From
the beginning, the people of the Methodist movement in the Anglican
church were predominantly practising
the faith in Jesus Christ as they understood it. John Wesley from the
same beginning of the Methodist revival insisted on priority of
orthopraxy
(right practice, putting beliefs into action) over orthodoxy
(right belief, conformity to those doctrines, which are considered
normative for the Christian tradition)1.
This right practising was initiated by compassion to the poor and
oppressed, by deep desire for restoring the Primitive Church
spirituality. First Methodists counted themselves obliged to dress
their faith in proper acts. Although Methodism was predominantly
practical, we can see it was not a theologically neutral movement.
Wesley and his contemporary divines within Methodism were strongly
defending certain theological positions, for example Arminian (also
Eastern-Orthodox/EO/) cooperation of God's grace and human will or
Anglican (also Roman-Catholic and EO) belief of the necessity for
frequent communion as a means of grace.
For
the Methodists living in mainly protestant countries Eastern
Orthodoxy is usually something ancient and interesting, and it is.
But if we talk about living and being a Methodist in a country in
which Eastern Orthodox Church (EOC) is the official state
church, it's a real challenge. In a short brochure entitled "Orthodox
and Methodists" prepared by the
Joint Preparatory Commission, which is expected to launch an
International Orthodox-Methodist Dialogue, the characteristic mark of
the Orthodox churches, given by the Orthodox representatives, is
"their attachment to the
uninterrupted Holy Tradition of the Apostles and the Fathers".
When most of the Evangelicals living in Orthodox context encounter
its Tradition2,
reactions are rather negative. It's due to the fact Tradition brings
necessity to accept it as something whole and unchangeable, not to
choose what you like from it. This makes every other tradition
vulnerable of criticism for differing from the
only real Tradition of the Church. This
often leads to argument and rejection from the Evangelicals of either
the whole Tradition (the whole body of writings and beliefs of the
Holy Fathers throughout the centuries) or the EO way of life and
worship as empty religion, far away from the Primitive Church's
practice and doctrine. In the words of prof. Alexander Dvorkin, "the
argument between Evangelicals and Orthodox christians is not argument
between Scripture and Tradition, but an argument between Tradition
and traditions. Every evangelic group has its own little tradition,
which begins its existence under the most favourable circumstances
from grandfather or father of the pastor or (most probably) from the
pastor himself. The pastor interprets the Scriptures in the light of
his own tradition and the congregation accept this interpretation.
Whoever does not accept it goes to another pastor, who has his own
tradition"3.
Although radical, Dvorkin's statement has its strong logic and
illustrates the orthodox way of seeing tradition. Having this sketch
of orthodox' attitude toward Tradition and traditions on mind, we can
quickly realise vanity of our efforts for seeking common ground. I'll
rather try to find via media of
relationships between the two traditions. The challenge for us is to
find a ground for Orthodox-Wesleyan dialogue and to develop our local
identity based not on opposition but on building theological bridges.
In this work I will
compare how the EO and the Methodist Church (MC) understand
Scriptures
and Tradition. I will try
to find common ground for Methodist-Orthodox dialogue, looking at
these elements of the Quadrilateral. My goal is neither seeking unity
between the two churches based on our hermeneutical principles, nor
total agreement in theological opinions (which is possible only if we
accept the whole Tradition and begin to live and be a church
according to it). I would like to reason what place can Methodist
tradition have in a reality highly dominated by EO spirituality, and
try to mark some theological intersection points which can facilitate
dialogue between the two churches in a more personal level.
Understanding and authority of the Scriptures in the Methodist and
EO churches
In
the preface to the Forty-four Sermons,
Wesley describes himself as 'a man of one book' (homo
unius libri)4.
Actually he has never been that kind of person. He has read a lot of
books throughout his life. What is true about Wesley is that he was a
man of the Book, of
the Bible.
The authority of God's Word for him was the base for right
theologizing, Christian living and ministry. Christian church has
never been church of one book, as
theologians in the History haven't been men
of one book . The Scriptures have
always been the common way of revelation of God, but not the
only source of Christian testimony.
