John Wesley's Letters

Wish to present these here with indeed something of an 'agenda'. Normally we frown upon such things when they are dragged in here and that is due to them being very lopsided. That is not my intent. It is however something that has longed troubled and frustrated me to no end to somehow speak to this long running feud over C&A constructs.

Would spare everyone a long preamble and point to where this originally stemmed from;

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=26704&forum=35&post_id=&refresh=Go]"Calvinism Is Not The Issue!" - Paul Washer[/url]

I would like to add one thing however. We can be very, very clever in our use of sacred writ when it comes to our combined passions and convictions over theological jargon. Yes, it is worth discussing, unfortunately it seems predominantly that it is rarely the case, a discussion, but more resembling an all out warfare. The cleverness comes in many ways, as an example, a footnote or even a salutation of "With all due respect" when we then launch off or end up tearing into an opponent with a verbosity of words. I do not think the Lord is either impressed nor ignorant of these things.

I do want to cut to the heart, to the core of this matter and it has been my observation that there were some who understood these things better than others. That could hold their ground as it were, but far better could hold their [i]peace[/i]. Even that ground itself was a ground of considering, a readiness to change, at the very least, a willingness to truly understand ground.

I also found it slightly ironic that one of these first letters I wish to present was written to another great letter writer, one that we have had some recent discussion and who some of us have been quite taken with in his heart, his study of the heart and his heartfelt manner;

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=26483&forum=35&post_id=&refresh=Go]Letters of John Newton[/url]

A search of the same would produce many excerpts. With that, the first of these ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[b]To John Newton[/b] (1)

Londonderry, May 14, 1765

Dear Sir:

Your manner of writing needs no excuse. I hope you will always write in the same manner. Love is the plainest thing in the world. I know this dictates what you write; and then what need of ceremony?

You have admirably well expressed what I mean by an [i]opinion[/i] contradistinguished from an [i]essential[/i] doctrine. Whatever is "compatible with a love to Christ and a work of grace," I term an opinion (2). And certainly the holding "particular election" and "final perseverance" is compatible with these. "Yet what fundamental error (you ask) have you opposed with half [i]that frequency and vehemence[/i] as you have these opinions?" So doubtless you have heard. But it is not true. I have printed near fifty sermons, and only one of these opposes them at all. I preach about eight hundred sermons in a year. And taking one year with another, for twenty years past, I have not preached eight sermons in a year on the subject. But, "how many of your best preachers have been [i]thrust out[/i] because they dissented from you in these particulars?" Not one, best or worst, good or bad, was ever "thrust out" on this account. There has been not a single instance of the kind. Two or three (but far from "the best" of our preachers) voluntarily left us after they had embraced those opinions. But it was of their own mere motion. And two I should have expelled for immoral behaviour, but they withdrew and [i]pretended[/i] "they did not hold our doctrine." Set a mark therefore on him who told you that tale and let his word for the future go for nothing.

"Is a man a believer in Jesus Christ, and is his life suitable to his profession?" are not the [i]main[/i] but [i]sole[/i] inquiries I make in order to his admission in our Society. If he is a Dissenter, he may be a Dissenter still. But if he is a churchman, I advise him to continue so, and that for many reasons, some of which are mentioned in the tract upon that subject (3).

When you have read what I have wrote on occasion of the letters lately published, I may say something more on that head.(4) And it will then be time enough to show you why some [i]part[/i] of those letters [i]could not[/i] be wrote by Mr. Hervey.

I think on justification just as I have done any time these seven and twenty years, and just as Mr. Calvin does. In this respect I do not differ from him an hair's breadth.

[i]Cont. Sorry to abrupt it here, but must get going to work.[/i])

[i]Cont.[/i]

But the main point between you and me is [i]perfection[/i]. "This," you say, "has no prevalence in these parts. Otherwise I should think it my duty to oppose it with my whole strength, not as an 'opinion', but as a dangerous mistake which appears to be subversive of the very foundations of Christian experience and which has, in fact, given occasion to the most grievous offenses."

Just so my brother and I reasoned thirty years ago: "We think it our duty to oppose predestination with our whole strength, not as an 'opinion,' but as a dangerous mistake which appears to be subversive of the very foundations of Christian experience and which has, in fact, given occasion to the most grievous offenses."

