Wesleyan And Quaker Perfectionism

GEORGE FOX SEMINARY 

Quaker and Wesleyan  Perfection  A paper for CHTH 564, Dr. Spencer    Vaughn E Stehr: Box 7100  6/19/2009       

A brief comparison between the early Quaker and Wesleyan doctrines of perfection. It also discusses the  themes they share, and the events which may have shaped the formation of each. 

Introduction When considering the vast expanse of church history there are a myriad of doctrines, beliefs, and traditions which have troubled and perplexed congregations and scholars. Of all the various points of difficulty one which has been extremely troublesome has been the debate between faith and works. In James we are told “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him?” (James 2:14, KJV) In Romans we are told “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.”(Romans 5:1, KJV) In many ways it seems the New Testament is preaching two different doctrines; one works based, and the other faith based. History is replete with pendulum swings from one extreme to the other. The reformation was an example of believers reacting against the perception that the Catholic Church was overemphasizing a works based theology. In other words they were concerned that salvation was being based on how we behave rather than what we believe. It is the conundrum of orthodoxy vs. orthopraxy. This was the question in mind when people responded to the question of Christian perfection. Two movements which stand out when considering this doctrine are the Quakers and the Methodists. Both founders, George Fox and John Wesley, believed in and promoted this ideal. This paper will discuss the environments into which each was birthed, compare and contrast their earliest stated beliefs, and finally state how this doctrine is important to the church today. Threads toward Perfection Before beginning a discussion of the doctrine of perfection as seen through both movements, it will be beneficial to first examine a few of the critical moments in each of the founder’s lives which probably led to the formation of perfection as a part of their distinct

theologies. I propose that there are three identifiable moments in Wesley’s life which suggest a formative path toward perfection. The first occurred at the rectory in which the family lived. A fire sprang up and threatened to engulf the whole house. John was trapped inside and was saved at the last moment by being pulled through a window. This moment had a profound effect on him and influenced his image of himself, and his calling in life. He referred to himself later in life as a “brand plucked from the burning.” 1 This is an interesting choice of phrasing because it specifically references two different Old Testament passages. The first is Amos 4:11 and the second is Zechariah 3:2. Why would John make reference to these passages? I think it likely he made this connection because he saw himself taking on the role of a prophet. Leslie Marston supports this claim. “John had a prophetic self-consciousness as one specially chosen and called by God to revive true Christianity in England.” 2 In John’s eyes the church needed something more than the structured religiosity it displayed. It needed renewal and he felt it was his prophetic role to bring it. The second moment or perhaps it would be more correct to say period of time, in John’s life was at Oxford. Charles, his brother, had started a “holy club” at school to pursue a more methodical life in Christ. John, being a natural leader, soon assumed leadership of this group. They instituted methods and disciplines in order to develop a more spiritual life but despite their efforts John struggled with legalism. “But when in Oxford days he began to take his life and religion seriously, he became morbidly technical and legalistic in his zeal for personal holiness.” 3 True incarnational holiness seemed to elude him. Despite his apparent failure, his                                                              1

. Roger E. Olson, The Story of Christian Theology (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1999), 510.  . Olson, The Story, 510.  3 . Leslie R. Marston, From Age to Age A Living Witness (Winona Lake: Light and Life Press, 1960), 34.  2

time at Oxford convinced him that a life of faith must be a life changed. Intellectual assent was not enough. If the sin nature has been destroyed by faith in Christ it must manifest itself in the life of the believer. The third time period was between 1736, when he began his ultimately failed ministry in America, and 1738, when he had his experience at Aldersgate. During this period he was exposed to a religious movement of “Germans”, or Moravians. In their lives he saw some of what he was missing. During a dangerous sea voyage a storm caught them and threatened the ship. John was terrified but noticed the Germans were not similarly affected. “I asked one of them afterward, “Were you not afraid?” He answered, “I thank God, no.” 4 John sensed the sharp distinction between his legalism and the quiet faith of the Moravians. It is no surprise that during a Bible study hosted by another group of Germans that John had a mystical experience with his Creator. The group was reading Luther’s preface to Romans when John said I “felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ.”5 This seemingly simple quote reflected a profound change in his life. John, in his journal, stated “I was striving, yea, fighting with all my might under the law, as well as under grace. But then I was sometimes, if not often, conquered; now, I was always conqueror.” 6 This set the stage for his formation of the doctrine of Christian perfection. From an outside perspective George Fox’s life was in many ways wildly different from Wesley. Despite these differences there are several threads which are common to both. Fox, according to his journal, came to know God during his youth. Unlike Wesley Fox stated he experienced God in a personal way from a very young age. “I never wronged man or woman in