Many scholars would agree that Wesley counted for most important
sources of authority Scriptures and Experience. The important
question for us is "Which are the rest of way-directing
documents, the other sources of revelation, which are authoritative
for us, when we have to adjudge something related to our faith?"
Without any doubt we can say that in the mindset of John Wesley
Scriptures had a fundamental place. The way he used the Bible, shows
that he firmly believed it is
the Word of God, through which by the illumination of the Holy Spirit
God speaks to us today. For Wesley scripture is both the source and
the norm for truth, and has the leading role in the system of
authorities.5
Barrie Tabraham gives an interesting example about the operating of
the four elements of Quadrilateral in Wesley's thinking. He
illustrates it with the mobile hanging from a ceiling and rotating
slowly in the moving air. In the centre is Scripture, and around it
are Tradition, Reason, and Experience. Like the mobile, Wesley's
theology is a dynamic thing which is always moving and developing6.
Tabraham presents Scriptures as a
constant, which is the axis the other three circulate around. They
cannot move the centre. What they can is just affirm it. Ted Campbell
shows that Reason and Experience are subordinate to Scriptures
"Wesley valued experience
especially as human contact with God, and he believed that our
experience of the divine also illumined our own spiritual quest and
(combined with reason) could clarify the meaning of the Bible. ... in
every case he insisted that the use of reason and experience could
not stand by themselves but had to be guided by Scripture". Both
scholars insist on fundamental place of the Holy Scriptures. Daryl
McCarthy in the article "Early
Wesleyan Views of Scripture" proves
that John Wesley believed in the inspiration and inerrancy of the
Bible. He supported Lutheran view of interpretation of obscure
scriptural texts by those, which speak more plainly7.
Adam Clarke, the great Wesleyan commentator, Richard Watson, the
first systematic theologian of early Wesleyanism also affirm the
inerrancy of Scripture8.
For Watson the only standard of doctrine, and the source of all true
moral knowledge and influence are the Scriptures. He also stated that
the Christian response to Scriptural revelation is to be found in
"full submission to its authority"9.
The fifth Article of Religion of the Methodist Church speaks of the
sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for salvation. It gives us also
one hermeneutical key - we
are not required to believe anything that is not found in Scripture,
or proved by Scripture. It is too similar and close to the
Reformation's principle Sola Scriptura.
Wesley did not systematically develop a hermeneutical program, but we
can easily find in his expositions echoes of the reformers' approach
to Scriptures, for example Luther's exaltation of grammatical sense,
Zwingli's exegetical methods and Calvin's historical emphasis.10
Wesley stood in concordance with the literal sense of every text. He
did not wish to depart from the plain, literal sense unless it
implied an absurdity.11
In
an official document of the General Board of Discipleship and General
Commission on Christian Unity and Interreligious Concerns named
"Report on the Consultation on
Scriptural Authority and the Nature of God's Revelation /RCSA/"12,
group of Methodist scholars summed up the basic points of the
contemporary Methodist understanding on authority of God's revelation
in the Bible. Delwin Brown supposes that "the
Bible does not have an authority,
but many
authorities as it speaks with many voices and sometimes offers a
variety of answers to the same questions. ... Authority is that which
authors,
which gives being to, forms, calls to creativity ... To limit
authority to rules of doctrines is to deny the power of Scripture to
change lives, the power to author
Christian lives."13
Brown seems to forget the basic truth that the authority of
Scriptures comes from God, Who is the Author of the Bible, and Who
speaks today to plural people
in various situations with one voice
- the voice of the Truth, Who is only one. The Bible has been written
as a product of divine-human cooperation, which does not mean that
human authors speak
to us via its words, but the Holy Spirit illumines us to understand
the Truth. There are not many truths for many people, but one Truth,
Who affects differently the different people. It is not the Truth
which is plural, but the ways people individually interpret it. Only
Christ has the power to author our
lives, not the dead letter.
