma is the unique relationship that exists among the Nazarene clergy in the area. I coordinate a weekly meeting of pastors from eight local churches who gather for fellowship and prayer (typically we average five in attendance). It has further been my privilege to be able to mentor two pastors in their first assignments who are a part of this group. One of these is the pastor of the Samoan Nazarene congregation which has met in our facility for the last five years. (We are excited about a new Spanish speaking congregation that began meeting in our facility this winter.) One of the somewhat disappointing aspects of meeting with other pastors is that I am able to witness the general lack of interest among my peers to pursue rigorous study of the issues we deal with as ministers. While I am pleased that many of the pastors have introduced either greater observance of the Christian calendar or have begun more frequent celebration of the Eucharist I believe my ability to influence older pastors to adopt new practices or habits is severely limited. For the last fifteen years I have given much thought to a variety of educational questions. I have wondered how a professor could instill in future pastors an unquenchable desire to be always thinking about what they do and how they do it. How to train future pastors to think theologically, and to see themselves living in a stream of church history filled with a rich diversity of traditions to be explored. How to teach pastors to think integratively about the basic ministry tasks of leading worship, preaching, administering the sacraments, and teaching the faith. To assist pastors to become self-critical in the accomplishment of their various tasks, asking themselves how their decisions ought to be influenced by: Biblical teaching; the traditions of church history; a Wesleyan theological orientation, as well as by understanding group dynamics and personality preferences. I would like to challenge future pastors to think about the wealth of possibilities available to them if they are willing to have a vision of ministry that reaches beyond their church walls into their local community. I would like to encourage them, at the beginning of their careers to make a choice to maintain a regimen of study, to find an area of interest and make it their life long task to pursue that interest, whether it be theology, or history, the Gospel of John or the writings of John of the Cross, to pick what they like and study. In recent days I have I have been thinking more about the way the pastor shapes and forms the local Christian community and about the resulting ramifications for spiritual formation that come from the choices pastors make. I fear that many of the choices are made without proper theological or historical reflection. I am reminded of a pastor who said in regard to bringing Wesleyan theology to bear on the preaching task, “I just preach the Bible.” I am concerned to help pastors learn the art of self-care; for both statistics and personal observation indicate that the level of ministerial burnout is at an alarming rate. I would like to be able to influence the Holiness Movement side of the Wesleyan heritage to learn to embrace the totality of our heritage; to see the breadth and depth available to us as people who take the via media; to be pastors and laypeople who can equally learn from the Eastern portion of the church as from the West, and celebrate the richness and diversity that is ours as Wesleyans. I am attracted to Emory’s Concentration in Religious Practices and Practical Theology because I believe that when coupled with an emphasis on Person and Community it will allow me to pursue my ongoing quest to address what it means to practice ministry in a Wesleyan context. I particularly desire to explore homiletics and worship/liturgics from that Wesleyan perspective. American Holiness churches have for most of their history employed a revivalistic style of worship coupled with either a cognitive or experiential-expressive model of homiletic. Currently there is much disagreement within the tradition regarding worship renewal with the two major camps divided along “contemporary” and almost “Anglican” lines. I do not believe there is one right way to worship. I do believe there are wrong ways to worship. I would like to be able to identify criterion which could be used to evaluate worship. Again I would like this criterion to be Wesleyan in it’s orientation. I am inclined to believe that any worship style has the potential to be legitimate or to become disoriented from the real purpose of worship. There are a number of voices calling for worship renewal, two of the more popular who I have found appealing are Marva Dawn and Robert Webber and I would like to further explore the implications what Webber is calling the “younger evangelicals.” In homiletics I would like to continue to explore the possibility of merging the cultural-linguistic postliberal model with a Wesleyan orientation. I would, therefore, like to dig deeper into the theories of Hans Frei, George Lindbeck, Walter Brueggemann, Richard Eslinger and especially Charles Campbell. As a teacher of either worship or homiletics I would like to be able to equip pastors to evaluate their approaches to these subjects so that they are able to evaluate the full ramifications of what they do in shaping a Christian community. Emory is attractive both because of it’s rich Wesleyan heritage and because of the quality of the faculty teaching in religious practices. The Concentration is attractive because it is designed to foment an integrative framework and is intended for people who bring significant practical experience with them. One of my concerns with most doctoral programs is that the requirement to become an expert, forces the student to focus so deeply on a narrowly defined subject that it tends to make it difficult to maintain breadth or think integratively. I remember the comments of a professor who had pastored for many years prior to pursuing his doctorate. He had been teaching for five or six years when he joined with two other professors to start a new church. He was surprised by the amount of work involved in pastoral ministry, he had forgotten how varied the demands and expectations are on those who serve. He had, in the process of becoming “expert” is his sub-field, forgotten how the reality of ministry rarely calls for sub-field expertise but often requires the ability to integrate Scripture, theology and history in addressing a very real contemporary situation. I would like my teaching to model the integrative process as I endeavor to equip future pastors. Emory has a rich tradition and ongoing reputation as one of the foremost institutions in the pastoral theology fields and I would count it a great privilege to be a part of that ongoing heritage.

I am not sure how these two statements relate.

SUMMARY COMMENTS AT END! The following pager revised is in files 7.6.

A Wesleyan Hermeneutic Kevin D. Newburg Prolegomenon

Dad grew up in a Methodist church, Mom grew up in a Free Will Baptist church, and by the time I came along, they were actively involved in a Church of the Nazarene. As I grew up we always found a Church of the Nazarene to attend, one in Indiana and two in Illinois. To the best of my recollection, the name of John Wesley was not a familiar one as I was growing up. I do remember sermons advocating and people testifying to “being entirely sanctified.” Some of those testimonies went something like, “God sanctified me on August 16, 1958 and I haven’t sinned since.” As a young person, I struggled with the legalism of my church. Religion was personal, and very real, but it was couched in a system of regulations that had no cognitive harmony for me. This confusion was exacerbated by the seeming incongruity with the testimonies I heard and the lifestyles and attitudes I witnessed from those highly legal “entirely sanctified” folks. I resisted God’s call into the ministry, and part of my objection was my discomfort with the prospect of attending the nearby holiness college, which from my perspective seemed more interested in propagating the legal system than instilling faith in it’s students. In the midst of my undergraduate plans, God made it possible for me to attend a much more “liberal” institution of higher education. Since religion classes were required, I agreed with God to give his ideas for my life a chance. It was during that time that my understanding of my heritage began to change. I was introduced to my spiritual ancestors, and discovered Christians who were more interested in a relationship with God than they were with the maintenance of a legal system. As my undergraduate career finally came to a conclusion I decided to spend a little more time with this group of Christians who had introduced me to a faith world with which I had been so unfamiliar. It was during those days that I encountered the writings of a number of people who seemed to make tremendous sense to me as they wrote about our relationship with God. I became Wynkoopian, Buberian and Wesleyan. And I wondered why the pastors of my childhood and youth had not tried harder to introduce me to these wonderful folks as I passed through their care. My appreciation of Wesley, his predecessors and successors grew during my seminary days. Then I found myself thrust out of the safe nurturing environment of Christian higher education back into the cold cruel world of the local church pastorate. There I found those same people whom I had known as I grew up. It was these folks, holiness folks, who put the pressure on me to perform, to achieve, to be a success, to cause our church to grow. I quickly found myself becoming a Schallerite, a student of church growth and effective church management. I also discovered that those concerns seemed to be the primary concerns of my colleagues, especially those with whom I gathered on a regular basis to watch our denominationally produced and provided “Intermediate Size Church Growth Initiative” videos. Each was filled with exciting stories of how I could cause my church to experience explosive growth, just like the guys (and it was always guys) who were featured on the videos. I became internally conflicted, as I struggled to both proclaim the good news shaped by the embrace of my Wesleyan heritage and apply the advice of the church growth gurus. Amazingly neither seemed to be working very well. The church grew a little, and the people grew a little. I found myself becoming disillusioned with the gurus, and somewhat distant from my new found heritage, for there never seemed to be enough time to read “theology.” To be a better preacher I read books on preaching, to be a better counselor I read books about counseling, to be a better administrator I read books on management, etc. There was little time for theology, and even less for church history, for the classics, for the giants. Enjoyed this autobiographical section. If it fits into a paper to be submitted it probably should be condensed and reworded some. Reading the next paragraph some form of the above fits well. I am concerned that more ministers in the Wesleyan tradition are reading Rick Warrens’ Purpose Driven Church, than are reading John Wesley’s A Plain Account of Christian Perfection. That they are more familiar with the writings of Arn than Arminius. That Maddox’ description of the Holiness Movement is correct, “The movement originally gathered around a distinctive emphasis on holiness of heart and life as the goal for all Christians. The member denominations now focus more on church growth and on being assimilated into ‘respectable’ generic American evangelicalism.” Not sure about the wisdom of the introduction to this paragraph. But the point of the paragraph needs to be made. I am personally concerned, wondering whether I too am becoming just another evangelical. What is it, after all, that defines who we are as Wesleyans? I’m particularly concerned about the central pastoral activity, preaching. I’m concerned that I too have become a part of our “entertainment” culture. That I’m more concerned with whether people like my sermons than if they are transformed by God’s grace through them. As Lischer puts it, “if we enter the pulpit guided by the assumptions of the hearer’s ‘right’ to be pleased or displeased, moved or unmoved, by the sermon, we have already given away the farm.” Why omit this? Robert Wall writes about what makes preaching “Wesleyan preaching.” “[T]he self-critical Wesleyan interpreter seeks after meaning in biblical texts and stories that congrues around the distinguishing themes and deeper-logic of a Wesleyan typology of God’s Word, without denying that these same texts and stories might yield other meanings to other interpreters from other theological traditions.” Not only do I not deny that there are other meanings, I am quite sure of it. Beyond that, I strongly suspect that those other meanings, rather than a Wesleyan meaning, are often the interpretation confessed on Sunday mornings in many churches having a “Wesleyan” heritage. How could it possibly be different, if the typology of the interpreter is shaped by a myriad of influences other than a Wesleyan informed theology? Good question! I therefore believe Walter Brueggemann’s description of the postmodern church is likely, and sadly, true. “The end result is a self-preoccupation that ends in self-indulgence, driving religion to narcissistic catering and consumerism, to limitless seeking after well-being and pleasure on one’s own terms without regard to any other in the community. ... The preacher perforce preaches in a world shaped by this text.” I agree, not needed. Is it possible to define a Wesleyan approach to preaching, a Wesleyan homiletic? Does Wesley provide us with any guidance in this task? Just what would Wesley do if he were around today? One thing we can be certain of is that he would preach, for that activity more than any other defined who he was. As he wrote in his journal in July of 1757, “I do indeed live by preaching!

