John Wesley and programmed Friends

Like any other group, Quakers have been influenced by the ideas, contexts, and movements that have shaped our world. Since the emergence of Quakers in the 17th Century, Quakers have both enriched society, and been enriched. One of the cultural conversations that has had a marked influence on programmed Quakers is Wesleyanism. In fact, it might be safe to say that it is Wesleyan evangelical Christianity in conversation with unprogrammed Quakers that led to the development of programmed Quakers in the United States.

But to what extent has a Wesleyan heritage diminished the vibrancy of our Quaker testimonies? What in Wesleyanism is a corruption of the actual teachings of John Wesley himself? How can the Wesleyan and Quaker threads within programmed Friends engage in productive dialogue?

George Fox University Professor of Religion Irv Brendlinger has agreed to field some of my questions on this topic. Irv is an expert on both Quakers and John Wesley. He recently published two books, one on the writings of 18th Century Quaker Anthony Benezet, To Be Silent Would be Criminal..., and one on John Wesley, Social Justice Through the Eyes of Wesley. Over the course of this entry I link to Wikipedia for those who would like a little more background on terms and people mentioned. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is only a starting point to give a basic frame of reference and cannot be as thorough (or accurate) as a more detailed source. If you really want to learn more about John Wesley and Anthony Benezet I suggest getting copies of Irv's recent books.

Irv, you have a strong background in Wesleyan studies, You were a pastor in the Church of God (Anderson, Indiana), you attended Asbury Theological Seminary, and your Ph. D. from the University of Edinburgh (Scotland) focused on Wesley. Since then, you have become a convinced Friend and a Recorded Minister at Reedwood Friends Church. How has your Wesleyan background complimented your experience as a Quaker? Have you come across any points of deviation and, if so, how have you reconciled them?

I was initially intrigued to see much continuity between Wesleyan theology and Quaker theology there is. As you indicated, I first became familiar with Wesley, and after that, Quakerism. Points of continuity would include the strong view of the restoration of the Imago Dei [Image of God] in humankind. While many Wesleyans don't seem to recognize this, or emphasize it, it is clear in Wesley himself. It is also a strong position among Friends. Rejecting "preaching up sin to the grave" would be dogmatically held by Wesley and early Quaker leader George Fox ... and me :-). Another point of continuity would include the concept of "light" for Fox, and "conscience" for Wesley. Wesley believed that God worked through prevenient grace to re-establish a reliable conscience in persons who were really depraved. Quakers hold that the Light of Christ is available to all. That brings up universal atonement and the possibility of universal salvation (not universalism), and both Wesley and Quakers hold to that.

A place of difference would be the concept of total depravity. Wesley held to it, even claiming that on that doctrine he was "within a hair's breadth" of Calvin. He was only able to reconcile human responsibility with depravity by means of his view of prevenient grace. On the other hand, it seems to me that Quakers do not hold as "total" a view of depravity as did Wesley. Modern Wesleyans may actually be closer to Quakers than Wesley would have been.

The views of the sacraments would obviously be quite different. Individual members could probably be "reconciled" to understand the other view, but would lean toward a different view.

Back to the earlier part of the question, I believe that my understanding of Wesley's view of Christian Perfection (you might want to see my article on "Transformative Dimensions within Wesley's Understanding of Christian Perfection") was a terrific set up for coming to terms with the Quaker view of God effecting authentic change in persons, and facilitating their living into their full potential. Likewise, Wesley's refusal to "condemn to hell" those who had never heard the gospel was good preparation for grasping the Quaker view of every individual being judged by the light he/she has, rather than quoting some religious formula. Wesley's valuing the human person, as seen in his response to the poor and the oppressed, is very consonant (and preparatory for me) with Quaker values of individuals, especially as seen in how we do business and make corporate decisions. While Wesley may not have been as patient with Quaker process, he held the values that are expressed through it.

A major point of deviation seems to be related to NWYM's broad acceptance of the "holiness tradition," and by that I mean Wesleyan theology as interpreted by the late 19th and 20th century holiness movement. That involves those who preached "sinless perfection." I've "resolved" that very easily, by seeing the holiness tradition departing from Wesley's actual theology. He never saw "Christian Perfection" or "holiness" as a "doctrine." It was the "second major branch of Christianity," alongside justification. It was the natural application of justification. True justification results in life transformation (not just “forgiveness") or sanctification. So, both Wesley and I would take issue with both the holiness tradition's and the Quaker's co-opting of that tradition, which makes sanctification a doctrine. For Wesley (and me) it is a distinction, not a doctrine. It is the wholesome working out of and response to the reality of being in authentic relationship with God as a result of God's unconditional forgiveness. (You get me to preaching!)

What aspects of Wesleyan theology give you life? Has this led to any particularity in the way you celebrate life among Friends?

Wesley's understanding of Christian Perfection as God's means, by faith, of fully restoring God's Image in us. This is lived out by demonstrating love for neighbor in visible and practical ways (not in holding certain beliefs). This is something which can easily be preached and received by Friends, because it is completely reflective of the lives of Quaker leaders. Wesley's understanding simply fuels and broadens the Friends' perspective. The danger is when Friends try to specify theological vocabulary, and become trapped in holiness doctrine and miss the essence (which was Wesley's essence) of love of God and neighbor, which is the essence of Christian perfection.