The
understanding of Scriptures and their authority in the EO church is
similar to the Methodist’s, but the main difference is in the way
EO Christians see the Bible. EOC believes the books of the holy
scriptures are God-inspired and containing all truth, necessary for
us to keep us in the life of God and to make us “wise
unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (2
Tim. 3:15) but there is something more. Father John Romanidis
explains shortly what is the EO view of Sciptures: “…so
described heritage of the Holy Tradition existed before the creation
of the world. It is revealed to the Old Testament prophets, illumined
through the Incarnation of the Word and is active in purification,
enlightenment and deification
(theosis) of believers, who live in the Church. All this makes clear,
that Holy Tradition, i.e. the heritage, is not something differing
from Holy Scriptures, because it is contained there. …there is no
difference between heritage, which is in the Holy Writings and
heritage, which is in the Church. Nevertheless the heritage – as it
is described in the Holy Scriptures – does not exist in the Holy
Writings so far as it goes, but only in the Church, because she is
body and bride of the Bridegroom Christ…”14
In EO understanding as we just saw, the
Church gives authority to the Scriptures. They do not have it in
themselves but only in the Church (i.e. EO Church).
Tradition in the Methodist and EO churches
Daniel
Berg makes
clear the fact, that argument about authority of the Scriptures
between American Wesleyan liberals (willing to subject the Scriptures
to modern canons of human knowledge) and fundamentalists (convinced
that such exegesis is the natural product of a naturalistic mindset)
leads to a division in the ranks of American Wesleyanism. He
concludes "What we will do with the
Scriptures and what we will do with our increased awareness of
institutional evil leaves us with no choice but to risk the tradition
in the quest for relevant change"15.
In fact we cannot risk the
tradition, but the traditions, because
the liquid, eclectic Weslean development of tradition is not
subordinate to any strong historical theological system, but is
refined mixture of conclusions and beliefs, which Wesley and the
consequent Methodist theologians extracted from different traditions
and experience (which tends to turn into tradition, as the case of
American Holiness Movement16)
and put into practice. Luther, the pietists of the Anglican tradition
(Jeremy Taylor, William Law etc.), German Roman-Catholic mystic Toma
à Kempis and many others deeply influenced Wesley's beliefs and
life17.
Philip
Schaff in his book "Creeds of
Chistendom"18
describes correspondence which went off the years from 1573 to 1581,
between the Patriarch of Constantinople at that time - Jeremiah II
and two Lutheran professors of theology at Tübingen - Jacob Andrae,
one of the authors of the Lutheran 'Form of Concord' and Martin
Crusius, a rare Greek scholar. The two professors sent to Jeremiah II
several copies of the Augsburg Confession in Greek, together with a
translation of some sermons of Andrae and an official expression of
views on the Lutheran doctrines which they thought were in harmony
with those of the EOC. For their surprise, although the Patriarch
went off the correspondence in a friendly manner, he subjected the
Augsburg Confession to an unfavourable criticism, rejected nearly all
of its distinctive doctrines19
and commended only its endorsement of the first four oecumenical
Synods and its view on the marriage of priests. When later Andrae and
Crusius sent him a defense of the Confession, Jeremiah reaffirmed his
former position and when the Lutherans try to trouble him with new
letters, he declined the correspondence and ceased to answer. The
Patriarch expressed his hope that union between the two churches is
possible if they reach mutual concordance on the whole teaching of
the EOC i.e. if they adopt the whole
Holy Tradition, not only the first five
centuries. In 1672, the answers of Jeremiah were approved by the
Synod of Jerusalem as truly expressing the mindset of the EOC towards
Protestantism as a whole. This Synod rejects Calvinism and
Lutheranism as dangerous heresies. Therefore the Lutheran doctrine of
justification by faith alone, accepted and emphasised by Wesley20
is heretical by the EO point of view.
It's
hard to prove EO fathers did directly form the theology of Wesley or
some aspects of his practice. Prof. Richard Heitzenrater proves that
although many scholars for many years have followed Albert Outler in
his stressing Wesley's reliance upon the early church writers their
direct influence is not so significant21.
John Wesley read few works or parts of them of only fourteen Fathers
or church writers throughout his life - Augustine, Jerome, Clement of
Alexandria, Cyprian, Ephrem Syrus, Tertullian, John Chrysostom,
Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, Origen, Basil of Caesarea, Ignatius
of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna and Macarius. Having in mind the big
number of books and writings of the EO Fathers John Wesley read,
Heitzenrater found out that during the Oxford period Wesley read six
of these authors, which represented less than one percent of his
reading list. Prof. Heitzanrater marks that "there
are both
absolutely and relatively very few references in Wesley's published
writings to his having read the Fathers. There are a few additional
references to these readings, however, in his private diaries"22.