Modern - Postmodern

While it is difficult to briefly summarize the basic tenets of our “postmodern” culture, in Stanley Grenz’ introduction to postmodernism we find a good representation of this new period in which we find ourselves. He describes a cultural climate characterized by: “gnawing pessimism;” a vision that sees “life on earth as fragile,” and a need for “cooperation rather than conquest.” Postmoderns believe that: “There are other valid paths to knowledge besides reason ... including the emotions and the intuition;” “the universe is not mechanistic and dualistic but rather historical, relational, and personal;” “reality is relative, indeterminate, and participatory;” and “there is no absolute truth; rather truth is relative to the community in which we participate.” Grenz goes on to say that “postmodern society tends to be a communal society.” “Postmodern holism entails an integration of all the dimensions of personal life -- affective and intuitive as well as cognitive.” “The celebration of cultural diversity, in turn, demands a new style -- eclecticism -- the style of postmodernity.” Grenz later writes, “The postmodern understanding of knowledge, therefore, is built on two foundational assumptions: (1) postmoderns view all explanations of reality as constructions that are useful but not objectively true, and (2) postmoderns deny that we have the ability to step outside our constructions of reality.” Have you seen his other book written with John R. Franke, Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Modern Context (Westminster John Knox, 2001)? Another perspective of the distinctives of postmodernism comes from Ronald Allen, “While a diverse phenomenon, postmodernisms’ adherents share key perspectives. Postmodernism sees limitations in modernism, especially the latter’s reliance upon science as the norm for truth. Postmoderns deny impartial objectivity in human knowledge; all knowledge is the result of interpretation. (This premise leads to pluralism and relativism). Postmoderns object to authoritarianism and are suspicious of all forms of power (including the definition of knowledge) because of possibilities for oppression.” I have had doubts about the pervasiveness of these shifts, about the whole concept of postmodernity. I find myself agreeing with Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, “Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza has commented on the propensity of white-dominated graduate school education in religion to latch on to a French school of radical intellectual critique precisely at the time that the surge in womanist thought has taken place. While this tendency to ‘ask a European’ has been part of American low intellectual self-esteem for a long time, the fascination with deconstruction in its more extreme forms, what Farley calls ‘a hard relativism that collapses issues of facticity and truth into issues of meaning’ -- while appearing so radical, actually serves the ‘de-struction’ of concrete social criticism such as womanism.” Thistlethwaite continues, “Womanists know that they cannot afford the extreme relativism of deconstruction, which would reduce what is valuable in human society to mere clusters of culturally conditioned assumptions. Such cultural relativism eviscerates the capacity of those rendered marginal to state, ‘This way of doing things is wrong; it is wrong now and it was wrong an eon ago.’ The ability of human beings to be moral agents in the world and to transform the world toward a greater good is the bedrock on which the womanist stands.” “Womanists have not been taken in by the rhetorical dance of postmodernism and they see its often convoluted prosing for what it is -- an intellectual flirting with danger by the economically secure.” To use Grenz’ image, I can see the difference between the old Star Trek and Star Trek: The Next Generation, between Spock and Data, but there are lots of people out there that aren’t “Trekkies.” In the midst of my postmodern angst, during an adult Sunday School class, I said something about “the truth” and a 45-50 year old woman, whose ecclesiastical background is ultra-conservative, asked, “Whose truth?” I was forced to conclude that we have all moved further than I thought we had. I still perceive that we are in an in-between time, rather than a new era, vis-à-vis the “modern era.” Nevertheless, my task is to function in this cultural milieu. Naturally this whole topic needs a lot of thought, and I am not well read enough to be of help.

Preaching in a Postmodern Context

Given these shifts in our beliefs, understandings and epistemology, how does one approach the preaching task? One approach, that I find particularly appealing, is posited by Walter Bruegemann. Brueggemann writes, “Ours is a changed preaching situation, because the old modes of church absolutes are no longer trusted.” “A great new reality for preaching is pluralism in the interpreting community of the local congregation.” “An honest facing of pluralism can only be pastorally and usefully engaged by an open-ended adjudication that takes the form of trustful, respectful conversation.” “Preaching thus must be conducted in a context where one makes proposals and advocacies but not conclusions.” “[T]he biblical text may be a counter-text that does not primarily describe but subversively redescribes reality.” He continues, “We now know (or think we know) that human transformation (the way people change) does not happen through didacticism or through excessive certitude but through the playful entertainment of another scripting of reality that may subvert the old given text and its interpretation and lead to the embrace of an alternative text and its redescription of reality.” “... the preacher, from this text, does not describe a gospel-governed world but helps the congregation imagine it.” Have you read Eugene Peterson on pastoral ministry. Just read his Working the Angles: The Shape of Pastoral Integrity (Eerdmans, 1987) and found it stimulating. Not sure he would be helpful for this, but he would be for your soul. He does not take on as such the post-modern challenge, but I believe it is at least implicit. “The proposal of this alternative script is not through large, comprehensive, universal claims, but through concrete, specific, local texts that, in small ways, provide alternative imagination.” “The work of preaching is an act of imagination, an offer of an image through which perception, experience, and finally faith can be reorganized in alternative ways.” “... it is imagination that ‘valorizes’ an alternative, and that, of course, is what preaching intends to do. Such a mode of preaching requires a break with our more usual modes of didactic, doctrinal, or moralistic preaching.” “In a culture that has learned well how to imagine -- how to make sense -- of the world without reference to the God of the Bible, it is the preacher’s primal responsibility to invite and empower and equip the community to reimagine the world as though Yahweh were a key and decisive player.”

Narrative Preaching

A general consensus seems to exist that sermons which will make an impact on postmodern hearers need to appeal to both the mind and the heart. There also seems to be a consensus that narrative preaching offers us our best opportunity to touch the mind and heart as we invite our listeners to become a part of “God’s metanarrative.” As Richard Lischer puts it, “In a culture brimming with stories, the preacher spends a lifetime sustaining a single narrative.” He writes, “Contemporary homiletics needs greater clarity on why we honor narrative. For many, narrative preaching has meant telling stories or illustrations in order to make contact with our hearers’ most cherished experiences, which too often entails aestheticism or canned illustrations. In fact, we tell stories because God’s involvement with a historical people generated a story. We are saved by being incorporated into that narrative and its community. The point is not to tell bunches of substitute stories for their inspirational value or to recount meaningful experiences that are vaguely analogous to divine truths but to tell one story as creatively and powerfully as possible and to allow that one story to probe our world.” Lischer concludes, “We preachers have the high and dangerous calling to tell one true story in a world that is filled with lies.” Brueggemann in his advocacy of re-imaging or preaching a sub-version lifts up the value and effectiveness of narrative, “This dramatic rendering of imagination has narrative as its quintessential mode, the telling of a story, and the subsequent living of that story.” He goes on to write, “[N]arrative is not a secondary or auxiliary enterprise; it is an act whereby social reality is constituted. Amos Wilder has championed the view long held by serious rhetoricians that speech, and specifically narrative speech, is constitutive of reality, so that narrative is indeed ‘world-making.’” Stephen Green has written in the inaugural issue of the Nazarene Theological Seminary journal, “The Tower,” “So, how does the preacher assist the congregant in the move from error to the truth of the Christian narrative? This movement is achieved by inhabiting the Christian story. To inhabit the Christian story is not merely to redescribe the faith in new concepts, it seeks to teach the language and practices of the faith to likely followers. The goal is not to help believers find their stories in the Bible, but rather to help them to make the Bible their story. Preaching, in this cultural-linguistic way, ‘redescribes reality within the scriptural framework rather than translating Scripture into extrascriptural categories. It is the text, so to speak, which absorbs the world, rather than the world the text.’”

