Wesley Matters
Friday, March 07, 2008
I'd like to discuss some Wesley matters.
Namely: Does Wesley matter?
There has been an ongoing lecture series here at Duke Divinity School entitled, "What is Duke theology? Or ... How did we get here?" The series is co-sponsored by the Socratic Club and the Women's Center at the divinity school, and it is billed as, "A series of lectures/discussions on the various influences on professors and general milieu here at Duke Divinity School. Professors will lecture on significant theologians and theological movements and how Duke has tended to react against these or in line with them."
The series has been really interesting so far, and it has included Dr. Allen Verhey on H. Richard Niebuhr, Dr. Curtis Freeman on Karl Barth, Dr. Mary McClintock-Fulkerson on Friedrich Schleiermacher, and Dr. Amy Laura Hall on the Yale School. Upcoming lectures will include Dr. Fulkerson on Feminist Theology, Dr. Stanley Hauerwas on Stanley Hauerwas, and Dr. Richard Hays on Biblical Studies.
Some of the topics listed here are personal to the professors giving the lectures, and others relate to some of the major influences on the so-called "Duke School," a term I categorically reject but which is increasingly used by theologians and graduate students at other universities to describe what goes on around here.
But what is most interesting to me about this list is that there is no lecture entitled, "Dr. _________ on John Wesley" or "Dr. __________ on the Wesleyan tradition".
Now keep in mind that this is Duke Divinity School, the school that prides itself on being the flagship United Methodist seminary and that also has the largest concentration of scholars doing work in the Wesleyan tradition of any school anywhere. Why would it not occur to two of the most active student groups on campus to include a professor speaking on the importance of Wesley or the Wesleyan tradition in shaping the school's intellectual culture, spiritual life, and missional calling?
I am here as a doctoral student studying Wesley, so my opinion is naturally going to be skewed. An M.Div student might well give a compellingly affirmative account of Wesley's importance to the life of the school. But I fear that the lack of Wesley in a lineup like the current lecture series is reflective of Wesley's status as necessary to the institution but not to the lifeblood of theology here.
If so, that is truly unfortunate. And I wish I knew how to help future clergy understand the central importance of Wesley to everything we do. I would also be curious to know the status of Wesley on other UM seminary campuses.
Labels: Duke Divinity School, John Wesley, Wesleyan Heritage
posted by Andrew C. Thompson at 5:37 PM
20 Comments:
Ah, dear Andrew. You must understand: Wesley isn't as controversial as he was in, say, 1750. The people giving the lectures or the people they're lecturing about (or, in Hauerwas' case, both!) have caused big stirs in 20th century Protestantism. If you want to know what makes the "Duke school," try trendy. That sounds awful but I honestly believe that a significant reason SOME (not all) faculty are hired is because certain administrators think they'll be the next hot theological thing. Not naming names...
By the way, why do you eschew the name "Duke school?"
Anyway, controversy is the name of the game when the Socratic Club and Women's Center lie together. Why is Dr. Fulkerson getting two presentations when, frankly, she's not a big draw to most students? Answer: LGBT. She's into it pretty big and, from what I understand, has caused some of the liberal grief for the PC(USA). Amy Laura Hall is controversial to both conservatives and liberals.
UMC students are required to take history and polity of Methodism, but I ask, are they required to take WESLEYAN THEOLOGY? Not so far as I know! And lemme tell ya, the Intro to Christian Theology class is NOT Wesleyan (not since Wainwright). Wesley may be hallowed on the walls, but not in students' hearts.
Gee Casey, I was hoping someone would actually lessen my pessimism over this whole thing :)
The reason I don't like the title "Duke School" is that it is essentially an epithet (in the pejorative sense of that word). It is used as a label in order to dismiss a perceived theological approach that may or may not be characteristic of professors and students associated with Duke. And as a label, it is a handy way to avoid having to engage with actual arguments. In short, it is lazy.