Having this statement in mind,
statistically Wesley formed his views more through reading other
books than reading EO Fathers. Although very similar to EO, the
theology of Wesley seems to have been formed through indirect impact
of Anglican and puritan authors more than direct adoption of
teachings of the Fathers, as argues Kenneth Collins. The same
conclusion makes Heitzanrater: "It
is my suspicion that many of the early church ideas and practices
passed through several filters before reaching Wesley from a number
of sources"23.
We can just give an account of the
fact, that some of the very typical EO views found place in Wesley
and early Methodists doctrine and practice - Gregory Palamas'
teaching of 'uncreated light' (compared to Wesley's teaching of
prevenient, jusifying and sanctifying grace), deeply sacramental
theology with emphasizing the main role of Holy Eucharist in the
church life and worship, and the goal of perfection or holiness of
life as in the Hesychasm, which parallel to Methodism emphasize that
religion depends on spiritual experience of the Divine24.
Something
very typical of the EO understanding of Scriptures is they never
split Holy Tradition and Holy Scriptures. Georges Florovsky put it in
a very clear way: "The Scriptures
"belong" to the church, are committed to her and not to
individual believers. A faithful guide is required for true exegesis.
The church catholic is that guide. Or in other words, Scripture is
given and preserved in tradition. Tradition and Scripture are
inseparable."25
EOC does not believe the Holy Tradition can ever be changed, nor
grow, because actually It is "the
faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints" (Jude
1:3). It is given in and for the
Church. It is kept by the Church. This
view of Tradition is principally different from the Methodist's,
which is flexible and depends on the way we
interpret history, Scriptures and Fathers. The Methodist tradition is
something growing and developing, something born in praxis. The truth
of our tradition and the truth of the Scriptures are not united and
unseparable. The
Orthodox Tradition is something that have to be kept and delivered
wholly without any change, something lived
in the Church. It's unchangeable in the same its nature, and has
always been believed in the Church. Tradition is not "an
independent instance, nor a complementary source of doctrine. It is
no more than Scripture being interpreted according to the catholic
mind of the church, which is the guardian of the apostolic "rule
of faith." ... Scripture is an adequate source. But only in so
far as it is read and interpreted in the church which is the guardian
both of the Holy Writ and of the total apostolic 'paradosis' of
faith, order and life. Tradition alone allows the church to go beyond
the "letter" to the very Word of Life."26
Seeking intersection points for dialogue between MC and EOC
In
the RCSA Scott
Jones reminded the most important standard for biblical
interpretation for Wesley is the analogy
of faith (including the three doctrines
of Original Sin, Justification by Faith and Sanctification).
It is the message that is consistent
throughout the text of the Bible. Wesley understood the Bible
predominantly as message. It's very close to the EO understanding of
Tradition: the Truth kept and delivered throughout the centuries of
the history. The Report brings us back in the time to the First
Oecumenical Synod, when the EO fathers won a victory over the Arians.
The Fathers based their arguments not on the Scriptural texts (as the
Arians wanted), but on the rule of faith
(which is the earliest confessions about Jesus, or the Tradition kept
in the Church)27.
The same is said by Florovsky: "The
Arians and their supporters had produced an impressive array of
scriptural texts in defense of their doctrinal position. They wanted
to restrict theological discussion to the biblical ground alone. ...
It was imperative for the orthodox to appeal to the mind of the
church, to that "faith" which had been once delivered and
then faithfully kept. This was the chief concern and the usual method
of the great Athanasius. In his arguments he persistently invoked the
"rule of faith," much in the same manner as it had been
done by the fathers of the second century. ... In contrast, the
Arians had "no fathers" to support their doctrinal claims.
Their blasphemy was a sheer innovation totally alien to apostolic
tradition and to the overarching message of the Bible. ... In the
whole discussion with the Arians there is no single reference to any
"traditions" in the plural. The only appeal is to
Tradition."28
The
'analogy of faith' is something Wesley defined. He emphasized three
doctrines he counted most important for the life and development of
the church. Every single Methodist in the time of Wesley had to take
them seriously if he wanted to remain in the ranks of the movement.