Experience

In writing about preaching in our changed environment Robert Reid describes the New Homiletic Paradigm as “a radical shift away from the rationalistic and propositional logics of argumentation as the basis of sermon invention and arrangement.” The new paradigm includes the use of “inductive, narrative, story, imaging” all of which “share two features: a common consensus that the old rationalist paradigm is no longer effective and a serious attention to the creation of an affective experience for the audience of a sermon.” “I think it is fair to claim that a central, if not the central, unifying thread in the New Homiletic is the variety of ways in which each of the theorists are intent on creating an experience for an audience.” Reid discusses the difference between “philosophical rhetoric” which “arose from the effect of literacy” and “Sophistic rhetoric” which is “tied to the compositional conventions of the older oral, narrative strategies of composition.” Sophistic rhetoric is “more interested in creating an experience than proving a point.” Somehow, all of this does not turn me on, but I probably don’t get the point. Good preaching must have conceptural content, something for the mind to reflect on so IT CAN change the heart! The new homiletic so far has not blessed me, or perhaps I have not heard it done well. Thus, two of the keys to communicating in a postmodern context include narrative preaching and the creation of an experience with the hearers. In addition, there is also widespread agreement that the congregation needs to feel that the preacher is one with them in their ongoing quest for God’s truth. Echoing Brueggemann’s idea of the sermon as conversation Ronald Allen writes, “How does the preacher speak the truth without being imperialistic or authoritarian? Again, what is wrong with a note of certainty? Did 1 John miss it with his “know” language? Three keys. (a) Humility. Postmodern pastors recognize that their interpretations of truth are limited. (b) Honesty. Postmodern ministers recognize that their interpretations of truth are interpretations. (c) Openness. Postmodern preachers are constantly aware that new insight may revise their present interpretations of truth and experience.” “To the postmodern mind, an honest statement of ambiguity contributes to the preacher’s credibility. ... Pastors who acknowledge uncertainty in Christian interpretation of an idea or phenomenon signal the congregation that they are perceptive and honest.” Finally, since in a postmodern world, the “modern” individual also intrinsically exists in community, tribe, or group, the postmodern preacher invites the congregant to become a member of the community of faith, to embark on a corporate pilgrimage. “Postmodern preaching is intended to form the church as community.” “Although few would articulate their coming to worship on such grounds, I believe people are haunted by the question of whether there is a text (and an interpreter) that can say something that will make sense out of our pervasive nonsense. ... Our circumstance permits and requires the preacher to do something we have not been permitted or required to do before. Ours is an awesome opportunity: to see whether this text, with all of our interpretive inclinations, can voice and offer reality in a redescribed way that is credible and evocative of a new humanness, rooted in holiness and practiced in neighborliness.” “We preach to people exactly like ourselves -- who want a better job, a bigger check, a happier marriage, a slimmer tummy, a longer life, a safer neighborhood, and a better government. But we have been given no word for self-improvement, only this majestic unveiling of a new age begun in Jesus Christ and awaiting consummation.” I am not against finding the essential characteristics of post-modern culture and seeking how to best commuicate to it “without compromise of the essence of the Gospel,” or only preaching half the message, which then changes the half that is preached! I am probably responding more to my own church frustration than to your paper.

Wesley & Postmodernity

If we return to Wesley, with a postmodern outlook, we find, I believe, some useful practical advice, some guidelines, or timeless principles.

Be Flexible

Wesley wasn’t always a flexible person. One could argue that the bulk of the problems he had in Georgia stem from his inability to adapt to the reality of the circumstances of that assignment. However, by the beginning of the revival and throughout his middle and late periods Wesley demonstrated an ability to adapt to the changing circumstances and needs of the movement. A good example of this flexibility is Wesley’s adoption of the practice of field preaching. Outler writes that it was in April of 1739 that Wesley first tried field preaching, “with grim distaste, he had ventured into the fields near Bristol and had found an unexpectedly positive response.” He didn’t like the idea, he never liked the idea, but it worked. He was able to reach people who never would have been reached otherwise. Another example of his flexibility was his ability to adapt his message to the audience. For instance Outler writes, “he loved and was loved by little children everywhere.” Outler then quotes Charles Atmore who “recalls a sermon to children at Bolton, ‘literally composed and delivered in words of not more than two syllables.’” Another example of this flexibility was Wesley’s willingness to make the necessary adjustments to the changing situation of Methodism both in England and especially in the United States. In James White’s Introduction to Wesley’s Sunday Service he notes, “In short, a minimum of musical talent and architectural resources are needed for the worship Wesley envisions for North America. Flexibility and adaptability are provided for instead.” Wesley didn’t adopt every new idea, even those that seemed to be successful. Maddox describes the method Wesley used in determining what to incorporate and what to abandon. “A wide variety of such changes to the liturgical practices within Anglicanism were being championed by the various non-Conformist groups of his day. Wesley tended to adopt only those that had proven ‘edifying’ in practice, and for which he believed he could find scriptural and “primitive” warrant. “

Be Practical

Wesley tended to be very pragmatic in many of the decisions he made. Field preaching is again an easy example. Not only does it demonstrate Wesley’s willingness to try new ideas, it also indicated his pragmatism. Speaking of “field preaching” Heitzenrater says, “By this method, the gospel could be brought to the people where they were, to people who could not or would not go to a church at the appointed hour for services.” If the people cannot come to hear the good news, take the good news to the people. The Wesleys contribution to hymnody is well known. It was a great way to help people to inculcate theology. The Wesleys also knew the dangers inherent in a pleasant tune. The most important aspect of the hymns was the theology which they reflected. “[Wesley] preferred to sing a cappella, lest the meaning of the words be obscured.” I’m not sure what he would do today (projection, hymnal, insert), but he would make his decision based on practical criteria. Even the genius of the societies, classes and bands, was very practical. As Heitzenrater notes, “Wesley continued the public preaching services early every morning (before people had to be at work) and in the evening, he noticed that the real work was being carried on in the societies. Those who had begun to ‘fear God and work righteousness’ but were not participating in the society grew faint and fell back, while those who were united together grew stronger in the faith.” On a very practical level he provided advice about the avoidance of bad habits in preaching, “Take care not to ramble from your text ... Take care of anything awkward of affected, either in your gesture or pronunciation. Endeavouring not to speak too loud or too long? Not lolling with your elbows? Never scream. Never lean upon or beat the Bible.” Wesley consistently worked to keep his sermons simple. For example, to accomplish this goal he “took special pains to conceal his erudition in the interest of the edification of his particular audiences.” As he says in the preface to the sermons, “I design plain truth for plain people.” He was masterful in his use of worthy material. “Wesley felt no special need to establish himself as an original preacher in his own right: this practice of adapting and using material from others was a commonplace in his time.” Another example of his practicality was motivated by his desire to be a reform movement within Anglicanism rather than a split from it. “In John Wesley’s eyes Methodist meetings for preaching were not services of worship complete in themselves. They were timed so as not to clash with church service hours; Methodists were expected to attend their churches or meeting houses for ordinary services and sacraments, their own meetings being merely a devotional supplement.” Even the adoption of covenant services is indicative of Wesley’s practicality. Wesley borrowed and used this practice because he saw in it a means to allow the Methodists to see themselves not on a solitary journey, which would have been overwhelming for many, but instead to be part “of a personal pilgrimage in company with the society of the people of God.”

Employ/Emphasize the Full Means of Grace -- Sacrament

I believe that Wesley would have two primary criticisms for today’s church. First, we have failed our people by our abandonment of the societies. Second, we have hurt ourselves by our reluctance to employ all the means of grace, particularly weekly communion. “Wesley’s vision for the Christian life is firmly built upon the God-given means of grace, particularly sacrament, scripture, and prayer.” “... he advised ‘the elders to administer the supper of the Lord on every Lord’s day.’” This is especially noteworthy in that the Sunday Service he provides for America contains significant deletions from the Book of Common Prayer, deletions that seem to be motivated primarily by his concern for brevity. An embrace of the frequent celebration would not only benefit us as a means of grace, but it is likely to be a good “practical” decision. As Shelton points out, “Various forms of sacramental worship may also appeal to segments of the postmodern culture. The use of the sacraments does appeal to a culture which is responsive to symbolic and ritualistic forms of expression and reflection.”

Target the Outcast / Poor

A principle which seems to be a part of our heritage is that we have consistently tended, at least initially, to target the poor, the neglected, the outcasts (having a target audience would make the church growth advocates happy?). Outler describes Wesley as having “a virtual identification with the English underclass. They, in turn, had accepted him as one of their own and yet also as their spiritual director, theological mentor, and pastoral counselor. His unconventional ministry had given them not only a new hope of grace and salvation in this life but also a new sense of human dignity, also in this life.” ‘“I love the poor’, said Wesley to Dorothy Furly; ‘in many of them I find pure, genuine grace, unmixed with paint, folly, and affection.’” This preference for the poor is echoed by an amazing variety of Christian theologians. Two examples come from Brevard Childs who writes, “Where there is true understanding of the Scriptures, by necessity, there arises an imperative for evangelism and mission, a care for the impoverished and suffering.” Rosemary Radford Ruether concurs, “The God revealed in Jesus has identified with the victims of history and has abandoned the thrones of the mighty.” Targeting this audience is a part of our heritage, a part we abandon at our own peril.