That it has given occasion to such offenses, I know. I can name time, places and persons. But still another fact stares me in the face: Mr. Haweis and Mr. Newton hold this: and yet I believe these have real Christian experience. But if so, this [doctrine of predestination] is only an "opinion." It is not subversive (here is clear proof to the contrary) "of the very foundations of Christian experience." It is "compatible with a love to Christ and a genuine work of grace." Yea, many hold it at whose feet I desire to be found in the day of the Lord Jesus. If, then, I "oppose this with my whole strength," I am a mere bigot [i]still[/i]. I leave you in your calm and retired moments to make the application.

But how came this opinion [[i]i.e.[/i] perfection] into my mind? I will tell you with all simplicity. In 1725 I met with Bishop Taylor's [i]Rules of Holy Living and Dying[/i]. I was struck particularly with the chapter upon [i]intention[/i], and felt a fixed intention to "give myself up to God."(5) In this I was much confirmed soon after by the [i]Christian Pattern[/i], and longed to "give God all my heart." This is just what I mean by "perfection" now. I sought after it from that hour,

In 1727 I read Mr. Law's [i]Christian Perfection[/i] and [i] Serious Call[/i], and more explicitly resolved to be "all devoted to God in body, soul and spirit."

In 1730(6) I began to be [i]homo unius libri,[/i](7) to study (comparatively) no book but the Bible. I then saw in stronger light than ever before that "only one thing is needful" [[i]cf.[/i] Lk. 10:42], even "faith that worketh by that love" [Gal. 5:6] of God and man, all inward and outward holiness. And I groaned to love God with "all my heart," and to serve Him "with all my strength."

[i]Cont.[/i]

January 1, 1733, I preached the sermon on "The Circumcision of the Heart," which contains all that I now teach concerning salvation from [i]all sin[/i] and loving God with an [i]undivided heart[/i].(8) In the same year I printed (the first year I ventured to print anything), for the use of my pupils, [i]A Collection of Forms of Prayer[/i]. And in this I spoke explicitly of giving "the whole heart and the whole life to God." This was then, as it is now, my idea of perfection, though I should have started at the [i]word[/i].

In 1735 I preached my farewell sermon at Epworth, in Lincolnshire. In this likewise I spoke with the utmost clearness of having "one design, one desire, one love," and of pursuing the "one end" of our life in [i]all[/i] our words and actions.

In January 1738 I expressed my desire in these words:(9)

O grant that nothing in my soul
May dwell, but Thy [i]pure love alone![/i]
O may Thy love [i]possess me whole[/i]
My joy, my pleasure, my crown.
Strange flames far from my heart remove!
My [i]every[/i] act, word, thought, be love.

And I am still persuaded, this is what the Lord Jesus hath bought for me with his own blood.

Now, whether [i]you[/i] desire and expect this blessing or not, is it not an astonishing thing that you or any man living should be disgusted at [i]me[/i] for expecting it? Is it not more astonishing still that well-nigh all the religious world should be up in arms concerning it? and that they should persuade one another that this hope is "subversive of the very foundations of Christian experience"? Why, then, whoever retains it cannot possibly have any Christian experience at all! Then my brother, Mr. Fletcher and I, and twenty thousand more, who [i]seem[/i] both to fear and love God, are in reality children of the devil and in the road to eternal damnation!

In God's name, I entreat you, make me sensible of this! Show me by plain strong reasons what dishonour this hope does to Christ;(10) wherein it opposes justification by faith or any fundamental truth of religion. But do not wrest and wiredraw(11) and colour my words as Mr. Hervey (or Cudworth) has done, in such a manner that when I look in that glass, I do not know my own face! "Shall I call you (says Mr. Hervey) my father or my friend? For you have been both to [i]me[/i]." So I was. And you have as well requited me! It is well, my reward is with the Most High.

Wishing all happiness to you and yours, I am, dear sir,
Your affectionate brother and servant.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Footnotes.

1. Copied here from the holograph in the Leete Collection, Southern Methodist University; [i]cf. Letters[/i], IV. 297-300. John Newton (1725-1807) was a converted slave trader who was, at the time of this letter, rector of Olney, where he collaborated with William Cowper in what came to be the [i]Olney Hymns[/i] (1779); [i]cf.[/i] John Newton, [i]Journal of a Slave Trader, 1750-1754,[/i] Bernard Martin and Mark Spurrell, eds. (1962). Under the influence of Whitefield and others, he had adopted a vigorous Calvinism, and although he was a friend of Wesley's and a supporter of the Revival, he was mildly dubious of Wesley's use of lay preachers and strongly opposed to his doctrine of "perfection."