John Wesley is often criticized about his tendency to put his
authority and opinions over all of the Methodists. Till the time he
was ill and old, and was forced to leave the rule, he dominated the
movement as its 'father'. Wesley succeeded to put the Sermons and
Minutes as a theological standard for the movement. But this is John
Wesley's standard. We cannot run away from the question: "To
what degree Methodism can be built on theological thinking of
Wesley?" The Methodists accept the Sermons and Minutes as
sources of authority. But they are just one of the possible
interpretations of the Scriptures, so can they be authoritative for
us today if they are built on Wesley's thinking? Does the father of
Methodism gives us the truth of Christ's apostles and prophets? For
many important questions the Sermons do not give us direct answer,
for example what exactly means that babies has been made children of
God in baptism. Does the baptism save? Are the babies lost without
baptism, because that's the logical question consequent on the
sacramental understanding. Institutional movement needs deep roots of
tradition. Where are the borders of our tradition? It is hard to be
defined.
The role of the "fifth" element of the Quadrilateral -
the Community
Community
is a base point
for understanding and practising Scripture and Tradition. Wesley
Ariarajah suggests that United Methodists in non-Western parts of the
world would add to the Quadrilateral as a fifth element the Christian
community. In his opinion "The Scripture has no authority apart
from the community, and the community has no common point of
reference other than what they have decided would be their
Scripture."29
If we accept his idea there appears a
question: Do we have right to decide
what should be our Scripture? Isn't all Scripture a norm for every
Christian's life? Actually,
historically, the Church adjudged in different Councils which books
would be included in her New Testament Canon. But these were the
books already in use for centuries in the churches. The Councils said
'yes' to these books, the Church had already said 'yes'. From that
moment on the NT canon became normative for the whole Church of all
times. As we see, the authority of Scriptures origins from the Holy
Spirit, Who inspired human co-authors of the Bible to communicate the
pure will of God for humanity, and parallel to it illumines people to
rightly understand this objective truth. The Holy Spirit has
cooperated with the Body of believers in the centuries in teaching
them all truth. The council principle is essential for a church to
remain biblical in her doctrine and practice. As Methodists we do not
accept the whole EO Tradition, so the basis for our beliefs remains
only the Scripture, as we interpret
it. In a democratic church as ours there always exists the risk the
General Conference to accept non biblical beliefs as normative for
the Methodist Church. We have to believe God that His leading in the
process of taking decision will not permit it.
Conclusion and practical suggestions
We
have to go much deeper than Wesley to find our roots. We need strong
unchangeable tradition which can guard our identity as Scriptural
Christians. In a time of endless arguments for opinions based on the
Bible we can see that Sola Scriptura is
not enough to calm down and reconcile, or adjudge between different
theological opinions. Today plurality of voices does not direct, but
rather distract us. The voice of John Wesley is not authoritative and
loud enough to unite us. Many of the works of the scholars nowadays
are just repeating and citing opinions of other scholars. That leads
us nowhere. We have to go back to the Fathers again. When we fight
today against contemporary Arians we can go to ask for help St.
Athanasius. When we fight against Nestorians we can go and read the
arguments of St. Cyril of Alexandria. There is nothing new under the
sun. And the Fathers can answer our questions better than
contemporary scholars. Actually the saints of the early Christian
history have works, more relevant to our life than the books of
majority of nowadays scholars. Of course we cannot deny that efforts
of our contemporary theologians to find Scriptural solution of many
nowadays problems are not senseless or useless. But the Fathers have
written for and found solution of the problems which are not just
problems of their time, but of Christian church of any time.
What
we can do in our intercourse with the Eastern-Orthodoxy is firstly
try to find common theological language. Many of our views are
similar, but we express it in a different way, with a different
terminology. If we try to listen more carefully we will surely have
more fruitful dialogue. It's obvious in our dialogue with the
orthodox Christians we don't have to seek intersection points in our
scriptural understanding, because they also see God's Word as a
message and God-inspired truth, but rather in the Tradition. We have
to acknowledge better the Tradition, which will help us to understand
EO spirituality better and will naturally lead us to a more friendly
and mutually advantageous communication.