Another aspect of Wesley is his incredible organizational ability. If that is coupled with the Quaker valuing of individuals, it is a winning combination.

Within the broader category of Quakers, there are several different groups. You and I are evangelical Friends who worship in a programmed setting. How have Wesleyan influences impacted evangelical Friends? Is this influence felt in other branches of Friends?

Second part of question: I do not think Wesley has been nearly as much an influence on non-evangelical Friends. He has been a strong influence on evangelical Friends, or perhaps even moreso, the holiness movement has been. For me, the positive Wesley influence relates to the need for strong preaching and teaching. That is what Wesley brings to Quakers. What true Quaker theology brings is the value of silence and the actual opportunity to respond to the truth of preaching in waiting to hear the Present Christ in our midst. It seems to me that the blend is where the dynamic is completed: I believe that Christ speaks through a programmed worship experience, including the message, but I then believe that the Spirit takes the truth further and plants it deeply in our hearts and leads us to specific application as we listen sensitively in silence. Unfortunately, we programmed Friends too seldom invest the time and teaching required to listen to the Present Christ. I would love to have John Wesley in a vibrant Quaker community ... listening to a Spirit inspired message, and then listening to the Spirit to draw the application in the heart. Winning combo? Yes.

So, Evangelical Friends have often taken the strength of Wesley, and forgotten to blend that with the strength of Quakerism.

Among evangelical Friends, there are many that equate Wesley and his influence with conservative 19th and 20th Century theology. Is this equation justified?

I think I've answered that above. Wesley cannot be equated with what his followers did. They missed some of his dynamic, by allowing his truth to be formulated. So, as Calvin would not be at home with many Calvinists, so Wesley would not be at home with many Wesleyans. If we add the Quaker holiness tradition to that, neither Fox nor Wesley would be at home. That means it is time to re-examine both Fox (& Barclay) and Wesley. The delightful thing about Fox and Barclay and Woolman and Benezet is that (I believe) they would not be a good fit for 20^th Century conservative theology.

Has Wesleyan evangelicalism strayed from the theology and spirituality of John Wesley himself? Where?

Yes, again, as in above. They have turned sanctification into a doctrine, and an issue that separates them from other groups. This happened as well in Wesley's lifetime, and he was not successful in preventing it, even though he said things that indicate he tried. For example, he indicated that he had no particular fondness for and seldom used the term "perfection." That may have been his wish, because it was typically interpreted as "sinless perfection," or a kind of absolute perfection, which he rejected. But the truth is that he did like the term and used it. He could use it without meaning "sinless," but others heard it and assumed their own interpretation.

The other area of straying is in spirituality. I believe that Wesley was deeply sensitive spiritually. His followers sometime are more in tune with his practices than his sensitivity. Of course, to go beyond evangelicalism, the more liberal branches of Methodism have missed Wesley's heart, and his sensitivity to the relational aspect of the gospel. I find it interesting that
both sides have missed key elements of Wesley.

If John Wesley were alive, and happened to walk into a Northwest Yearly Meeting Church, what would he find familiar?

Very little. He was an ordained priest of the Church of England. He would miss the liturgy. One thing he would find familiar would be the sermon, but the style would be different.

What would he find exciting?

I expect he would love the warm heartedness of the people, willing to share their lives. However, he would see this as more related to his class meetings and bands, not with worship.

What would he find disconcerting?

Lack of formality, lack of clerical garb, lack of Eucharist, lack of respect. What would be interesting would be to dialogue with him about how his system of worship, cf. class meetings, bands, society, relate to our various gatherings. I would love to converse with him about the role and meaning of worship of the gathered church, and also about how we disciple, teach and train. This is a fun question and leads to more important issues than form: how did he, and how do we accomplish our goals in our various gatherings.

If you want a nice picture of the variety and forms of Wesley's meetings, see D. Michael Henderson's John Wesley's Class Meeting. (Francis Asbury Press)

The Northwest Yearly Meeting has been undergoing some changes in the last decade or so. In many ways these changes seem to be a move from what has been labeled "generic American evangelicalism" to an evangelicalism more informed by Quaker distinctives and spirituality. In his own time, Wesley was also a church reformer and revitalizer. What can the NWYM learn from Wesley's reform efforts?

Wesley related to his age by doing things that the culture was familiar with. Notably, Charles Wesley's music related to the culture. This, of course, raises a terrific hot button, but the problem lies in mixing "worship" with "evangelism." For Wesley, evangelism was done in the world, and worship and teaching were done in gathered meetings. We need to discern how to distinguish what we are doing and what audience we are dealing with. Wesley was clear, and had NO difficulty with that because he actually WENT OUT to the people who needed to hear him. Street meetings were effective then, and worship was NOT their purpose. What I think we can learn from Wesley is to stop using the gathered meeting as a place to evangelize those who are "sensitive." Quakers need to be educated to be sensitive to seekers in real life, not in a worship service. Not that we should be insensitive there, but sensitivity is most helpful and appropriate where people are. Wesley also moved significantly in attacking oppression. He created systems to address the health care needs of people, his people, and people in general. He created loan systems for those in financial need who could get re-started if they had help. He, obviously, supported governmental change on systemic oppression, with prison reform, education, slavery. Take a look at the little essay I have near the end of the Wesley book, appdendix 2, p. 193. It has some hard data on what Wesley actually did.