The first time I ever heard the term was from a fellow Th.D student who had been to a conference where it was thrown around by people from other universities. Since then I have heard it used and even seen it on websites myself, but always by people from other institutions. I've never seen it used seriously by anyone actually at Duke.
"Duke School" is thrown around the halls of the Div School, but not sure if folks know what it means. I know that I really don't.
But to brighten things, I have taken it upon myself to take more intensive Wesleyan courses (than just the history, doctrine, and polity) while at Duke because a) I understand how important Wesleyan theology is for the renewal of the UMC and b) taking Wesleyan courses strengthens me and affirms my calling into UM ministry.
However, I do admit that I am usually disappointed when scanning through the each semester's Course of Study as the options for Wesleyan courses are few. With Heitzenrater, Maddox, Chilcote, Gunter, Wainwright, Warner, and others teaching at Duke - I would think that a greater variety of Wesleyan courses could be offered each semester. Adding a "Limited Wesleyan Elective" requirement for the UM students would be a welcomed addition.
I know that the Wesleyan Theology course that I took with Maddox and the Preaching in the Wesleyan Tradition with Bishop Carder have helped to shape my theology through a Wesleyan lens. And I am almost certain that they have prepared me for my commissioning interviews tomorrow!!!
UMC students are required to take history and polity of Methodism, but I ask, are they required to take WESLEYAN THEOLOGY? Not so far as I know!
I wonder if this is indicative of a larger trend in American Methodism. When I came to Britain, I found out that Local Preachers must have read all 44 of Wesley's sermons. (Local preachers are those who regularly preach on the plan. One must become a local preacher before becoming a presbyter [UM=elder]). We are also to show our knowledge of them before ordination. I don't believe the UMC Discipline requires candidates to read any of them, and in my Methodist history class at Duke, we were only required to read about 10 or so. I am also not aware of any conference that did. South Carolina didn't.
Daniel -
Blessings on your commissioning interviews. May the Holy Spirit be present with you and with the deacons and elders on your BOM during that time.
Andrew:
I teach at a non-UM school, but we are thrilled at Ashland Seminary to be getting Paul Chilcote on the faculty this fall.
Will, we were required to read the 52 Standard Sermons and outline most of them when I took the History and Theology of John Wesley at Asbury. That class was required for ALL students as far as I remember.
Frankly, I'm surprised to learn that our seminaries aren't requiring more of this, but maybe Abraham was right in his article for the Wesleyan Theological Journal "The End of Wesleyan Theology."
Matthew, perhaps it is surprising that seminaries aren't requiring it, but I find it more surprising that the Disciple does not require it. (I don't know why the discrepancy between 52 and 44 - at the Epworth Rectory, I bought the book of sermons generally used by local preachers and they were only 44).
While I believe the prefix 'post-' is a little overused, I wonder if folk are becoming 'post-Wesleyan'. He lived in a time before the types of biblical criticism that have changed how many of us read the bible. And we are no longer in full fledged fights with the Calvinists (the 'emerging church' has taken that on). While I still have some sort of Wesleyan understanding, I don't think I could sign up to Wesley full stop. These are just preliminary thoughts that have come on me over the past year or two, so I don't want to say that what I'm saying is my final position! Perhaps it also comes from being in a Methodist Church that beyond the odd portrait (and sometimes, they are ODD) of Wesley, little is known about what he believed. From my perspective, the Americans seem to understand themselves as Wesleyans much more than the British.
Thanks for the follow-up, Will. John Piper, who is a well known Baptist-Calvinist, recently told a group of reformed church planters that the gospel Arminians preach is a false gospel, or at least defective. I'm still going to fight that fight and am glad to have a spiritual heir in Wesley to look to in that regard.