                                                             4

. Marston, From Age to Age, 36.  . Ibid, 64.  6 . Ibid, 64.  5

all that time; for the Lord’s power was with me and over me, to preserve me.” 7 However, these experiences did not stop him from going through a period of struggle and darkness of spirit. Fox looked everywhere for answers to his questions concerning despair and temptation, but could not find resolution. In many ways the trials that Fox and Wesley endured were compatible with what John of the Cross described as “The Dark Night of the Soul.” Finally, he experienced God in a mystical way, and though he later had other transformational moments this was probably the most profound. He says in his journal “I saw, also, that there was an ocean of darkness and death; but an infinite ocean of light and love, which flowed over the ocean of darkness.” 8 Another thread which seems to run common between George Fox and John Wesley is their shared concern regarding the religiosity of their times. As we have seen with Wesley this was made manifest with disciplines which created a legalism in his life. Fox, on the other hand, expressed this concern by questioning the educational and church leaders. He desired an incarnational life but did not see it in the lives of those around him. He believed God was indwelling, and that he had been called to preach this “and to draw people off from all their superstitious ceremonies…and from all the world’s hireling teachers.” 9 Fox saw the church as peddling the outward form of religiosity without any inward working in the heart. He made his position clear by standing against the “steeple houses” and “hireling” priests who worked in them. Without the substance the form was just a legalistic fraud. Fox was more interested in the substance of Christianity than observing its various hollow forms. This, then, sets the stage for a doctrine of perfection. What Perfection is Not

                                                             7

. Fox, George. The Journal of George Fox, (Richmond: Friends United Press, 1976), 67.  . Ibid, 87.  9 . Ibid, 140.  8

Wesley, like Fox before him, was not a systematic theologian. He was not a strict apologist, and did not write books specifically directed at creating a theology. He was, however, a writer and a prolific preacher. It is fortunate that a great many of his sermons have been passed down to us today. He also left his journal which provides many insights into his thoughts. Through these sources an adequate model can be recreated of his doctrine of Christian perfection. In order to compare this doctrine to that espoused by the Quakers it is valuable to look at what perfection, to Wesley, was not. He specifically lists several attributes in two of his sermons entitled “On Perfection”, based on Hebrews 6:1, and “Christian Perfection”, based on Philemon 3:12. John emphatically describes a state which includes renewal and rebirth, but is not equivalent to a return to an “Adamic Perfection”. “It is not possible, I say, for men always to think right, to apprehend things distinctly, and to judge truly of them.” 10 Despite the birth of the new man, and the renewal provided by the Holy Spirit, humanity has lost something which, this side of eternity, can’t be regained. No matter our current adherence to the things of God we are plagued by the lack of full, or complete, knowledge which would allow us to be free from making mistakes. This by extension would also apply to an angelic perfection. We lack the clear apprehension we had prior to the fall to always make decisions which allow us to perfectly remain in the parameters of God’s will. Therefore, to Wesley, perfection does not mean freedom from error. Secondly, perfection does not mean freedom from “ignorance, and error, and a thousand other infirmities.” 11 We have already seen that Wesley does not equate his doctrine with omniscience or infallibility so what then does he mean by “infirmities”? He goes on to say “But                                                              10

. Wesley Center Online, "On Perfection": Available from http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/sermons/076.htm (accessed April 6, 2009).  11 . Ibid 