Endnotes:
(1) See Theodore Runyon, The New Creation: John
Wesley's Theology Today, Abingdon Press, Nashville, 1998,
pp.147-148.
(2)
In this work I use Tradition with capital t,
for the Eastern-Orthodox Tradition.
(3)
Translation from Russion is mine, from А. Л. Дворкин,
“Сектоведение. Тоталитарные
секты. Опыт систематического исследования”,
Издательство братства во имя св.
князя Александра Невского, Нижний
Новгород, 2002, chapter 16:3
http://pravbeseda.ru/library/index.php?page=book&id=924
(4)
John Wesley, Sermons on Several Occasion, EPWORTH, 1944,
p. vi.
(5)
Tamara Grdzelidze, The
Authority of Scriptural Interpretation: An Orthodox Perspective on
the Positions of John Wesley and Modern Methodism, "Orthodox
and Wesleyan Scriptural Understanding and Practice", ST
VLADIMIR'S SEMINARY PRESS, Crestwood, New York 10707, 2005, p. 131.
(6)
Barrie W. Tabraham, The
Making of Methodism (second revised and updated edition), EPWORTH,
2010, p. 27.
(7)
Daryl McCarthy, "Early Wesleyan Views of Scripture",
WTJ, vol. 16, 2, 1981, p. 98.
(8)
Ibid, pp. 100, 101.
(9)
Ibid, p. 103.
(10)
Larry Shelton,
John Wesley's Approach to Scripture in
Historical Perspective, WTJ, 1981, 16-1, p.
26.
(11)
Ibid, p. 42.
(12)
See it on
http://www.gbod.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=nhLRJ2PMKsG&b=5819089&ct=8163021
(13)
See the Report, pp.18-19.
(14)
Translation from Bulgarian is mine from the
Bulgarian edition of Protopresbyter John
Romanidis’ book “An
Outline of Orthodox Patristic Dogmatics, in Greek and
English”, Translated and Edited with an
Introduction, Orthodox Research Institute, Rollinsford, New
Hampshire, 2004, pp.
93-94.
(15)
Daniel Berg, The
Theological Context of American Wesleyanism,
WTJ, vol. 20, 1, Spring, 1985, ps. 54, 57.
(16)
See Leon
Hynson, The
Wesleyan Quadrilateral in the American Holiness Tradition, WTJ,
vol.20, 1, 1985, p. 26.
(17)
See Kenneth J. Collins, John Wesley's Critical
Appropriation of Tradition in his Practical Theology, WTJ, vol.
35, 2, 2000, p. 71.
(18)
Philip Schaff,
Creeds
of Christendom, with a History and Critical notes. Volume I. The
History of Creeds. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds1.v.iii.html
(19) It
would have been especially frustrating for the Lutherans, Jeremiah
rejects their doctrine of justification by faith alone and the view
in 18-th article of the Confession that a man cannot be saved if he
leads a good life out of his free will, unless God gives him grace.
See the outline of the correspondence by Stephen Runciman on
http://www.pravoslavieto.com/inoverie/protestantism/luther/luther_had_his_chance.htm
(20) Articles
of Religion - Art. IX "....Wherefore, that we are justified
by faith, only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of
comfort."
(21)
Richard P. Heitzenrater, John
Wesley's Reading of and References to the Early Church Fathers,
"Orthodox
and Wesleyan Spirituality", ST VLADIMIR'S SEMINARY PRESS,
Crestwood, New York, 2002.
(22)
Ibid, pp. 25, 26.
(23) Ibid, p. 31.
(24)
James H. Charlesworth, Two Similar Spiritual Paths:
Methodism and Greek Orthodoxy, "Orthodox
and Wesleyan Scriptural Understanding and Practice", ST
VLADIMIR'S SEMINARY PRESS, Crestwood, New York 10707, 2005,
p. 119.
(25)
Georges Florovsky, Scripture and
Tradition: An Orthodox Point of View, I.
http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/sipture_tradition_florovsky.htm
(26)
Ibid, V.
(27)
RCSA, op. cit., p.10.
(28)
Florovsky, IV.
(29)
RCSA, op. cit., p. 19.
Няма коментари:
Публикуване на коментар