This letter is noteworthy for it's autobiographical history of the development of the doctrine in Wesley's thought, for it's summary presentation of his prime distinction between "an opinion contradistinguished from an essential doctrine," and for his blunt assertion that "on [i]justification[/i]" he does not differ from "Mr. Calvin" by "an hair's breadth." [i]Cf. The Arminian Magazine[/i] (1780), 441-44, for a further incident in the relations between Newton and Wesley.

2. [i]Cf. Journal[/i], III, 320; VII, 389; [i]Letters[/i], II, 110; IV, 297; [i]Works[/i], VI, 199; VIII, 244-46, 249, 340-41; IX, 56-57; X, 347-48.

3. [i]Reasons Against a Separation from the Church of England[/i] (1760), first published as Sec. 13 of [i]A Preservative Against Unsettled Notions in Religion[/i] (Bristol, 1758).

4. A reference to a controversy that had arisen over [i]Eleven Letters from the late Rev. Mr. Hervey to the Rev. Mr. John Wesley[/i], published posthumously in 1764; [i]cf.[/i] Tyerman, [i]Life[/i], II, 526-30. Wesley believed that William Cudworth, erstwhile friend now turned foe, had altered Hervey's text in order to widen the distance between the two former members of the Oxford Holy Club.

5. See above, p.7.

6.Manuscript defective here.

7. "A man of only one book"; see below, p.89.

8. [i]Cf. Sermons[/i] (Sugden), I, 263-79.

9. Johann Gerhardt, trans. by John Wesley, published in [i]Hymns and Sacred Poems[/i] (1739).

10. Manuscript defective; this reading conjectural.

11. Wesley first wrote [i]withdraw[/i], then amended it to [i]wiredraw; cf. Oxford Dictionary[/i], XII.

[url=http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=3z8V4DgB2iYC&dq=outler+wesley&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=513Swsx8zZ&sig=PjO_mJ3HDQls0OiOBynUlonxJGk&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPP1,M1]John Wesley[/url]

Interesting that what was mentioned here happened BEFORE his conversion May 24, 1738.

'Londonderry, May 14, 1765'

?

Interesting that what was mentioned here happened BEFORE his conversion May 24, 1738. http://www.gbod.org/worship/default.asp?act=reader&item_id=5951&loc_id=639,624 Old Joe

I take it that you mean Wesley established his views of perfection prior to his heart being 'strangely warmed'?

As I read this letter it becomes more evident to me (and I have thought this in the past) that even the chiefest of friends are in danger when they speak of subjects and the one [i]assumes[/i] the other is saying one thing when indeed they are saying another.

The term [u]perfection[/u] has always struck me when men would use it in a different way than when I read it in the scriptures. Just a personal observation. it is interesting how my esword Webster emphasizes completeness when using the term 'perfect' but the modern web version of Webster (who knows who Webster is anymore) defines it first as:

1 a: being entirely without fault or defect : flawless

When I hear a man say 'perfect' this is the exact definition I use. What complicates the matter is that my formal training in engines dealt strongly with [i]tolerances[/i] and measurements that go to a thousandth of an inch at times (or less). The training also dealt with interdependent systems that were never 'perfect' but could be brought to a point of acceptable functionality under all conditions.

Understand, for example, that your car faces many challenges if you live in a seasonal climate or a hilly terrain. Some cars run 'perfect' as far as their owner is concerned because they have never seen a -25 F morning or a 15,000 foot mountain slope along I-70 in Colorado. Some have never weathered the brutal heat of the California desert.

So when someone says to me that the used car they are selling runs perfect I automatically run that statement through what I call the [i]Springfield Hyperbole Correction Theorem[/i] (The "Springfield Formula" for short). This is an imaginary theorem designed to take into account variables that the one making the claims are either intentionally or mistakenly ignoring. It seeks to get a more accurate picture of an exaggerated claim.

So for me personally, I can see why so many people challenged Wesley on perfection. And I have read many pages of explanations, etc., but the word itself automatically conjures up things that the person does not mean. There is no way around it. So my first instinct is to challenge the notion. Jesus is our example of 'perfect'. It is a hard thing for me to imagine that with [u]all[/u] things considered I would ever attain to being a flawless example a true facsimile of the inward and outward perfection of Jesus Christ.