I mean hereby, not only those which are properly termed bodily infirmities, but all those inward or outward imperfections which are not of a moral nature.” 12 Wesley specifically excludes moral dispositions from his definition. This means that a man with a propensity toward a specific sin is not excused. A tendency toward drunkenness or any other moral weakness is not what he was referring to. Instead he says “Such are the weakness or slowness of understanding, dullness or confusedness of apprehension, incoherency of thought, irregular quickness or heaviness of imagination.” 13 Wesley is saying that the various problems resulting from our mortal state, which are common to all humanity, should not be included in his concept of perfection because they will be with us until death. Finally, Wesley never intended for his doctrine to be confused with a sinless state. “Wesley never contended for absolute or infallible perfection. He did not see any sinless perfection in the Bible.” 14 We may be free from the root of sin but temptation continues to plague and confound us. At first glance it would appear that the early Quaker belief in Christian maturity assumed a return to an Adamic state. This would stand in contrast to the view espoused by Wesley who clearly denied this. Fox in his journal said that humanity should come “into that image of God, that righteousness and holiness, that Adam was in before he fell; to be clean and pure, without sin, as he was.” 15 It would seem that he is saying we should be able to return to a state free of error as existed in the garden. This would be a false assumption. Barclay, in his apology, devotes a proposition entirely to the subject of Christian perfection, or maturity. He states “It is                                                              12 . Wesley Center Online, "Christian Perfection": Available from http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/sermons/040.htm (accessed April 6, 2009).  13 . Ibid  14 . Leo George. Cox, John Wesley's Concept of Christian Perfection (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1964), 120.  15 . Fox, The Journal, 101. 

a perfection that is proportional to a man’s requirements.” 16 In other words, it accounts for an inborn propensity toward error and failure. As a man/woman grows in faith, and continues to be sanctified, the perfection grows. This would then deny an Adamic perfection. Secondly, like Wesley, despite accusations of promoting a sinless state the early Quaker belief did not support such a view. “And you will not sin continually but will give witness of being God’s workmanship, created in Jesus Christ for good works.” 17 Barclay does not say one will never sin, but rather suggests that continual sin will not be habitual. If he had meant to suggest a sinless state he would have said “you will not sin.” Christian Perfection If perfection isn’t a freedom from error or ignorance, and it isn’t a sinless state what then is this doctrine promoted by Wesley and the Quakers? In order to understand it we must first explain the three acts of grace in the life of a believer. The first act is prevenient grace. This is extended to everyone. This grace works to draw all humanity to God. Without it no one would come to salvation. The second act is justification or saving grace. When we respond to God through faith he justifies us. This, for Wesley, was not simply an imputed, or alien, justification like that espoused by Luther, but also a very real holiness in the life of a believer. The root of sin is removed so we are no longer a slave to sin. “Justification, therefore, is the base, the solid doctrinal foundation on which the superstructure of sanctification with its apex of perfection rests.” 18

                                                             16

. Robert Barclay, Barclay's Apology (Newberg: Barclay Press, 1991), 156.   (Barclay 1991) pg. 164  18 . William R. Cannon, "John Wesley's Doctrine of Sanctification and Perfection," The Mennonite Quarterly Review 35, no. 2 (1961): 94.  17

The third work is sanctifying grace. Unlike justification, sanctification is not an instantaneous work. It is the process by which a believer is being renewed toward holiness. “The theme of renewal in God’s image is the most persistent metaphor of Christian perfection in Wesley’s writings.” 19 What then are we being sanctified toward? We know that entire sanctification is not infallibility or a sinless state so at what level did Wesley place the bar? Wesley defines Christian perfection as “loving God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength.” 20 This sounds a great deal like the statement by Jesus. Wesley is saying that perfection amounts to a state of love of God and others. “Perfection as the inward disposition only to love and therefore genuinely to be loveable from God’s point of view is the Wesleyan doctrinal hallmark of fame. 21 The Quakers also shared a belief in the pre-salvation work of God extended to all of humanity. This work was called “the divine Light of Christ.” 22 If allowed to work in the individual it would lead to a saving faith. “But, this light can also be resisted and rejected both by the ignorant and by those who have outward knowledge of Christ.” 23 This is roughly equivalent to Wesley’s doctrine of prevenient grace. The second work of God is that of justification and sanctification. Unlike Wesley the Quakers believed these to be two sides of the same coin. They are not separate activities. The process of sanctification begins when one is justified. “Justification refers to making one just, rather than merely having the reputation for being just. It is the equivalent of sanctification.” 24 Barclay would also argue against Luther’s stance on an imputed justification. This is important                                                              19

. Smith, Timothy L. "John Wesley and the Wholeness of Scripture." Interpretation 39 (July 1985): 246-

262. 261.  20

. Robert V. Rakestraw, "John Wesley as a Theologian of Grace," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 27, no. 2 (1984): 200.  21 . Cannon, Doctrine of Sanctification and Perfection, 95.  22 . Fox, The Journal, 101.  23 . Barclay, Apology, 83.  24 . Ibid, 135. 