Wesley on Preaching / Wesleyan Preaching

We know relatively little about Wesley’s preaching, especially his ‘field’ preaching. We know that the written sermons reflect something of his actual preaching, though many of the texts he used in the written sermons never appear in his journal as texts used in actual preaching. Some accounts of Wesley’s actual preaching do exist. They are notable both for the way Wesley did, and did not, have an impact on his hearers. Johan Henrik Liden, of Uppsala, to his friends back home of hearing John Wesley preach at the Methodist Chapel in Spitalfields, Sunday, Oct. 15, 1769, “... The sermon was short but eminently evangelical. He has no great oratorical gifts, no outward appearance, but he speaks clear and pleasant. ... He is a small, thin old man, with his own long and straight hair, and looks as the worst country curate in Sweden, but he has learning as a bishop and a zeal for the glory of God which is quite extraordinary. His talk is very agreeable .... He is the personification of piety, and he seems to me as a living representation of the loving Apostle John.” “A later account comes from the well-known evangelical historian, Thomas Haweis, who had collected all eyewitness evidence available to him: Another account comes from Thomas Haweis, ... His mode of address in public was chaste and solemn, though not illumined with those coruscations of eloquence which marked, if I may use that expression, the discourses of his rival, George Whitefield. But there was a divine simplicity, a zeal, a venerableness in his manner which commanded attention and never forsook him in his latest years.” According to Outler, Wesley was “convinced that preaching, to be effective, must be an interpersonal encounter between the preacher and his hearers. Hence, he believed that oral preaching was the norm. Written sermons could only be regarded as either preparatory for more effective oral utterance or else distillates of it: the written word as substitute for personal presence. However, he saw an important difference between the principal aims of an oral and a written sermon: the former is chiefly for proclamation and invitation; the latter is chiefly for nurture and reflection.” Wesley advocated extemporaneous preaching. He felt it was imperative that a dialogue exist between preacher and congregation. This is yet another example of how Wesley fits well into a postmodern context. “It was Wesley’s way to speak as directly as he could to his actual audiences; this is plain in his letters, polemical rejoinders, and essays, but most of all in his sermons. This would follow from his conviction that preaching is the chief business of the evangelist, and it explains his choice of the sermon as the chief genre for his theological expositions. He understood the difference between the dialectical character of sermons and the didactic character of systematic treatises. Quite consciously, and from the beginning, he preferred the former.” Perhaps the best explanation that we have by Wesley on his perspective of preaching is found in a letter he wrote in 1751 where he discusses the difference between preaching “the law” and preaching “the gospel.” Wesley writes: “[2] I mean by ‘preaching the gospel’ preaching the love of God to sinners, preaching the life, death, resurrection, and the intercession of Christ, with all the blessings which in consequence thereof are freely given to true believers. [3] By ‘preaching the law’ I mean explaining and enforcing the commands of Christ, briefly comprised in the Sermon on the Mount.” When preaching to believers “[7] I think, neither the one nor the other, but duly mixing both, in every place, if not in every sermon.” He says that to sinners preach the law, until convinced of sin, then as they become deeper Christians shift the mix more toward ‘gospel.’ “[10] He would labour, therefore, in preaching any part of the law, to keep the love of Christ continually before their eyes, that thence they might draw fresh life, vigour, and strength to run the way of his commandments. [12] By preaching the law in the manner above described he would teach them how to walk in him whom they had received. The goal in preaching is to enlist the following kind of reaction in the listener, “[13] Now I see he that loves me bids me do this; and now I feel I can do it through Christ strengthening me. [18] According to this model I should advise every preacher continually to preach the law: the law grafted upon, tempered by, and animated with the spirit of the gospel. I advise him to declare, explain, and enforce every command of God. But meantime to declare in every sermon (and the more explicitly the better) that the first and great command to a Christian is, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ; that Christ is all in all, our ‘wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption’; that all life, love, strength, are from him alone, and all freely given to us through faith. And it will ever be found that the law thus preached both enlightens and strengthens the soul; that it both nourishes and teaches; that it is the guide, ‘food, medicine, and stay’, of the believing soul.” He then speaks of a preacher who abandoned law and preached only gospel, the effect was devastating, “[28] Why, this is the very thing I assert: that the ‘gospel preachers’, so called, corrupt their hearers; they vitiate their taste, so that they cannot relish sound doctrine, and spoil their appetite, so that they cannot turn it into nourishment; they, as it were, feed them with sweetmeats till the genuine wine of the kingdom seems quite insipid to them. They give them cordial upon cordial, which make them all life and spirit for the present; but meantime their appetite is destroyed, so that they can neither retain nor digest the pure milk of the Word.” Commenting on the societies in Yorkshire that were fed a balanced diet of law and gospel by John Nelson, “[31] These had been continually fed with that wholesome food which you could neither relish nor digest. From the beginning they had been taught both the law and the gospel: ‘God loves you: therefore love and obey him. Christ died for you: therefore die to sin. Christ is risen: therefore rise in the image of God. Christ liveth evermore: therefore live to God, till you live with him in glory.’” In addition to the dyadic system of preaching ‘law’ and ‘gospel’ Wesley also advocated a triadic system of preaching Christ in all of his offices. “They were to maintain the inherent connection between Christ’s gracious provision of pardon for our sin and Christ’s expectation of the renewal of our nature. They were to avoid any legalistic preaching of Christ as Prophet without Christ as Priest, or any antinomian preaching of Christ as Priest without Christ as King, and so on. In reality, Wesley’s charge to preach Christ ‘in all his offices’ was a methodological expression of his orienting concern.” “The role of the sermon as a means of grace in worship is to communicate Christ in all three offices: assuring us of God’s pardoning love (Priest), while simultaneously revealing our remaining need (Prophet), and leading our further growth in Christ-likeness (King).” “He wanted to insure that God’s grace known in Christ as Priest was never separated from the response of discipleship that Christ modeled as Prophet and calls for from his followers as King. Clearly Wesley’s concern went beyond the use of specific titles. In practice, one could ‘preach Christ in his three offices’ without ever mentioning them. ... Thus, one way of preaching Christ in all his offices would be holding law and gospel in creative interrelation. Again, it would mean avoiding any antithesis between justification and sanctification. In its most general sense, it would mean carrying on Wesley’s integration of the juridical and therapeutic dimensions of Christian truth.” “Field preaching is characterized by a dominant evangelistic purpose of awakening general audiences to their spiritual need. Pastoral preaching was focused more on worship settings of the society, providing encouragement and guidance for their growth in saving relationship to God. It was primarily concerning pastoral preaching that Wesley instructed his preachers to follow a general method of inviting, convincing, offering Christ, and building up -- each in some measure in every sermon. This advice reflects the mature Wesley’s contextual integration of law and gospel.” Maddox 208f In another letter we find Wesley advocating preaching good news, giving people a reason for hope, and joy. The circumstances being addressed had an absence of this orientation, with disastrous results. “I was sorry to find both the society and the congregation smaller than when I was here last. I impute this chiefly to the manner of preaching which has been generally used. The people have been told frequently and strongly of their coldness, deadness, heaviness, and littleness of faith, but very rarely of anything that would move thankfulness. Hereby many were driven away, and those that remained were kept cold and dead.” It seems correct to conclude that Wesley would advocate the use of some system, such as the lectionary, to insure variety in the subjects covered in the week to week preaching of a local church. He wrote to Joseph Taylor, “I cannot at all approve of that dull way of spinning out many sermons from the same text, unless your text be the 13th of the First Epistle to the Corinthians or the Sermon on the Mount. It is this chiefly which occasions so many sermons in Scotland without any application. A sermon should be rather all application. This is the better extreme.” Neither Wesley, nor those who heard him preach, would describe him as the most dynamic preacher of his day. There is also no question that he was both easy and interesting to listen to. He was definitely concerned that he and the preachers be good communicators, whether that be understood as avoiding personal habits that were distracting or preaching extemporaneously. His primary concern in preaching was that a theologically accurate message be conveyed. He understood that the transforming word has a power that goes beyond the personal abilities of the preacher. As Outler said it, “Wesley was content that others might be more exciting if he could be more nourishing.” Postmodern people, like pre-modern people (and even modern people), are attracted to a persons who are clearly living out what they proclaim. Returning to Outler, “More than anything else, it was Wesley’s message that struck home: people not excited by his eloquence were moved by his vision of the Christian life and his gospel of universal redemption.” There are truths that endure the tests of time. Aspects of who we are as people, that do not change, even if we choose to deny their reality. For example, no matter how much we might try to be dualistic, exercising cognitive control over our emotions, the reality is that we are whole people. Wesley affirmed a ‘timeless truth’ when he wrote, ““If we could once bring all our preachers, itinerant and local, uniformly and steadily to insist on those two points, ‘Christ dying for us’ and ‘Christ reigning in us,’ we should shake the trembling gates of hell.”