So I automatically pour those former concepts and definitions into my understanding. In conversation we rarely have the luxury of reading through all the footnotes. I think this is why all the confusion happens.

But how came this opinion [[i]i.e.[/i] perfection] into my mind? I will tell you with all simplicity. In 1725 I met with Bishop Taylor's [i]Rules of Holy Living and Dying[/i]. I was struck particularly with the chapter upon [i]intention[/i], and felt a fixed intention to "give myself up to God."(5) In this I was much confirmed soon after by the [i]Christian Pattern[/i], and longed to "give God all my heart." This is just what I [b]mean[/b] by "perfection" now. I sought after it from that hour,

Dear Robert, excellent thoughts here and just where I am convinced these things run afoul.

As I read this letter it becomes more evident to me (and I have thought this in the past) that even the chiefest of friends are in danger when they speak of subjects and the one [i][b]assumes[/b][/i] the other is saying one thing when indeed they are saying another.

The term [u]perfection[/u] has always struck me when men would use it in a [b]different[/b] way than when I read it in the scriptures.

So for me personally, I can see why so many people challenged Wesley on perfection. And I have read many pages of explanations, etc., but the word itself automatically conjures up things that the person does not [b]mean[/b].

All my emphasis here goes without saying I suppose and taking off on that very interesting "Springfield Formula" would emphasize again ...

This is an imaginary theorem designed to take into account variables that the one making the claims are either intentionally or mistakenly ignoring.

As applicable to all these things. "Variables".

What is most interesting in these dualistic and I am abusing the word to mean 'sword fights' of theological constructs is how even with an [i]explanation[/i] there is the over doing of it by assimilation and launching off on whatever ones peccadillo's might be. That it isn't enough in itself to take the man at his word but must be truncated, overstated and often frankly just misappropriated.

If anything this is what drives me to frustration and grief, that our [i]imaginary theorem's[/i] or as Philologos has put it and I paraphrase, [i]The little schemes we cook up in our heads[/i] will ignore and displace what was [b]meant[/b] with what is [b]assumed[/b] even when presented with contrary evidences.

I think it is difficult and have been musing much on all this ... That the idea might be a simple merging of disagreements ala [i]"Can't we all just get along"[/i] as some sort of false unity, that there is nothing to be disputed or challenged - That cannot be and still be honest about it. But perhaps if anything, it's that very often these disagreements are not so wide as we might [i]think[/i] and are very often the product of simply misunderstanding or of overshooting, overstating.

An excerpt from another one of his letters caught me as to where I find commonality in these 'old saints', whatever their particular stripe - Puritan or that particularly clever way of putting it [i]Wesley Calvinistic[/i] if I get it right ...

[color=0000FF]"In the year 1726 I met with Kempis's [i]Christian's Pattern[/i]. The nature and extent of [i]inward religion[/i], the religion of the heart, now appeared to me in a stronger light than ever before. I saw that giving even [i]all my life[/i] to God (supposing it possible to do this and go no further) would profit me nothing unless I gave my [i]heart[/i], yea, [i]all my heart[/i] to him.

I saw that "simplicity of intention and purity of affection," [i]one design[/i] in [i]all[/i] we speak or do and [i]one desire[/i] ruling all our tempers, are, indeed, "the wings of the soul," without which she can never ascend to the mount of God."[/color]

([i]Italics[/i], Wesley's)

Just here is where awhile back a certain threatening I had proposed would have been perfect. This out-take presented alongside a John Newton or any other Puritan and a multitude of similar old dead guy's, presented without naming them ... What "hairs breadth" could be found between them? And in my idea at the time, to present out takes and quotes from a variety of constructs, without naming them (at first) who would be able to distinguish who said what, when they are saying the one and same thing ...

[i]Inward religion[/i] or "Heart religion" - Religion of the heart - Students of the heart, like Newton, like Wesley, like Brooks and Chambers and the whole like ... hearted, and like headed - That is what is presented here on SI predominantly and I believe whole heartedly, to abuse the word, is precisely not only what the Lord wrought in exposing and demanding of us, by parable and by disciple but throughout the scriptures, the [i] twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the [b]heart[/b].[/i]

This is the commonality that matters and strangely that which seems to go by the way side while we are all caught up in fine tuning our theological engines, tweaking them into 'perfection' as you so well articulated, not recognizing how well that engine might run in the Mohave but so poorly in the Alps.

