01. Parallel With Eastern Orthodoxy

01. Parallel With Eastern Orthodoxy Are the two conceptions-sanctification and theosis-theologically distinct or similar in thought? Historically, is sanctification as a doctrine derived from the older idea of theosis? Spiritually, are they independent visions in the quest for human wholeness or do they point to the same spiritual process and religious reality? If theologically distinct, how do they compare? If historically dependent, how is the one derived form the other? In posing these questions of similarity and derivation, I invoke the scholarly company of Albert Outler (John Wesley), Ted Campbell (John Wesley and Christian Antiquity) and Randy Maddox (Responsible Grace), intending to apply the problem of theosis as a test case for their assertions regarding Wesley’s use of patristic sources.

Thirty years ago Albert Outler first alerted Wesleyan scholars to the influence of the Church Fathers on Wesley, especially the Eastern, Greek Patristic writers. It was his suspicion that Wesley’s doctrine of sanctification was directly influenced by his exposure to the Spiritual Homilies attributed to Macarius of Egypt but actually written by a fifth-century Syrian monk under the theological influence of Gregory of Nyssa (John Wesley, 9). Syriac scholar David Bundy reportedly has spent much of his career exploring Outler’s assertion on this point, as well as the influence of Ephrem of Syria on Wesley.

Orthodox theologian Charles Ashanin has pointed out that the classical Methodist doctrine of sanctification "is probably Wesley’s adaptation of the Patristic doctrine of Theosis..." (90). Wesleyan theologian Randy Maddox agrees. Understanding the doctrine of sanctification in its therapeutic, soteriological context, he says, "has significant parallels with the Eastern Orthodox theme of deification (theosis)..." (Responsible Grace, 122). Building primarily on the insights of Outler and Maddox, and attempting to apply Campbell’s thesis of how Wesley appropriated his patristic sources, this essay explores the theological parallels between theosis and sanctification and probable historical derivations. In his 1756 "Address to Clergy," Wesley commends the Church Fathers, "chiefly those who wrote before the Council of Nicea," as being "the most authentic commentators on Scripture, ...nearest the fountain, and eminently endued with that Spirit by whom all Scripture was given." Among the ante-Nicene theologians he commends as particularly worthy guardians of "the religion of the primitive church" are Tertullian, Cyprian, Clement and Origen. He also insists that his preachers have "some acquaintance" with such post-Nicene writers as Chrysostom, Basil, Jerome, Augustine "and above all, the man of a broken heart, Ephraem Syrus." In other references to his favorite authors, Wesley added "Makarios the Egyptian." [4] The issue of Patristic influences, however, is not simply a matter of Wesley appreciating and importing or at least paralleling theological concepts from the 2nd to the 5th centuries Orthodox East and applying them in the 18th century Protestant West. As Ted Campbell documents in his John Wesley and Christian Antiquity, Wesley’s use of Patristic sources was "programmatic"-by which he means that Wesley revised and edited his sources rather than preserving their original meaning, and did so with a pastoral motivation and agenda of church reform. Wesley was not an historian but a practical theologian whose mission was to reform a nation. His particular "vision" of Christian antiquity, more than the historical accuracy of his conceptualization, formed his sense of the Tradition. Thus, Wesley’s "programmatic" (pastoral and polemical) use of Patristic sources can be distinguished from what his sources historically meant or taught (Campbell, 20). I suggest that Wesleyan scholars today accept Campbell’s historical critique and follow Outler’s theological lead by reading Wesley with his sources, and not simply reading back into his ancient sources Wesley’s distinctive 18th-century vision of perfection or programmatic agenda for reform. [5]

What primary Patristic writers did John Wesley read and benefit from in his personal quest for holiness of heart and life? What did his sources actually teach about theosis, perfection, and related issues? Wesley learned from his father to appreciate the ancient pastoral theologians: Chrysostom, Basil, Athanasius and Cyprian (Advice to a Young Clergyman). At Oxford Wesley participated in the Patristic renaissance and idealized the Apostolic Age which he regarded as a time of authentic Christianity. Citing ancient authorities, he criticized then current ecclesiastical practices and longed for the Church of England to return to its liturgical roots, spiritual disciplines, and primitive purity. [6] Through the formative influence of John Clayton-a Non-Juror from Manchester and a Patristic scholar-Wesley was drawn to the ancient traditions as preserved in the Apostolic Constitutions and Apostolic Canons: "Fit books for you and every Christian priest," Clayton wrote to Wesley, "are all the Fathers of the first three centuries, whereby you may be enabled both to know and profess the faith once delivered to the saints, and to steer your course in the due medium between the monkish mysticism of the fourth century and the lukewarm indifference of the present age" (Campbell, 30).

Wesley’s celebrated secondary source on Patristic thought was William Law who mentored John and Charles in the mystical path of total devotion to God. Wesley later rejected Law’s theosophic mysticism and publicly challenged him. He also dismissed as "foxes" some of the Roman Catholic mystics he read. However, in many homilies Wesley assimilated Eastern soteriology with its therapeutic concern for healing the sin-sick soul and its synergistic, responsible grace. [7] Wesley’s primary sourcebook for Patristic spirituality was William Cave’s Primitive Christianity-a copy of which he took to Georgia. R. Flew notes the particular influence of the Christian Platonists (including Clement, Origen, Evagrius, and Nyssa) on Wesley (The Idea of Perfection in Christian Theology). It was probably in Cave’s anthologies that Wesley also discovered some of the ascetic writings of Syrian Christianity-particularly "Macarius the Egyptian" and "Ephraem Syrus."

After returning to England following his troubled mission in Georgia, Wesley was weary of trying to climb the ladder of perfection by spiritual discipline alone. Spiritually bankrupt, without peace and joy or the assurance of salvation, he embraced the Moravian approach to "faith alone" and "full salvation." Aldersgate became his benchmark for interpreting the biblical promise of perfection in light of the best insights of the early Fathers combined with his heart-felt Reformation faith of salvation by grace through faith. [8] "Thus it was," according to Outler, "that the ancient and Eastern tradition of holiness as disciplined love became fused in Wesley’s mind with his own Anglican tradition of holiness as aspiring love, and thereafter was developed in what he regarded to the end as his own most distinctive doctrinal contribution" (Outler, John Wesley, 10). Although Wesley later rejected the ascetic emphasis on solitude, dark night of the soul, and spiritual mortification, he nonetheless remained in dialogue with these early mentors, edited and "corrected" them, and recommended them throughout his life. In considering Wesley’s use of Patristic sources for his doctrine of sanctification, I offer four sections of historical-theological background and analysis, and then a conclusion.