Therapeutic vs. Decisionistic

Perhaps the area where we, preachers in the Wesleyan heritage, have wandered farthest from Wesley, is in our adoption of decisionist concepts for both justification and sanctification. Trusting that Outler knew what he was talking about when he said that, “Wesley’s mature soteriological convictions manifested a blending of juridical and therapeutic elements, and that this blending most adequately defines his distinctive theological contribution.” I fear that the vast majority of us have abandoned that which made us most distinct. I suspect that we look back and wrongly picture mass conversions taking place outside of coal mines, in cemeteries, in city squares, Heitzenrater is corrective, “Contrary to some impressions, most of the occasions when persons ‘received’ remission of sins or were ‘converted’ were those small group [class] meetings, not the large open-air preaching services.” We need, desperately need, to regain that which we have lost, and to return to the healthy blend of East and West championed by Wesley. We need to proclaim the therapeutic power of grace. To echo Maddox, we need to proclaim that “our most fundamental need is not just forgiveness but the healing of our diseased nature. We need God’s restoring grace!” “The capacity for simple, responsive love is an affection; an enduring disposition to love is a (holy) temper. The crucial point for our discussion is that, for Wesley, God does not typically infuse holy tempers instantaneously. Rather, God’s regenerating grace awakens in believers the ‘seeds’ of such virtues. These seeds then strengthen and take shape as we ‘grow in grace.’ Given liberty, this growth involves responsible cooperation, for we could instead neglect or stifle God’s gracious empowerment.” “... the Spirit (i.e., grace) is always present in the means, but we must responsively welcome this Presence for it to be effective in healing our lives. Full response in such a personal setting is rarely instantaneous, it grows through continuing relationship. Likewise, the healing which our sin-distorted lives require is a long-term project. This is precisely why Wesley encouraged frequent communion! Believers find in each new meal a fresh and deeper encounter with God’s empowering love.” “The transformation from error to truth is not quick nor uncomplicated. it is not accomplished through one’s own will-power or feelings. This would mean, for preaching, that simply pointing out the “facts” or moving one’s emotions is not enough to bring about lasting change. ... Long term transformation takes place in our lives because we believe differently. Again, this belief is not a doctrine to confess, nor a feeling to possess, but a conviction that possesses the believer.” “Preaching, as understood in this essay, is the announcement of the news that transforms consciousness. It is the proclamation toward an altered perception of the world, neighbor, and oneself. Preaching the Christian story dares to authorize us to live differently in this new world. Preaching does not accomplish its task in a once-for-all event, but it is empowered by the ongoing narrative of God’s story that invites us to find our place in this dangerous recital of God’s alternative world.”

Work Hard, Go Beyond Your Culture, Never stop learning

John Wesley was by all accounts a brilliant man. His knowledge of languages, history, science, literature, philosophy, and especially Scripture is phenomenal. The expectations he held for his preachers were no less exacting than those he held for himself. In his various instructions to the preachers Wesley writes of the need to know: Scripture, Biblical languages, history, the Fathers, the current world situation, and science. “Wesley maintained a high personal standard of learning for what could be described as a comprehensive or truly liberal education. Wesley exhorted others, especially his Methodist assistants, to develop themselves as whole person, intellectually as well as spiritually. This involved making use of all available resources, from religious to scientific, from theoretical to practical, to become enriched and broaden their relevance in ministering to others.” Wesley was especially, and unusually, a student of the early church. He saw that, “[t]he creeds and writings of the early church fathers were an invaluable tool for understanding and establishing central motifs of basic biblical truths. While acknowledging the need to use great care in selecting what to hold onto, Wesley often looked to Christian traditions as a source of encouragement and insight for dealing with issues not discussed in Scripture. He perceived himself and the Methodist movement directly in line with the most ancient, orthodox strand of Christian tradition.” “Wesley had a powerful sense of constancy within the turbulent experience of the Christian community through the centuries; this explains in part his lifelong interest in church history. He took it for granted and proceeded to re-enter the Christian past in order to appropriate its best treasures for his own time, because, amidst all historical change, he saw an essential continuity that had perdured. This, for him, was the essence of ‘tradition’. He understood it as having been most clearly focused in the early centuries (‘Christian antiquity’). Moreover, he believed it had developed in a more stable fashion within the Greek Orthodoxy than in the Latin West.” “In answer to the question, ‘Why are we not more knowing?’ [Wesley] says, in effect, because we do not work hard enough. To cure this evil, he first prescribes that the preachers read the more useful books -- steadily all morning, or at least five hours a day.” The question could be asked again today, “Why are we not more knowing?” I recently asked an old, wise, and trusted friend/mentor the question, “Whose fault is it that the typical pastor in a ‘Wesleyan’ church spends so little time studying either Wesley, those resources Wesley studied (particularly the early church), or current Wesleyan theologies? Does the bulk of the blame rest on the pastors, the denominational leadership, or the religion faculty in the institutions of higher education?” The immediate answer was, “All of the above.” After taking a night to think about it the answer was, “The pastors. They have been adequately trained to know what they should be doing, and where they need to go to find the resources they should be studying.” That wasn’t the answer that I was hoping for, however, I believe it is the correct Wesleyan answer. There was a survey reported in Christian Century a few issues ago. One of the questions was how many hours do you spend a week reading outside of sermon preparation. Epicopalians were the highest and Nazarenes were the lowest. But there was a lot more to the survey than that. If you can’t find it, let me know. I have it here somewhere? If we return again to the realm of practical advice for ministry within our postmodern context, the study of the early church makes sense, given that “Many in the postmodern sphere regard the past as containing elements of wisdom that were downplayed or lost in modernity”

Embrace and be embraced by the Bible.

Over and over again in my search for the answer to the question, “What makes Wesleyan preaching ‘Wesleyan’ and how can we best share that Wesleyan message in a postmodern context?” I encountered similar themes. More than any other I found the call to be immersed in the Bible. Scripture was so much a part of Wesley’s thinking that his natural language reflected biblical patterns. More than anything, then, to be Wesleyan means to be men and women of one book. And it is in that truth , that our hope lies, for though there are many in our tradition who do not study Wesley, the early church, the great spiritual masters, etc., we trust they are men and women of that one book. Brevard Childs wrote, “Genuine rebirth in the history of the church has always been accompanied by a rediscovery of the central role of the Bible as the vehicle for encountering the living God. Moreover, spiritual renewal has usually resulted in a greater intensity in wrestling with God’s word. ... The Bible is the source of the church’s life; it provides the content for its liturgy and worship.” Leander Keck wrote, “First of all, the time is at hand to stop worrying about the Bible and to start worrying about ourselves; second, to stop using the Bible and to start living with it; and third, to stop telling it what it means and to let its mythological character restore imagination to our thought and praise.” “... to live with the Bible sets up a dynamic between text and reader that differs markedly from that between user and used, because what or who we live with gradually shapes who we are and how we think even if there is quarreling -- as any durably married couple will attest. We cannot get to know the Bible if we do not live with it, all of it, ...” Richard Lischer agreed, “The renewal of preaching will not begin with a new form or style of the sermon. It never has. ... In fact, renewal will not begin with the sermon at all. It begins with those who make sermons. The first step in the recovery of preaching is the renewal of our faith in the priority of Jesus Christ and the priority of his language toward the world.” As did Donald Thorsen, “Wesley did not merely read Scripture; he listened to God personally speaking to him in its pages. Scripture represented the living words of God: ... Wesley believed that we may place ourselves in such a relationship to Scripture that God will speak to us through it.” “God not only inspired the writing of Scripture, but continues to illuminate those who read it. ... Wesley spoke of the ongoing need for inspiration or illumination from the holy Spirit who serves as a guide for those who approach the reading of Scripture in the context of prayer. ‘All Scripture is inspired of God -- The Spirit of God not only once inspired those who wrote it, but continually inspires, supernaturally assists, those that read it with earnest prayer.’” Peterson is helpful at this ;point in his chapter on Scripture. Stephen Green, “Christian preaching, if it is going to undermine and reconstruct the convictions of congregants, must attend to the Christian story. For this reason, it should not be surprising that Christian preaching needs to consist of listening to and participating in the transformational drama that is enacted in the biblical narrative itself.” Randy Maddox, “To put it in an aphorism, ‘You become like those with whom you spend time.’ To become Christ-like, spend time with Christ through study of Scripture, devotional reading, and prayer.” And John Wesley, “We may die without the knowledge of many truths and yet be carried into Abraham’s bosom. But if we die without love, what will knowledge avail?”