I'm not a fundamentalist by any means when it comes to Biblical interpretation - I affirm what the Discipline says in the doctrinal standards - but I don't think new perspectives in Biblical criticism need keep us from affirming what Wesley preached and taught. For me, N.T. Wright has shed light on a path that takes all the issues concerning the Bible into account while at the same time allowing it to remain just as authoritative as it was for Wesley. Despite what the inadequate space on my bookshelves might suggest, I consider my self a homo unius libri as did Wesley and I think there is still a lot of opportunity to function as Wesleyans in our theology.
I think Andrew ought to start another blog, this time a group blog, to discuss matters of Wesleyan theology that would include ThD candidates like himself and dummies like me. Maybe we could stamp out those "post-" prefixes :-)
Matthew Johnson, good question: what does it mean to be Wesleyan? Must we believe everything Wesley believed, or should we take Wesley as an example?
I think we should believe some of what he believed if we claim to be Wesleyan or Methodist. Obviously there's a significant Reformed resurgence that needs to be answered gracefully (ala John Piper). The main question to face in our interaction with those who are truly Calvinist is this - how does our theology affect our ministry? To see an example of this, check out Greg Boyd's Woodland Hills Church in John Piper's own town! Boyd is so Arminian as to be an Open Theist, but he's a good example of the difference theological perspective makes.
In addition, I think Wesley is a good example to us, too. Here's a guy who preached full salvation frequently, fed on the Scriptures, had a disciplined discipleship that pressed on toward perfect love, and (gasp!) read the Church Fathers. That's a great model for any Christian leader.
Thanks, Matthew. You seemed to pick up on what I was thinking and upheld Wesley much better than I have done. I, too, read a lot of Wright (and my NT Prof was Richard Hays) and you are correct in that what they say can shed light on our Wesleyan heritage. Despite my previous comment, I don't want to give it up.
Also, I forget about the Calvinists such as Piper (and probably those in the SBC who are becoming more Calvinist) and how strong their influence is in the US. I simply do not get into these discussions here in Britain. We are too worried about Christians having such little influence! Still, I don't think I think in Arminian/Calvinist categories anymore. At least consciously. Again, that may be context.
You mention a group blog. That's interesting in that I was told by The Methodist Church's technology director (or whatever his title is) that the church plans to do an online style of group theology discussion. I will be interested in seeing how that works out. Casey points out that our theology affects our ministry. I would imagine that how we interact with others to discuss our theology would affect it, too.
At Candler there are three classes that together fulfill the ordination requirement: History of Methodism, Theology of Wesley and Methodism, and Polity. I'm half way through Theology right now and by my count there are 35 of the sermons contained in the blue Outler/Heitzenrater edited volume that we are supposed to read.
As a member of the United Methodist Church, I think the "lack of" Wesleyan roots in our seminaries is exactly the reason the masses in our congregation know little or nothing about John Wesley and the theology that forms the backbone of our church. Maybe that needs to change....getting back to the basics would cause renewal. And that should start in the seminaries.
I co-teach a Sunday School class and we recently did a book study on the book "Wesleyan Essentials in a Mult-cultural Society". We averaged 14 to 16 people every week and most really embraced what it taught about the denominational beliefs. Probably 50% learned where we stood as a denomination on major issues for the first time ever. And it pretty much goes back to Wesley and those core foundations.
Great discussion here. Thanks for the comments from everyone.
In regards to a comment by Will, I believe the Americans and the British have a different take on the number of Wesley's "Standard Sermons." Also, I've had a couple of different professors (Doug Meeks and Dick Heitzenrater, in particular) tell me stories about why American Methodists seem so much more fond of Wesley than British Methodists. They say it has to do with the British church's longstanding desire to reunite with the Church of England and the view that a too-heavy emphasis on Wesley will be counterproductive to that end. I've even heard one of them talk about how the British seem embarrassed of Wesley in some respects. Heitzenrater has commented that, typically, Anglicans are actually much more appreciative of Wesley than Methodists in the UK.