Mike's: What is most interesting in these dualistic and I am abusing the word to mean 'sword fights' of theological constructs is how even with an explanation there is the over doing of it by assimilation and launching off on whatever ones peccadillo's might be. That it isn't enough in itself to take the man at his word but must be truncated, overstated and often frankly just misappropriated.

Yes. Do you think that people could be bringing baggage of some sort into these debates that colors their reasoning and it has nothing to do with the other person? Sometimes it seems that people are really debating their own selves in these conversations. Almost like a phantom opponent that is used as an object of some need to vent or something. In other words, they are trying to convince themselves they are right and in the process end up bashing the other person.

This is the commonality that matters and strangely that which seems to go by the way side while we are all caught up in fine tuning our theological engines, tweaking them into 'perfection' as you so well articulated, not recognizing how well that engine might run in the Mohave but so poorly in the Alps.

:lol: I know this is a serious topic, but I found a little humor in this part. When I was a child we had a gokart that we always thought needed tuning no matter how well it was running. We didn't know what we were doing, but we figured if we used a screwdriver to turn that little screw on the carburetor it would run faster. Guess what...

Quote: RobertW wrote: Quote: Interesting that what was mentioned here happened BEFORE his conversion May 24, 1738. http://www.gbod.org/worship/default.asp?act=reader&item_id=5951&loc_id=639,624 Old Joe I take it that you mean Wesley established his views of perfection prior to his heart being 'strangely warmed'?

No, I meant prior to his conversion

Hi Joe,

So did Wesley [i]not[/i] consider the Aldersgate strangely warmed experience to be his true conversion?

Yet it is also very plain that his thoughts had the appearance of advancing quite far with him still being in the unregenerate state.

I am often taken by Wesley's willingness to preach and teach things that he had not personally experienced. It is very striking for me for a person to speak to the subject of perfection at a time when they had not been (according to their own testimony) regenerated yet. That is akin to speaking, preaching and teaching about deliverance from alcohol when the person still struggles with drink.

Obviously Wesley never feared the charge of hypocrisy. By no means am I saying Wesley was hypocritical, I am just saying it would not fly very well today. People assume that the man and the message are one and the same. This is why Ravi Zachrias mentioned recently a woman that asked of the preacher, "It was a wonderful sermon- but is it true in his private life?" I for one want to know that the message is being lived out practically and existentially. I am typically not interested in 'theories'. I think this fact also contributed to a lot of the controversy. I automatically assume that if a person is preaching something they are walking in that reality. Maybe I am wrong at that?

I personally would fear preaching things as truth that I had not personally experienced unless I addressed the subject with a personal disclaimer. But these men had a 'preach it until you reach it" mindset and proved their claims with scripture independent of their own personal walk.

Should we approach perfection as we approach divine healing? I'm asking a real question here and not at all being rhetorical. Is perfection similar to divine healing? One may be on their death bed and preach that God heals and all the while perish from sickness?

Hi Old Joe,

That was a recount of events that happened before his conversion. Shows how far one can go and not yet be converted.

Hope this isn't merely semantics, and not to squabble over it, but again, that same quote:

[b]January 1, 1733[/b], I preached the sermon on "The Circumcision of the Heart," which contains all that I now teach concerning salvation from all sin and loving God with an undivided heart.(8) In the same year I printed (the first year I ventured to print anything), for the use of my pupils, A Collection of Forms of Prayer. And in this I spoke explicitly of giving "the whole heart and the whole life to God." [u]This was then, as it is now[/u], my idea of perfection, though I should have started at the word.

It is a restatement and a reiteration of, at the least, a continuation or continuity of what he meant, "then, as it is now ... [i]my idea of perfection[/i]."