Being Wesleyan

So, what does it mean to be Wesleyan? I think we should begin by allowing Wesley’s own question to his preachers to be asked of us, “Do they know in whom they have believed? Have they the love of God in their hearts? Do they desire and seek nothing but God?” Perhaps, after all, to be Wesleyan is first and foremost, to be profoundly aware of, and personally possessed by the love of God. Second, to be Wesleyan also means to share Wesley’s unique understanding of soteriology. “By salvation I mean, not barely (according to the vulgar notion) deliverance from hell, or going to heaven, but a present deliverance from sin, a restoration of the soul to its primitive health, its original purity; a recovery of the divine nature; the renewal of our souls after the image of God in righteousness and true holiness, in justice, mercy, and truth. This implies all holy and heavenly tempers, and by consequence all holiness of conversation “ Conversation is defined as all of our relationships. “Just as the corruption of sin distorts all four relationships that are constitutive of human life, so the rejuvenation of humanity involves transformation of all four. As God’s saving work progresses in our lives we experience a renewed active love for God and other humans, and a reawakened concern for the “lower” animals. In conjunction with these progressive changes we also recover our own happiness (i.e., proper esteem for self).” Third, to be Wesleyan we need to understand Wesley’s understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit (grace) in our lives as both creating within us an awareness of our need, and enabling us to respond to that awareness. An ability to respond, which is also the ability to choose to say no to God’s offer of restoring relationship. “... Wesley was convinced that, while we can not attain holiness (and wholeness) apart from God’s grace, God will not effect holiness apart from our responsive participation. “ Fourth, to be Wesleyan requires a knowledge of and familiarity with the actual writings of Wesley, and the most useful of those writings remain the sermons, “The published sermons were, nevertheless, written summaries of the ideas that were central to all of his preaching, spelled out carefully for his preachers to read, to understand, and to use as a guide for their own preaching.” We need to both read Wesley and what Wesley read, as well as ongoing work of fellow Wesleyans. Fifth, we need to maintain Wesley’s stabilizing balance between Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. “[Wesley] developed the integrating principles of his eclectic method: viz., that theology is the interpretation of spiritual and moral insights sparked by the prevenient action of the Holy Spirit, deposited in Holy Scripture, interpreted by the Christian tradition, reviewed by reason, and appropriated by personal experience. “ Sixth, as a preacher, I hope that being Wesleyan means that by the grace of God I too will be able to do what Wesley did, for as Heitzenrater wrote, “Wesley always seems to have had the ability to preach beyond the limits of his own faith.” I trust that being Wesleyan includes the type of preaching that Robert Wall speaks of, “The act of sound interpretation, ... intends to demonstrate the Bible’s authority for a particular congregation of readers by first clarifying what the text actually says (“text-centered exegesis”) and then by recovering from the text that particular meaning which addresses the theological confusion or moral dilemma of the canonical audience in meaningful ways. Of course, the legitimacy of any biblical interpretation is not determined by its mere relevance for a single readership, but by its agreement with what the people of God have always confessed to be true according to our rule of faith, who is the incarnate Word, Jesus Christ.” “Sound interpretation works from within a faith tradition to revitalize its particular contribution to the whole people of God.” “When I speak of a Wesleyan reading of Scripture, then, I do not mean that Wesleyans simply adopt as normative Wesley’s particular reading of Scripture or return to a crude, uncritical version of proof-texting. Rather, the particularity of the unrecorded hermeneutic of the Wesleyan trajectory is acquired in more subtle ways, first of all by living and worshiping within a congregation of Methodists who seek to preserve and even privilege: a Wesleyan perspective of Scripture’s authority; a Wesleyan typology of the via salutis which posits accent on believing humanity’s sanctifying responses to God’s justifying grace; a Wesleyan variety of Christian spirituality which is more developmental and affectual; of social justice which privileges our ministry to the poor and powerless; a duty-bound resistance to an ‘almost Christianity’ in support of a ‘practical divinity;’ and so on.” In Joel Green’s response to Robert Wall we find the following discouraging statement, “... there is no Wesleyan apparatus into which biblical texts can be dumped, the handle cranked, and a Wesleyan result guaranteed on the other side. What is needed, rather, is involvement in biblical interpretation by persons formed in Wesleyan communities.” I would have liked to have found that magical apparatus. But there is no format, no formula, no process, that one can apply to the construction of sermons which will make them either Wesleyan, or meaningful to “post-modern” congregations. There are approaches to the homiletic task that offer insight and hope that we will be able to share the good news within a different context, and perhaps there are some means of communication that may affect postmodern persons better than others. What is necessary then is that we who endeavor to communicate within our changing culture, live within that culture, that we speak as they speak, hear as they hear, read what they read, watch what they watch, not in order to become who they are, but to understand and be able to successfully communicate with them. Perhaps this is an automatic process. While we are functional in the postmodern milieu we must be equally comfortable in the world of the Bible, the world of the patristic fathers, and the world of Wesley. Certainly that is one of the recognized geniuses of Wesley, the ability to integrate material from an ever expanding breadth of experience. He knew his world, though he was not comfortable with much of it and rejected parts of it. He was wonderfully and practically eclectic. Ministers need to be taught, especially by example, the art of integration. We have instead, been taught to compartmentalize. If you want your church to grow, attend a church growth seminar and follow the step by step directions in the ‘fill in the blank’ notebook you receive. If you want to be a better preacher, read a book on preaching, or subscribe to a periodical that gives you a nice outline, complete with illustrative stories. Should you ever get around to reading a new Wesleyan theology, it’s only because it’s a “good” thing to do, or it’s good mental exercise -- not because it will help you in your study of Scripture, preparation of sermons, or actual preaching. A similar scenario exists for reading the early church fathers or medieval mystics, interesting, good for you, but not beneficial to pastoral ministry. We rarely sense a correlation between the writings of John of the Cross and effective premarital counseling. Making the situation even worse, is the perception that much of this material only exists in dated translations with parochial language. We are tempted to give up before we start as we anticipate that the material will be too difficult and our best intentions grind to a rather quick stop. In summary, Wesleyan preachers need to be postmodern, modern and premodern. Right!) We need to be students not only of the writings of Wesley, but we also need to read what Wesley read, and current Wesleyan theological writings. Our preaching needs to have a healthy balance of law and gospel, as well as proclaiming Christ as Prophet, Priest and King. We need to shift from preaching dominated by a decisionistic approach and adopt a therapeutic understanding of the process of sanctification. We need to strive for a high level of dialogical communication and be flexible in our approach to ministry. We need to study narrative preaching and learn how to create an experience which will help the Holy Spirit to be at work in our midst. We need to see the sermon as part of God’s means of grace and incorporate all of the means, especially the Eucharist and the benefits of community as practiced in the societies. Ours is a message of love, a message which needs to be communicated in modes that are appropriate for postmodern hearers, however, the message must remain the same. Wesley’s success came by proclaiming the truth, not by being entertaining or accommodating. As Wesleyans we need to remain concerned about our faithfulness to Christ, rather than our attractiveness to the world. I believe the latter will follow the former.

Prescriptions

It’s amazing to me that Wesley was able to successfully communicate with illiterate laborers, yet most of the work produced by Wesley scholars is only easily digested by other Wesley scholars. We need more Wesleyan material that is targeted at neither the layperson nor academia, but instead at pastors. While it is fair to expect pastors to be challenged, if the challenge seems overwhelming, another use of time and energy will be found. There are some good recent resources available, but most of the materials I have seen are not targeted at pastors. It’s also amazing to me that while the Wesleys produced sermons, hymns, prayers, etc., the bulk of the Wesleyan material I am encountering comes in the form of ‘systematic’ type theologies. I have often wondered how the Wesleyan concepts I discover would be “preached.” Unfortunately, those questions very rarely get answered. I would love to see at least a couple of sermons included in Wesleyan theologies, perhaps as an appendix. Preachers still need examples of solid Wesleyan biblical exposition, and I can think of no one more qualified to carry out that task than those who know Wesleyan theology best. I would love to see denominational periodicals that target the local pastor (and are typically free or highly subsidized) include extensive reproductions of Wesleyan materials. “Wesleyan materials” could include: the actual writings of Wesley, preferably fully annotated; classical historical writings, especially the early church fathers, and even articles from the Wesleyan Theological Journal. One issue could contain something from the writings of Wesley. For example, a sermon could be included, from either the fully annotated edition or a perhaps a “modern” translation. Another issue could contain excerpts of classical historical writings. The writings of Macarius could be featured in one issue, drawing from those portions Wesley found most helpful. In publishing The Christian Library Wesley demonstrated the need and possibilities that exist to provi de formative reading material in easily accessible form to far flung preachers. Somehow we need to find a way to follow in his footsteps. I lament the gap that seems to have formed between those who minister in academia and those who minister in the local church. I have been privileged to attend a couple of the Society meetings, as well as a couple of the Wesley conferences sponsored by Church of the Nazarene institutions of higher education. One of the consistent disappointments to me in these meetings is the lack of pastoral attendance and participation. Perhaps there are steps that can be taken to increase the level of participation. For example, though the registration costs are already low, could scholarships be made available for regional pastors? Perhaps the need exists for additional, less scholarly, gatherings where professors share with pastors in a less formal manner. Somehow the gap needs to be bridged. In the words of Reuben Welch, “We really do need each other.” I have found Wesleyan gatherings to be tremendously rewarding, and they have strengthened my respect for the work being done by those who minister primarily via higher education. My desire is to see a greater dialogue between these two groups for whom I have so much regard.

Kevin: I would agree with your own criticisms, athough I do not think that “shallow” is a fair word to use. You are attempting to reach “into the depths.” Rather I think you need to redefine for yourself what it is precisely is you want to do—get a clear focus (“purpose-driven!) and trim it to what is essential so that it moves clearly (and without fat) to the defined goal.