Recently two of your books were published. One book is on John Wesley: Social justice through the eyes of Wesley: John Wesley's theological challenge to slavery; and the other book is on the 18th century Quaker Anthony Benezet: To Be Silent... Would be Criminal: The Antislavery Influence and Writings of Anthony Benezet . These subsequent publishings seem to me to be suggestive of your intellectual and spiritual passions. In your own thoughts, are these two books complementary?

Yes, certainly. The role of Quakers, particularly Benezet, in Wesley's life is unmistakable. However, what Wesley did with that influence is significant in that the huge mass of his followers were able to effect change in Parliament and society in general. I think the Benezet factor makes the Wesley factor possible and ties it to the specific social justice issue of slavery. Without that, Wesley would have had influence on prison reform and other issues, but possibly not on the overwhelmingly important issue of slavery. It makes one wonder about the conversations these two guy had (are having?) in heaven!


When I think of groups that claim Wesleyan heritage, I do not automatically think of social reforms. Yet, the title of your recent book on Wesley suggests that he was very concerned about the way his inward faith turned outward. How did Wesley enflesh his social conscience? Is there any evidence to suggest that he was influenced by early Friends?

Wesley's social conscience was influenced by his understanding of scripture. The role (I see) that Quakers played for him was not to give him a social conscience, but to direct him to the area where that conscience could be applied and could make a difference. He himself said :"there is no holiness, but social holiness." (That is in his preface to the poetical works of John & Charles Wesley, I believe). I do not see much of an influence by early friends. The earlier Wesley distrusted Quakers, and thought of them as a sect. He saw them as Quietists, and sometimes as Enthusiasts, those who believed they heard the voice of God apart from, and in contradiction to scripture. The surprising thing is that with his biased attitude against Quakers, he would be willing to learn from Benezet. That is amazing, but it also leads me to think that what he learned from Quakers was the application of his already developed theology. Ah, yes, another wonderful quote from Wesley: he saw "holy solitaries" as liable as "holy adulterers." Those are his words. :-). The influences we do know that touched Wesley were A'Kempis, William Law, and Jeremy Taylor. Law influenced him much on Christian perfection.

The Friends, originating in 17th Century England, and Wesley ministering nearly the length of the 18th Century in England, were both products of their times. That is, both the Friends and Wesley himself were shaped during times of rising industrialism, urbanization, and the philosophies of the Enlightenment. Moreover, since their inception, both Friends and those who claim Wesleyan lineage have been continually shaped by their particular contexts. Of course, much of this is inevitable and even desirable and yet our challenge today is to be critical of anything in our heritage that would get in the way of faithfulness to participation in God's mission. Where do 21st Century Friends need to rebuke aspects cultural captivity so as to be open and obedient as a people, equipped and transformed by the Holy Spirit for mission?

Would a conversation with our Quaker heritage and our Wesleyan heritage be helpful in translating the Gospel within a postmodern context? Absolutely! Some of Wesley's theology tied to Quaker process would be productive. Also, Wesley's organization and strong teaching must be tied to Quaker sensitivity to silence and listening, and the value of the human being.

The problem that I see relates to watching a group make a difference in society, and then simply mimicking them and allowing their dynamic process to become formulaic. We try to do what they did, rather than examining why they did things and how they learned from their cultural context what needed to be done. It is as simple as responding to human need. Many of the social reforms were results of simply taking seriously the specific human (or world) needs. The love of Christ motivated such sensitivity. Then, typically, the next generation simply continued the actions of the group that responded to need. The key is to forget the past in terms of actions, and mimic them in terms of their willingness to respond to need. I believe that both Benezet and Wesley (as well as Woolman) allowed their sensitivity to God to sensitize them to those around them. When that occurs, new and relevant programs will occur, but the people who work those programs, if they remain sensitive to human need, will not become slaves to the programs, and bound to continue them regardless of outcome. They will, rather, be slaves to others. In Luther's words, interceding for, actually taking on the sins of others, as Christ interceded for and took on our sins. The Quaker distinctive is that in silence we begin to hear the Spirit's directing about how to respond to need.

We need to reject the "noise" of our culture (even our evangelical culture) and create space to listen. We need to be strong enough to reject the values of others, especially Christians, who interpret scripture in self serving ways. That is the problem with the "Evangelical culture." We need to awaken our society to the truth of history: war does NOT solve problems, so we must think creatively about how to present viable alternatives. That must include education. We must learn to worship. It is in worship that God brings the pieces together and creates wholeness out of our thoughts, our desires, our drives, our good wishes.

Thanks for your thoughts Irv!