In regards to Matthew's comment about a group blog to discuss Wesleyan theology: There is just about nothing I would rather do than that. I think the fruits of such a project in terms of our discussions would be fantastic. I think of the Generous Orthodoxy Think Tank as a model in this regard (although those guys don't post that much anymore). Unfortunately, that will have to be a project for a time when I have more, well, time! But I'll be a big-time cheerleader for anyone else who wants to take the lead.
A couple of Lents ago I put away television and internet and read four books: N.T. Wright's 3 big ones and another titled "A History of the Church in England." I know this sounds weird, but it was one of the most fascinating books I've read since The Meaning of Everything (someone has to get a laugh out of that).
Anyway, I was surprised at how Methodist friendly the book was in its final chapters. I'm fairly certain the author is Anglican and I expected to read some strong anti-Methodist bias in there but it was very complementary.
So, let's fire up the Wesley Think Tank and let Andrew post chapters from his dissertation :-)
Good grief, I majored in English and still managed to misspell complimentary.
Hey Andrew,
You asked about other schools. I graduated from SMU/Perkins last Spring, and here is what I recall:
We certainly were not required to read all the standard sermons. I probably read about 16 or 20 of his sermons for various classes, and a handful of those were later sermons "the Trinity" "The Scripture Way of Salvation" etc - most of those were for the UM Doctrine class. My doctrine class was taught by a doctoral student who was very enthusiastic about Wesley, and I gathered that some of my peers may have had professors that assigned fewer actual Wesley readings.
In my systematics class we did read one or two of Wesley's sermons when we were talking about soteriology, and I believe he got some brief attention in the history of doctrine class (that was an elective I did not take). The Anglican history/theology class (which I did take) read one of his sermons. And in my Christian Education class we read one book that was from a 'contemporary Wesleyan perspective'.
So I would say Wesley is certainly present, but not crucial. I don't believe we had a single Outler reading in my whole time at Perkins of all places!
I remember a couple of chapel services (one led by the Anglicans) that used the Sunday Service or a similarly abridged 1662 BCP service in honor of Wesley.
There is an elective class just for the study of Wesley offered that was offered every third semester or so, but I missed out on it.
I should say, my last year there the faculty took on Ted Campbell, so maybe Wesley studies will grow in prominence there. I hope so.
Thanks to everyone who has commented on this post. It has been very interesting, and very informative as well.
Dear Andrew,
I just came across your site as Andy Rowell made the cross-over to posting on the Socratic Club Blog and mentioned it.
Your post here is quite intriguing to me. The question is somewhat damning, I think. As one of the principle organizers and architects of the Duke Theology series, the fact that we didn't consider a lecture on Wesley says a lot. It also says even more than it may appear at first glance because Wesley is my Personal spiritual and theological life-blood. So the series wasn't put together by someone who doesn't deeply deeply appreciate Wesley.
And yet, Dean Jones came to Methodism class one time and talked about how Wesley has influenced Duke and how the curriculum here is primarily a Wesleyan Curriculum. What he meant by that, as I took it, was that the form of the curriculum is primarily Wesleyan. That is to say, Catholic. And in that manner, I think that the form of the curriculum here is Wesleyan.
To a more personal point, I came to Duke in large part because of Richard Heitzenrater. I wanted to study Wesley. But once I got here I realized that I could either study Wesley with my electives or study the things Wesley studied. I chose the later. Thus I have ended with an M.Div. degree that has two primary emphases: Biblical studies (and languages which Wesley learned much earlier in life than I did) and history/historical theology. If Wesley had created a seminary, I think this is what we would have probably studied.
Given all that, I still think a Wesley sermon or two ought to be required reading in every class to keep Wesley at the forefront. I would have appreciated that. But whether Wesley was assigned or not, I find myself always bringing him up in class (to the great consternation of some of my friends...and, oh, my wife is sick of hearing me quote Wesley too!).
Peace,
Tom
Tom -
Thanks for that perspective, particularly from one who helped to put the lecture series together and who is a Methodist and Duke. That's helpful to know.
Pax,
Andrew.
Post a Comment
<< Home