because rather than being a covering for us in the face of God’s judgment it means we have the ability to actually pursue an inherent holiness. What, then, was perfection to the early Quakers? In reading Barclay and Fox it would be easy to assume they meant a sinless state because they address the importance of being free from the necessity to sin. This, however, would be a mistake. In a society which accepted the inevitability of sin due to the human condition they were making a stand. Dr. Spencer in her book summarizes this doctrine in a way which is both understandable and a summation of the early positions. She says it was “a theistic sense of being filled with God, reborn and transformed.” 25 In its essence it is more mystical than Wesley’s doctrine but both are dependent on the work of God in the life of the believer. Conclusion It would not be a wild assumption to suggest that John Wesley was influenced by the works of the Quaker movement. Their positions on Christian perfection stand so close in essence that it would be surprising if John was not extremely familiar with Fox and Barclay. We have seen that this perfection is not a sinless state, nor is it a return to a pre-fall condition which would free us from the mistakes and errors which are common to humanity. It is, however, a reconnection with God through the work done by Christ. It is the death of the natural man and a rooting out of the old nature which makes sin an inevitable conclusion. We are justified legally, but also made just. If we have been made just then an ever increasing holiness should result. This truth is what Wesley and Fox promoted. Rather than being continually overcome by sin we should push on toward being perfected in our love of God and our fellow man. Application

                                                             25

. Carole Spencer, Holiness: The Soul of Quakerism (Colorado Springs: Paternoster, 2007), 61. 

It is a sad testimony that various statistics reveal the church to be little different in life choices than the culture. It is no wonder that those around see hypocrisy, and a lack of truth and power, when they consider the body of Christ. We, like those in the day of Fox and Wesley, have a tendency to become complacent and accept continual sin as an inevitable fact. However, a doctrine of perfection can be of benefit to the church if we are careful not to fall into pride and legality. The first benefit is one of a living faith. In the time of Wesley Deism was a rampant theology. God was an uncaring distant deity. There was intellectual assent, but no personal involvement. Today, in light of a religious plurality, there is a great deal of talk and/or knowledge about a variety of gods but they all seem so far away. Despite knowledge there is no connection. A doctrine of perfection requires a participatory deity. It requires a God who is personal, and active, in the believer’s life through the power of the Holy Spirit. How would the church be viewed if it looked at each day as if it were possible to live a life indwelt by the Spirit and free from slavery to sin? I imagine the culture would be transfixed by the realization that there was something remarkably different about the Christian church. The second benefit goes beyond just living life as an example to making real change in the world around us. If we take serious this call to holiness then a life lived in love demands social action. Instead of sitting in our buildings being a beacon of light we should be taking that light out to a world which is stumbling in darkness. When confronted with the very real issue of the poor some of the religious people of Fox’s day turned them away. He, however, ran after them to care for their needs. Fox desired others to know “the pure religion; might visit the

fatherless, the widows, and the strangers, and keep themselves from the spots of the world.” 26 This would be the result of a life lived for love. Bibliography Barclay, Robert. Barclay's Apology. Newberg: Barclay Press, 1991.  Cannon, William R. "John Wesley's Doctrine of Sanctification and Perfection." The Mennonite Quarterly  Review, 35 no. 2, April 1961: 91‐95.  Fox, George. The Journal of George Fox. Richmond: Friends United Press, 1976.  Marston, Leslie R. From Age to Age A Living Witness. Winona Lake: Light and Life Press, 1960.  Olson, Roger E. The Story of Christian Theology. Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1999.  Rakestraw, Robert V. "John Wesley as a Theologian of Grace." Journal of the Evangelical Theological  Society 27 no. 2 , 1984: 193‐203.  Smith, Timothy L. "John Wesley and the Wholeness of Scripture." Interpretation 39 (July 1985): 246-262. 

Spencer, Carole. Holiness: The Soul of Quakerism. Colorado Springs: Paternoster, 2007.  Wesley, John. "On the Holy Spirit." Wesley Center Online.  http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/sermons/141.htm (accessed April 18, 2009).  —. The Journal of John Wesley. Chicago: Moody Press, 1952.  —. "The Sermons of John Wesley." Wesley Center Online.  http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/sermons/040.htm (accessed April 6, 2009).  —. "The Sermons of John Wesley." Wesley Center Online. 1872.  http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/sermons/076.htm (accessed April 6, 2009). 

                                                             26

. Fox, The Journal, 104.