Be it far from me to quibble with his own assessments and have always been truly struck by his forthcoming and honesty, even those wonderful traits that seem to be so often suppressed - either to impress or to save face in far too many of us; namely, to change our minds and re-assess what we believe or even [i]if[/i] we have truly believed ... the strains of;

[i] Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?[/i]

But my wonder is in that possibility that our own assessments, with the advantage of hindsight might still be a bit skewered. I find a lot of similarities reading about John Wesley and hearing it even better in his own words. But it seems to me that this is one long progression, this sojourn or pilgrimage upon this present earth and the way's of the Lord in each of us individually are full of all sorts of mysteries and leadings, things that we are not even aware of ... like, our "conversions". This is what I mean by even Wesley's own honest submission @ Aldersgate and again, what a transparent and rare thing to be admitted, yet that assessment, in his own words;

"[b]Yet my own conscience beareth me witness in the Holy Ghost, that all this time I was but almost a Christian.[/b]"

And to add to this, that other letter, that was brought up elsewhere - [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=26704&forum=35&start=30&viewmode=flat&order=1]Wesley at a low ebb[/url] and his 'admission' to his brother, at that time, that he 'didn't love God, never did' - Both of these still leave me with some suspiciousness ...

Finding this more difficult to put than I know ... Maybe some comparisons or examples would better express it. My own experience, far from Wesley in going along as well and as long as he did, preaching and writing and so forth before that sort of epiphany - I also think I went along for quite some time in an 'almost' state. The real strange thing is, how far back can I go? My own testimony is one of leadings and promptings all through my childhood - At an very early age contemplating death and God, maybe anywhere from 5-8 years old at the time. All throughout my upbringing, church going and catechism under my parents Catholic understandings - general, nominative even, but even during those years and times can still recall many things where my mind would wander, siting in church - staring at the life sized replication of Jesus on the cross, a very 'well done' to put it peculiarly, replication that drew off my thoughts and mind ... again with that foresight of hindsight, I think that even something that would have many ready for yet another controversy due to it's even being portrayed or presented, had a profound effect on me, even if I didn't truly recognize it at the time. Years of prodigal living, a 'rebel with a conscience' due to the very effects instilled by my folks of morals and 'Christianity' even of that Catholic variety. To reiterate again, in a more nominal sense, not a hard-line sort of grasp - Have stated it before, but I don't believe the vast majority of Catholics have any understanding of what the hierarchy actually holds to ... I digress. On and on I could go right up to the nearer present when everything sort of hit a pitch and I cried out in my seriously depraved state and now look back at it as something or the other of "that night", being filled with a warmth that ran through my body physically as I alternately 'gave up' while still somewhat holding on, to my sin that is ...

It's a long way around about it all but it was still a good year or longer before I even picked up the scriptures in earnest, fell into the whole bizzaro world of WOF constructs and the like, ran into more confusion and agony of heart over it all - was presented with the "classics" of the faith and turned 180 back down the Old Paths ...

All of this, from the earliest years of contemplation up until this present writing has a sense of being carried along, led along - I am want to say, God was along, all along. In that sense, the "almost" of an "Almost Christian" would span some 30 odd years. Maybe what I am trying to forward in all this comparison is that for some of us, "instantaneous" is a long, drawn out process, a different sort of progression - It defies the definition of the word but it is full of wonder, awe and that other oft misconstrued word, "mystery".

If I can be even more forthcoming ... It is one of those uncanny things to me that I find so often, whatever I may be reading or attending to at any given moment has this knack of just barely preceding actual, present circumstances. What I mean to say is not that I may read and then the brain tricks itself into finding corollaries, something to be read into - But the opposite, that the experiences precede them just so closely that I wonder almost aloud, 'Goodness, this is precisely where I have been and here is an experience that parallels it.' An example ... the aforementioned letter of Wesley to his brother Charles. I could actually relate even if I would be very hard pressed to make the same statement that "I didn't love God, never had". Yet ... I have lost somewhat of that sense of His presence, the 'slight manifestation of His presence' as I have put it before, that which is hard to articulate .. it's 'felt' past the emotions and sentiments. And this has been going on for a number of months now. I am learning again something that I have been suspicious of, observant of ... Surprises - Seasons - Different ways and times, many of those things expressed by a variety of all these great, past, old, dead saints. The highs and lows we all experience but maybe not as often mentioned, what about those 'somewhere in between' times? I think we like things nice and tidy, explainable, [i]detailed[/i] and yet a lot of it is impossible to articulate. Right now and during this odd season I have found that I cannot pray. Not as I have been more accustomed to, at the same time I cannot shake the ... perception that this is something of just this particular time and that without fail something else will again replace it and that it too will be different, surprising - that I will get back to that praying that I am more accustomed to but it may be different again, maybe even more profound, hopefully, more honest.