To go backwards, you have a lot of great Wesley stuff—fascinating. But you need to assimilate better your post-modern characterizations, make them more clearly to the point (even if you miss the point!) and bring you Wesley material rigidly under those rubrics, or to bear on them, and draw you conclusions similarly. You have tacrkled a big area in a day when our reaction to the impact of post-modern culture is more foundationally Baptist rather than Wesleyan.

There is too much quoting of some guys—if their evaluations are valuable to you, summarize and simplify them and document appropriately—and may be insert a sparkling and typical quote. There is no problem in getting some of your conclusions from your sources, as long as they are referenced.

I did not read through your footnote material. In the last analysis you may need two versions. One for your own satisfactions and one for presentation. That is the battle I fight when I try to write.

I trust this is helpful. You have a bear by the tail. Hope you can hang on!

FGC “Wesley Tracy notes that it was common for those in holiness schools from the 1940’s into the 1960’s to complete their education without being expected to read a single page of Wesley.” Randy Maddox, “Reconnecting the Means to the End: A Wesleyan Prescription for the Holiness Movement,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 33.2 (Fall 1998): 31, note 5. Ibid., 29. I agree with the concerns expressed by Richard Lischer, “We should not be fussy about the shape of a chancel or the slant of a nave. Whether the preacher stands at the pulpit or sits on a stool, wears an alb or a sweatshirt, are adiaphora. Melodies do not matter either. But some of the churches are substituting dramatic skits for the exposition of the Bible in their public services. And this does matter. Drama has its place in the church, and no one doubts the popular appeal of the soap opera or sit-com on TV. But when a church eliminates the biblical word from the center of the community’s celebration, it makes a terrible theological error. It either optimistically assumes that God’s saving story can be teased out of other sources, or it naively supposes that we do not need that particular story to be saved. Thus, what begins as a sincere attempt at communication ends as a profound interruption of the church’s confession.” Richard Lischer, “The Interrupted Sermon,” Interpretation 50.2 (April 1996): 174-175. Ibid., 173. Robert W. Wall, “The Future of Wesleyan Biblical Studies” Wesleyan Theological Journal 33.2 (Fall 1998): 113. Walter Brueggemann, “Preaching as Reimagination,” Theology Today 52.3 (October, 1995): 317. Journal (28 July 1757) The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley, ed. Frank Baker (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1984ff), 21:118. Stanley J. Grenz, A Primer on Postmodernism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans., 1996), 7-8. Ibid., 14. Ibid., 19. Ibid., 43. Ronald J. Allen, “As the Worldviews Turn: Six Key Issues for Preaching in a Postmodern Ethos” Encounter 57.1 (Winter 1996): 24. Leander Keck has a good synopsis of postmodernity, “According to the postmodernist mind, which is by no means identical with deconstruction, the assumption that the disinterested pursuit of knowledge produces progress toward the Truth has given way to the acknowledgment that all knowledge (or rather, what passes for it) is political, that is, an interest-driven struggle for power. Meaning is a transaction between reader and text, something that happens, not something to be discovered by research. There is no fixed point from which one can demonstrate that one meaning, one angle of vision, or one construal is right and another wrong. At the heart of this mindset is the conviction that it is impossible to demonstrate that words refer to anything besides other words, that there is no essential connection between signifier and signified. Consequently, certitude about absolutes has been replaced by consent to ambiguity. There is an alternative way of understanding just about everything, because the hermeneutic of suspicion, which modernity used to question the claims of tradition, is now used against modernity itself. A.K.M. Adam concludes that the most important lesson of postmodern thinking is this: “We cannot guarantee either the correctness or the soundness of our thinking by adopting the right method, or by starting from the right point. Or, for that matter, by not starting at all.” Leander E. Keck, “The Premodern Bible in the Postmodern World,” Interpretation 50.2 (April 1996): 134. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, “Virtual Reality Christianity,” Theology Today 52.2 (July 1995): 232. Ibid., 233. Also, “... apparently both reflective ontologists and womanists believe that there is something called “the real” and that it can be described. That is, they set themselves at odds with what has been called postmodernism or deconstructionism.” 231. Ibid., 233. Also, “Deconstructive postmodern thinkers appear not to notice an irony. They accord their own perception a place of privilege that they deny others. For instance, Foucault notes that power relationships tend to be asymmetrical (and, therefore, potentially abusive). Foucault appears not to notice that in this analysis, his theory assumes a place of disproportional power.” Allen, 25, note 12. See chapter one of Grenz. A helpful discussion of principles which we may use in communicating in a postmodern context is provided by George G. Hunter, III, How To Reach Secular People, (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1992): 91-106. For a recent review and assessment of some current theories of preaching see J. Irwin Trotter’s article, “Our Theologies of Preaching” in Quarterly Review, 15/3 (Fall, 1995): 237-49. Brueggemann, 313. Ibid., 314. Ibid., 315. Ibid., 315. Ibid., 316-317. Ibid., 319. Ibid., 321. Ibid., 321. Ibid., 323. Ibid., 323. Walter Brueggemann, “Preaching a Sub-Version,” Theology Today 55.2 (July 1998): 196. “There is a single metanarrative encompassing al peoples and all times. As Christians, we claim to know what that grand narrative is. It is the story of God’s action in history for the salvation of fallen humankind and the completion of God’s intentions for creation.” Grenz, 164. Lischer, 178. Ibid. Ibid., 180. Brueggemann, “Reimagination,” 325. Ibid., 326. See also, Ronald J. Allen, Theology for Preaching: Authority, Truth and Knowledge of God in a Postmodern Ethos (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1997), 164-165. “Taking a cue from modernity, many today regard language as functioning in two ways. These two functions go by various names. For purposes of discussion, I borrow Philip Wheelwright’s’ terms: stenic and tensive. Stenic language is propositional and informational. ... It assumes correspondence between language and reality. It communicates data with precision. Typically, stenic language appeals to the intellect. ... But the stenic use of language can also be limiting. Some matters suffer severe loss of meaning when they are boiled down to simple factual statement. Some language is polyvalent (or multivalent). ... Tensive language, as its name implies, embodies the tensions that are a part of life process. ... As we grope to express the complex nature of the world, we create language that “give[s] some hint, always finally insufficient, of the turbulent moods within and the turbulent world of qualities and forces, promises and threats, outside.” People who use and receive such language are touched at all levels of their beings -- intellect, feeling, will. ... The tensive view regards language as an active agent. ... Language performs that which it speaks. Words are deeds in the sense that words can effect that which they speak.” “Stenic and tensive uses of language each have their own strengths and weaknesses. The preacher must be able to speak in both modes.” Ibid., 164. Stephen G. Green, “Philosophy, Scripture, and Homiletic Theory,” The Tower 1 (1997): 78. Robert Stephen Reid, “Postmodernism And the Function of the New Homiletic in Post-Christendom Congregations,” Homiletic 20 (Winter 1995): 7. Ibid., 8. Ibid., 9. “... the New Homiletic represents a recovery of a premodern approach to making argument in the Isocratean, sophistical tradition of rhetoric rather than the Aristotelian tradition of philosophical rhetoric.” Reid, 10 Allen, “Worldviews,” 31. Also, “If the act of sound interpretation adapts Scripture to life, the talented interpreter also pays close attention to the current audience’s social and religious locations. The particularity of Scripture’s meaning derives from the particularity of its current audience, what faith tradition it belongs to, and what spiritual crisis threatens a more robust faith in God.” Wall, 108. Allen, “Theology,” 43. Allen, “Worldviews,” 33. Also, “Our gospel must address the human person within the context of the communities in which people are embedded. With its focus on community, the postmodern world encourages us to recognize the importance of the community of faith in our evangelistic efforts. Members of the next generation are often unimpressed by our verbal presentations of the gospel. What they want to see is a people who live out the gospel in wholesome, authentic, and healing relationships. Focusing on the example of Jesus and the apostles, a Christian gospel for the postmodern age will invite others to become participants in the community of those whose highest loyalty is to the God revealed in “Christ. Participants in the inviting community will seek to draw others to Christ by embodying that gospel in the fellowship they share.” Grenz, 169. Brueggemann, 329. Lischer, 178. Outler, 39. Ibid., 11. James White, “Introduction,” John Wesley’s Sunday Service of the Methodists in North America (Nashville, TN: Methodist Bicentennial Commemorative Reprint of a 1784 copy of the Sunday Service, The United Methodist Publishing House, 1984): 10. Randy L. Maddox, Responsible Grace: John Wesley’s Practical Theology (Nashville, TN: Kingswood Books, 1994), 206. Richard P. Heitzenrater, Wesley and the People Called Methodists (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995), 99. Maddox, 208. Heitzenrater, 113. 1747 Rules for Preaching 1. Be sure to begin and end precisely at the time appointed. 2. Sing no hymns of your own composing. 3. Endeavour to be serious, weighty, and solemn in your whole deportment before the congregation. 4. Choose the plainest texts you can. 5. Take care not to ramble from your text, but to keep close to it, and make out what you undertake. 6. Always suit your subject to your audience. 