04. III. Reformulation of Theosis: John and Charles Wesley

04. III. Reformulation of Theosis: John and Charles Wesley By whose authority, and by what criterion, did Wesley amend his sources, correct previous visions, and reformulate Patristic conceptions of theosis? It is clear that he both learned from his sources and altered his sources on points he believed did not conform to the teachings of Scripture and the revealed order of salvation as he understood them. Wesley, in appropriating the idea of theosis and constructing his doctrine of Christian perfection, found that the Church Fathers required editing. Even ecumenical councils merited selective approval. The Tradition, for Wesley, was open to improvement and required amendment according to the tests of scripture, reason, and experience. [26] As Outler suggests, the effect of Wesley’s reconstruction of theosis was the turning of the Patristic ladder of divine ascent on its side to make perfection "into a genetic scale of development within historical existence" (Outler, John Wesley, 31). By dismissing the Platonic notion of "becoming gods according to grace" in favor of the less ambitious notion of becoming like God, by grace through faith, "Christian perfection" suddenly emerged as an attainable goal. As a volitional state, Wesleyan perfection is difficult enough to attain. Even so, compared to the high and lofty Greek and Syrian visions of theosis, Wesleyan sanctification appears almost a domesticated (or democratized) version of the more ancient doctrine. Did Charles share brother John Wesley’s vision of perfection, or did he retain the older Eastern view of theosis? According to A. M. Allchin’s insightful study, Charles Wesley was committed to an earlier model of Patristic theosis. As a poet-theologian in the tradition of St. Ephrem, Charles expressed in hymns what is difficult to state in doctrine:

He deigns in flesh to appear, Widest extremes to join, To bring our vileness near, And make us all divine; And we the life of God shall know, For God is manifest below.

Made perfect first in love, And sanctified by grace, We shall from earth remove, And see his glorious face; His love shall then be fully showed, And man shall all be lost in God.

(Hymn #5, Hymns for the Nativity of Our Lord [1745]) In the Advent hymn above, the truth embodied in the doctrines of incarnation, sanctification, glorification, and deification are all brought together in one cosmic vision which must be sung to be appreciated. Admittedly, such language may be read as virtually pantheistic, involving the objectionable notion of ontological absorption of humanity into God. However, says Allchin, Charles Wesley’s intention "is to simply point in song to what cannot be categorized in discursive doctrine" (Allchin, 25). Charles is a mystic speaking "ec-statically" (in the original meaning of "standing outside oneself"). Caught up in the rapture of cosmic vision and praise, the poet seeks only to use language worthy of the experience. Charles’ poetic vision is of a mystical union in which the soul of the Christian becomes divinized and "lost in God." At journey’s end, Charles wrote in Hymns and Sacred Poems (1739), the sanctified soul will be:

Plunged in the Godhead’s deepest sea, And lost in thine immensity! The finest hymn by Charles Wesley hymn which points to the mystery of theosis, according to Allchin, is found in the 1750 Hymn Book under the section "Seeking for Full Redemption" (Hymn #379, Vol. 7, W. Works, Bicentennial Edition, 552):

Heavenly Adam, life divine, Change my nature into Thine;

Move and spread throughout my soul, Actuate and fill the whole; Be it I no longer now Living in the flesh, but Thou.

Holy Ghost, no more delay;

Come, and in thy temple stay;

Now thine inward witness bear, Strong, and permanent and clear;

Spring of life, thyself impart, Rise eternal in my heart. Not all of Charles’ theosis hymns, expressing his yearning for full redemption made it into John’s published collections. Characteristically, John edited, revised or deleted Charles’ hymns according to his own standards and sensibilities for Methodist audiences. This reflects, among other differences between the two brothers, the possibility of John and Charles at variance on the nature and extent of perfection in this life. According to John Tyson’s study, Charles Wesley: A Reader, John expected to go on to perfection in this life, Charles at the threshold of death or in the next life. John affirmed a perfection of the will, a cleansing of the heart, and a divine possession of the soul in this life. Charles would settle for nothing less than sinless perfection, the full recovery of the imago dei, the achievement of divine likeness, and humanity’s restoration to the angelic nature and beyond-the same vision of perfection John and Charles both shared during their Oxford years. [27] This same theological tension is evident in the letters of John Wesley to his brother Charles as represented in Tyson’s study. For example:

June 27, 1766. Concerning setting perfection too high. That perfection which I believe, I can boldly preach; because I think I see five hundred witnesses of it. Of that perfection which you preach, you think you do not see any witnesses at all... I verily believe there are none upon the earth; none dwelling in the body... Therefore I still think, to set perfection so high is effectively to renounce it. (131)

February 12, 1767. The whole comes to one point: Is there, or is there not, any instantaneous sanctification between justification and death? I say, Yes. You (often seem to) say, No. What arguments brought you to think so? Perhaps they may convince me too. (132)

June 14, 1768. I think it is high time that you and I, at least, should come to a point. Shall we go on asserting perfection against all the world? Or shall we quietly let it drop? We really must do one or the other... What shall we jointly and explicitly maintain, (and recommend to all our Preachers) concerning the nature, the time, (now or by and by?), and the manner of it? instantaneous, or not? I am weary of intestine war; of Preachers quoting one of us against the other. At length, let us fix something for good and all... (136)