It's with some hesitation to go into all the details of what has gone on personally over this course - Layoffs at work, added responsibilities and now a even stranger bit of confusion of doing more in less time - Was quite elevated in heart felt sentiment around Christmas time, not to open up that whole can of worms again - Contemplating on it all in it's ultimate, truest sense, [i]Emmanuel[/i] - A Child is born. Wonderful to be with family and a particular niece who had some major troubles, finding her way to the Lord .. in [i]her own[/i] strange circumstances and leading, a hug or two expressing more than words could ever do. A trip out to the cemetery on Christmas - to pray, (Ah, yes .. pray, like an interlude or break before returning back these days where I cannot) to remember my dear Ma, my Uncle and my Cousin. For California, it was a day more akin to the chilly winds of Chicago, shuddering while knelt over the grave. As that day wore on and it had started a bit earlier, had a different set of chills, was apparently coming down with something and I haven't been sick in quite a long time. By Saturday - Chicken Pox! What in the world? At 45? Didn't I already go through this as a kid? Apparently not. And highly contagious! Oh my, my niece! My wife, my step-son, Oh Lord don't let me pass this on to them. And what a sight, covered in itchy boils, everywhere, hundreds of them, a pounding headache that I could no longer bare after two nights lost sleep, off to the ER, with a warning that I was coming - they had a room waiting for me :-) . But also, what a humility and a humbling - '[i]Look at you now, boy'[/i] -

The economy and finances - The waring factions here over the C&A constructs. All these things taken together and yet ... a strange, different sort of calm to it all. It is nothing short of [i]bizarre[/i]. It does seem sort of like that being tossed to and fro, not with every wind of doctrine, but more ... carried along. Trust and faith, while sentiment and 'feeling' wise I seem almost ... cold. It is where I can take what Wesley stated about his 'not loving God' in a very hard way to express and say, yes, I think I know something of that, something of what he means. But I am also thinking of what he expressed as a continuation of that and where we might camp on one aspect at the expense of the whole context,

[color=0000FF]And yet I dare not preach otherwise than I do, either concerning faith, or love, or justification, or perfection. And yet I find rather an increase than a decrease of zeal for the whole work of God and every part of it. I am ... ["so swept along"] (I know not how) that I can't stand still. I want all the world to come to ... ["what I do not know myself']. Neither am I impelled to this by fear of any kind. I have no more fear than love. Or if I have [any fear, it is not of falling] into hell, but of falling into nothing.[/color]

It's all very expansionary, my own present circumstances hardly mirror his in exactness, hardly in likeness - I want to say that it is similar only in ... sentiment, that 'being swept along', "I do not know how".

I am likely a bit all over the place with this and a part of me wants to articulate something more broadly in these examinations of ourselves, of others. This particular letter (to Charles) set off some alarms apparently from my tooling around, the mention elsewhere, here (the other posting). It does sound quite alarming on the surface and maybe it is 'natural' to take off and expound upon that great, sweeping admission as it seems to be ... My wonder, in something like this letter, in our theological wrestlings, are we not often practicing something of 'detail overload'? The mentions earlier about asceticism of ourselves, the [i]over[/i] examination and navel gazing - What about of [i]others[/i]? Like Wesley, like many others ... dare I say Finney comes to mind quite largely. Is this really [i]everything[/i], even if we would in a knee-jerk sort of reaction say to ourselves "of course not", but we go on anyway, don't we? Postulating and surgically dismantling expressions, transparencies - snapshots or the 'trailers' of movies that constitute whole lives. But not only dismantle, but put back together Frankenstein like - No wonder we are so often misconstruing things and building ... monsters out of poor souls that have the verve and the nerve to upchuck their innards before all.

Give me an honest man any-day of the week, a 'heathen', an atheist, a Christan tossed and thrown about but still hanging on for dear life -Anyone, adaptable - willing to be challenged but moreover really [i]considerable[/i], thinking, contemplative - re-assessable - Who cannot but change his or her mind and that more often. It is at the least, something to work with.

