05. IV. Conclusion: Back To Charles and Beyond John

05. IV. Conclusion: Back To Charles and Beyond John In this study, we have examined the Eastern doctrine of theosis in the primary Patristic sources Wesley relied on for his own doctrinal construction of "entire sanctification." Building on the insights of Outler and Maddox, and attempting to apply Campbell’s thesis, my own evaluation supports the notion that what Wesley envisioned as Christian perfection, holiness, or entire sanctification is based in part on his personal vision of what his sources taught about theosis. We have examined how Wesley selectively accessed the Patristic tradition (principally in the writings of Clement, Origen, Ephrem, and Macarius), and how he reformulated the doctrine of theosis "programmatically" according to his own vision of antiquity and contemporary concerns of what was practical and attainable by grace through faith in this life. We have also considered how Charles Wesley held more tenaciously to the native strand of theosis within the Anglican tradition.

Since the time of the Wesleys, a distinctively Wesleyan-Holiness pietism and theology (with both positive and negative psychological consequences) has emerged in the Western Christian tradition. It now may be in need of refinement or reformulation. Reclaiming a Wesleyan heritage today requires not only understanding Wesley’s developed doctrine of Christian perfection, but knowing and appreciating his acknowledged theological sources. As Outler suggested, "Wesley must be read in light of his sources - and therefore within the larger ecumenical perspectives of historic Christianity." [28] Applying this method, I find him in continuity with the Patristic tradition, yet distinctive and limited in his willingness to appropriate fully either the promise or the process of what the Patristic writers meant by becoming "partakers of the divine nature."

Therefore, I find it fruitful to go behind and beyond John Wesley, affirming his ancient sources and appreciating his positive contributions to the tradition, invoking the early Wesley (as well as his steadfast brother Charles) to correct the middle Wesley, and then standing with the mature Wesley in his openness to new light of revelation. When John Wesley is read in tandem with Charles, and both brothers in conjunction with their sources, Charles’ poetic vision of perfection can be reconsidered and re-incorporated into the tradition. Wesleyans can then go back to Charles and beyond John (and back to the Scriptures to exegete anew the theosis passages [29]) in order to construct a more biblical, global, Wesleyan spirituality for the Third Millennium. Such a re-formulation would incorporate the best of John Wesley’s theological refinements of the ancient doctrine of theosis (i.e., appropriation by faith not by works, inward assurance over perpetual seeking, accessibility in this earthly life), while fully appreciating the Eastern emphasis on therapeutic soteriology with its biblical affirmation of original humanity and original blessing. In so doing, we may arrive at a progressive Wesleyan-Orthodox vision of theosis as part of the essential quest for human wholeness.