7. Beware of allegorizing or spiritualizing too much. 8. Take care of anything awkward or affected, either in your gesture or pronunciation. 9. Tell each other, if you observe anything of this kind. Heitzenrater, 164. In the 1755 Examination of Preachers Wesley instructs, “Will you preach every morning and evening? Endeavouring not to speak too loud or too long? Not lolling with your elbows?” Heitzenrater, 235. Advice to Preachers, August 1, 1786 1. Always to conclude the service in about an hour. 2. Never scream. 3. Never lean upon or beat the Bible. 9. Introduce no new tunes. See that none sing too slow, and the women sing their parts. Exhort all to sing, and all to stand at singing (for how long?), as well as to kneel at prayers. Heitzenrater, 297. Outler, 67. Preface, 104. Ibid., 35. Henry D. Rack, Reasonable Enthusiast: John Wesley and the Rise of Methodism (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1989), 409. Ibid., 413. Maddox has provided an insightful explanation of the seeming abandonment of both the advice and practice, “And since it is not assumed to do anything for you, the natural tendency is to begin to question the rationale for particular items on the list [of means of grace], as well as how often we have to do them. This goes a long way to explaining the difference in Wesley’s practice of regular Eucharist and that in the typical holiness church.” Maddox, “Reconnecting”, 62. White, 17. Ibid., 15. Larry Shelton, “A Wesleyan/Holiness Agenda for the Twenty-First Century,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 33.2 (Fall 1998), 95. Outler, 9 Outler, 17. Outler adds, “There is no record of a Methodist society within the bounds of the great cities or their affluent suburbs.” Outler, 17. Brevard S. Childs, “Interpreting the Bible amid Cultural Change,” Theology Today 54.2 (July 1997), 211. In Thistlethwaite, 230. See also, Donald W. Dayton “Presidential Address: The Wesleyan Option for the Poor,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 26:1 (Spring 1991): 7-22. See Heitzenrater, 178. Outler, 7-8. Ibid., 8. Ibid., 14. Ibid., 55. Heitzenrater notes, “John’s enthusiastic preaching has already caused him to be barred from some London churches. He was not discouraged by such reactions; the signs of persecution always reinforced his conviction of truth and spurred him on to open defiance of the churchly status quo. He now perceived that God’s special blessing was upon those sermons that ‘gave most offense.’” Heitzenrater, 77. “Letter to an Evangelical Layman,” (20 December, 1751) Works, 26:482-489. Maddox, 113 Maddox, 209. Maddox, 113-14. Thorsen, 147., summarizes William Arnett’s summary of Wesley’s principles for interpreting Scripture: First, the literal sense is emphasized. Second, Wesley insists on the importance of context. Third, comparing Scripture is important. Fourth, Wesley stresses the importance of Christian experience in interpreting the Scriptures. ... Christian experience has both confirmatory and correctional value. Fifth, reason is to be used as the “handmaid of faith, the servant of revelation.” Finally, we observe the rule of “practicality.” Wesley was in large measure an apostle to the plain, unlettered people. Therefore he sought to eliminate the elaborate, the elegant, and the oratorical. William M. Arnett, “John Wesley -- Man of One Book” (Diss., Drew University, 1954) Outler, 58-59., identifies the five main principles of interpretation that Wesley used. “The first was that believers should accustom themselves tot he biblical language and thus to the ‘general sense’ of Scripture as a whole. This general sense is omnipresent throughout the canon even if not equally so in every text; there is a ‘message’ in every part of Holy ‘writ, and it is always the same, in essence. this leads to a second rule, adapted from the ancient Fathers and from the Reformers as well: that the Scriptures are to be read as a whole, with the expectation that the clearer texts may be relied upon to illuminate the obscurer ones. ... This holistic sense of biblical inspiration suggested his third hermeneutical principle: that one’s exegesis is to be guided, always in the first instance, by the literal sense, unless that appears to lead to consequences that are either irrational or unworthy of God’s moral character as ‘pure, unbounded love’. ... A fourth hermeneutical rule follows from his doctrine of grace and free will: that all moral commands in Scripture are also ‘covered promises’, since God never commands the impossible and his grace is always efficacious in every faithful will. His last rule ... that the historical experience of the church, though fallible, is the better judge overall of Scriptures’ meanings than later interpreters are likely to be, especially on their own. Thus, radical novelty is to be eschewed on principle.” Letters (2 Aug. 1767), Works, 22:96-97. Letter to Joseph Taylor (14 Feb. 1787), The Letters of the Rev. John Wesley, ed. John Telford (London: Epworth, 1931), 7:368-369. In a letter to Samuel Walker, Wesley answers the question of whether it would it not be better for the preachers to be pastors and settle down in one place, “Be their talents ever so great, they will ere long grow dead themselves, and so will most of those that hear them. I know, were I myself to preach one whole year in one place, I should preach both myself and most of my congregation asleep. Nor can I believe it was ever the will of our Lord that any congregation would have one teacher only. We have found by long and constant experience that a frequent change of teachers is best. This preacher has one talent, that another. No one whom I ever yet knew has all the talents which are needful for beginning, continuing, and perfecting the work of grace in an whole congregation.” Letter to Samuel Walker (3 Sept. 1756), Letters (Telford), 3:194-95. Outler, 97. Ibid., 16-17. Letter to Charles Perronet (28 Dec. 1774), Letters (Telford), 6:134. Maddox, 142. Heitzenrater, 100. Maddox, 82. Maddox, “Reconnecting,” 41. Maddox, “Responsible,” 204. S Green, 74. Ibid., 80. Donald A.D. Thorsen, The Wesleyan Quadrilateral: Scripture, Tradition, Reason & Experience as a Model of Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids: The Francis Asbury Press - Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 83. Ibid., 78. Outler, 74. Outler adds, “he learned much more from Eastern spirituality than liturgy. He found there a distinctive pneumatology which became the shaping force in all his later ideas about mysticism ... Here is the font of Wesley’s most distinctive ideas about prevenient grace and human freedom and, most crucially, of his peculiar doctrine of perfection as teleiosis (perfecting perfection) rather than perfectus (perfected perfection).” 74. “His choice of Macarius’s Homilies to stand in Volume 1 of the Christian Library (after the writings of Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp) was symbolic; his references to St. Chrysotom, St. Cyprian, Tertullian, St. Athanasius suggest a long-standing familiarity. The result was that Wesley felt very much at home in Christian antiquity and quite free to make full use of this resource in his own right.” Outler, 76. Thorsen also points out Wesley’s familiarity with and frequent reference to the early church, “No doubt Wesley’s interest in patristic studies was nourished through the reading of William Cave’s Primitive Christianity (1672), Laurence Echard’s Ecclesiastical History (1702), and Claude Fleury’s Discourses on Ecclesiastical History (1721), all of which Wesley recommended to his Methodist assistants for serious study in preparation for the ministry.” Thorsen, 53. Heitzenrater, 227. Allen, “Theology,” 38. Childs, 210. “There is a family resemblance among the ways in which faithful response to the Bible occurs. ... The likeness arises from the serious encounter with the selfsame God who shapes obedient response into Christian likeness.” Keck, 136. Keck, 137. “Once we stop worrying about the Bible and start worrying about ourselves instead, we will not use its limits and distortions as a pretext for thinking that we are better, and we can begin to see ourselves in it, and so hear ourselves interpreted and addressed by it.” Lischer, 179. Thorsen, 128. Thorsen, 129. From Wesley’s’ Notes upon the New Testament, 794 (2 Tim. 3:16). See also, Letter to Thomas Whitehead (?) (10 Feb. 1748), Letters (Telford), 2:117. “Scripture does not supplant the Holy Spirit, but God has chosen to make it a sufficient resource for matters of religious faith and practice. Thus Wesley considered Scripture serving as much to rule our lives as God’s Spirit serves to guide our lives. For though the Spirit is our principal leader, yet He is not our rule at all; the Scriptures are the rule whereby He leads us into all truth. Therefore, only talk good English, call the Spirit our “guide,” which signifies an intelligent being, and the Scriptures our “rule,” which signifies something used by an intelligent being, and all is plain and clear. Scripture and the Holy Spirit are not in conflict. Instead they serve as perfect complements in communicating what Wesley liked to describe as heart-religion -- religion in which knowledge and vital piety perfectly join in the life of a believer.” S Green, 42. Maddox, 214. Preface to Sermons, 107. 1746 Examination of Preachers Heitzenrater, 175. Maddox, 145. Ibid., 146. Ibid., 148. Heitzenrater, 177. Outler, 60-61. Heitzenrater, 224. Wall, 106. Wall, 108. Wall 114. Joel B. Green, “Reading the Bible as Wesleyans: A Response to Robert Wall,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 33.2 (Fall 1998): 118. “An analogous criticism would undoubtedly arise from Wesley the pastoral theologian regarding the ease with which we compartmentalize theological education, as though study of Scripture ought naturally to be done in relative isolation from exploration of the church’s social witness, for example. One might insist that theological education necessarily requires that students do the work of integration. One might argue further that our pastors-in-training must know something about the Bible before they are able to integrate it with the study and work of pastoral care or spiritual direction or theological ethics. But this argument betrays its own foundational commitment to a particular epistemology and pedagogy that, arguably, Wesley would have found extraordinarily alien. It begs the question of whether faithful study of Scripture can be other than reflection on pastoral care, spiritual direction, theological ethics, and so on. The practice of interdisciplinary is capable of conceptualization and practice in more organic ways than this.” Green, 128.