Since I am rambling ... Prayer. It has been everything to me for so long ... It's not in this set of particulars completely absent, but just different. Even yesterday I uttered this half statement\\half question. "Lord, you are doing this ... aren't you ...?" It seems that it is all just unanswered, just held in an abeyance - I will go on and trust irregardless, "pray" as I can - Part of it seems to be some certain stubbornnesses on my end. Part of it is that sense of the "Heavens are brass" where I seem to be petitioning to a wall. I have sinned and repented, but in all honesty my emotions are neither hot nor cold nor even lukewarm, if that were possible. Flat is the word. Nothing is also the word, drawing off of Wesley again. But carried along nevertheless, faintly, almost and just barely imperceivable. But a different 'sense' .. of being watched over, looked on ... Strange days indeed. And I must say, I wouldn't have it any other way, right now. There is some strange, latent ... 'joy' underneath it all, a certain contentment and deeper trusting. What a walking, talking, writing - contradiction!

:-)

Hi Old Joe,

Thanks for the link there, the later one detailing his changing views ... I found it slightly ironic that my own 'detail overload' comment was pretty applicable also reading through it all. To be honest I kind of checked out about 60% of the way down ... a bit too much, I guess I had forgotten a lot of these things. On the one hand being in that position, of a pastor\\preacher and making a statement anywhere along the line and then being taken to to task over it, having to continuously clarify - re-define it, 'defend' it in the sense of where others having given it it's own wings and ran with it ... On the other hand, all of things in [i]themselves[/i] seem to amount to word overdose, it's just all too much wrangling it seems.

This is a bit unfair, but for my clarifications;

What then is Christian perfection in 1760 for John Wesley? His stock answer is-"The loving God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength."

Is taken from it all, yet my admission here is that I had forgotten about all the barnacles attached and likely contradicted myself here a bit by jumping to the end as it were and painting a picture out of a 'snapshot'.

I guess I am leaning more and more to the same thing that Art Katz once said about 'becoming more simpler everyday' - Too much technical analysis in all these theological ... reasonings.

Yes. Do you think that people could be bringing baggage of some sort into these debates that colors their reasoning and it has nothing to do with the other person? Sometimes it seems that people are really debating their own selves in these conversations. Almost like a phantom opponent that is used as an object of some need to vent or something. In other words, they are trying to convince themselves they are right and in the process end up bashing the other person.

Brother, this stood out and has been running through my mind since you wrote it. I do not know if a better observation has ever been uttered. Over the years here, this seems very, very true indeed. I am certain I have done it time and again, so easy to get caught up in ones own thoughts ... a certain line of thinking that you can end up doing this even unaware. Hindsight and the span of time often bring back that sense of regret. Reading old posts can really bring this truth home ...

But it is also seen all over the place - "Open air" preaching sadly seems to be a place for a lot of this, almost like playing off the crowd, even without the hecklers, they could be (the crowd) unwilling (unwitting?) participants just as hearers while the preacher is postulating and 'grand standing' just to hear himself, or prove himself 'right' and that to their own selves. "Care and concern" do not often seem to be underwritten in it at all, it may be on some level but it just does not convey.

That is a monumental statement brother.

But it is also seen all over the place - "Open air" preaching sadly seems to be a place for a lot of this, almost like playing off the crowd, even without the hecklers, they could be (the crowd) unwilling (unwitting?) participants just as hearers while the preacher is postulating and 'grand standing' just to hear himself, or prove himself 'right' and that to their own selves..

How can a person retreat from such a forceful argument and if necessary- admit they were wrong?

Something I have been particularly sensitive to since Greenock is putting myself in a position that I don't feel like I can [i]retreat[/i] or [i]repent[/i]. I am afraid that I have found myself at times feeling like folk look up to me in some sense, true or not, and allowing that sense to dictate whether or not I will respond to God (or the truth when I hear it).

So I see a danger in all of this among those that seem to be leaders, etc. There needs to be an ongoing willingness to allow examination of our teachings and behavior with an added willingness to amend either our doctrine or behavior should revision be necessary. But there is a dreadful fear, almost greater than all fears; that I may have to admit I was wrong- which admission could diminish what I perceive to be my standing or responsibility in the eyes of the people.

I have often thought, and I know this is a little off subject, that revival was hindered by leaders unwillingness to allow themselves to be cast in a negative light though admission of wrong doctrine (beliefs) and admission of shortcomings. Fear of being perceived as we really are likely has hindered a great many repentances. But how can a person go forward that is bent on being right and appearing to be right at almost all costs?