MA Dissertation Proposal
Hey Ladies and Gentlemen:
I just wanted to let you all know what I am working on in school. The following is my MA Dissertation proposal for the University of Manchester via Nazarene Theological College. Please let me in on your thoughts, concerns, suggestions, book titles, etc. Any help is greatly appreciated. Cheers.
Proposed Title of Dissertation: On the Sacramental Theology of John Wesley
Outline of Subject Matter of Dissertation:
The purpose of this dissertation is to discover the sacramental theology of John Wesley, his understanding and practice of the sacraments within the church. What did John Wesley believe about the Christian Sacraments, and how are the Sacraments effective in the Christian life? According to Wesley, is Sacramental theology effective for missions?
Outline of Research Method:
This will require a theology of the Sacraments according to John Wesley, which will include an understanding of the sacramental theology of the Church of England. Did John Wesley face controversy over his sacramental theology? Was he criticized for his theology of the sacraments being the “means of grace”? From whom did John Wesley receive his understanding of the Sacraments? How did Wesley pronounce his belief in the Sacraments in practice and in speech?
In thanks,
Joseph
I just wanted to let you all know what I am working on in school. The following is my MA Dissertation proposal for the University of Manchester via Nazarene Theological College. Please let me in on your thoughts, concerns, suggestions, book titles, etc. Any help is greatly appreciated. Cheers.
Proposed Title of Dissertation: On the Sacramental Theology of John Wesley
Outline of Subject Matter of Dissertation:
The purpose of this dissertation is to discover the sacramental theology of John Wesley, his understanding and practice of the sacraments within the church. What did John Wesley believe about the Christian Sacraments, and how are the Sacraments effective in the Christian life? According to Wesley, is Sacramental theology effective for missions?
Outline of Research Method:
This will require a theology of the Sacraments according to John Wesley, which will include an understanding of the sacramental theology of the Church of England. Did John Wesley face controversy over his sacramental theology? Was he criticized for his theology of the sacraments being the “means of grace”? From whom did John Wesley receive his understanding of the Sacraments? How did Wesley pronounce his belief in the Sacraments in practice and in speech?
In thanks,
Joseph
posted by Joseph | 12:18 PM
14 Comments:
Here are some web based resources that may be helpful. From my own graduate studies, I understand that web refrences must be limited, but I think these will point you toward some good primary sources.
John Wesley and the Anglo-Catholic Revival by G.W. Taylor http://anglicanhistory.org/misc/taylor_wesley.html
The Dictionary of National Biography: Wesley, John (1703-1791) http://www.ccel.org/ccel/ccel/eee/files/wesleyj.htm
http://wesley.nnu.edu/
It would be interesting to know how Wesley viewed the sacraments and then parallel that with the historical development of the use of sacraments in the Nazarene church. I am wondering politicaly how we moved to communion once a quarter.
Joesph,
I'm interested in hearing what you find. I'm wondering about what you think the difference might be between a defined sacramental theology found in Wesley's thought, and Anglican spirituality that is rooted in the Book of Common Prayer? One being a function of systematic theological reflection and the later being a "monastic devotion (intentionality)."
Anyway, I'm not even sure that makes sense. peace, Brian
To Levi:
The short answer is this: The 19th Century Holiness Movement in America occurred in the time between John Wesley and the Church of the Nazarene. This is the abridged answer to the fact that the Lord's Supper has lost its importance in the C of N.
I'm afraid that the preliminary research shows a parallel of Wesley to the C of N in regards to ideology. In other words, Wesley was a staunch Churchman of the Church of England his whole life, but towards the end of his life, he became more lax in his implementation of certain ideals of which he held his whole life.
In the C of N, we can see somewhat of a parallel in this regard. We seem to have become lax as we near our 100th birthday in our practice of being true to our Nazarene forefathers.
My concern is not so much the parallel, as the difference between John Wesley and his future followers, the Church of the Nazarene. More specifically, and obviously, how have we moved from John Wesley who participated in comunion AT LEAST one time each week "to communion once a quarter" in our current "Wesleyan" church?
Or from a John Wesley who believed whole-heartedly in Infant Baptism to a C of N who, for the most part, do not even know that Infant Baptism is in the Manual?
To Mr. Brian:
In regards to the first question, John Wesley was born and died in the Church of England. There is no difference in theology of the two. Wesley's main concern was a Revival of the Church of England, not a new denomination or new church. The only place one may find a difference in the Book of Common Prayer and John Wesley's theology in regards to it would be his revision of this Book for the American Church. For example, he revised the liturgy in the Book of Common Prayer for the Church in America by taking out the "God save the King/Queen" references. For obvious reasons, the Church in America could care less about the king or queen post-1776.
Yes, you will have to expain what you mean by "monastic devotion".
Cheers.
Joseph
My main point is to distinguish between wesleyan piety and wesleyan systematic theology. What's interesting to me is not what Wesley's sacramental theology was but rather the importance of sacramental piety(devotion).
Maybe Wesley's embrace of the supper was more intuitive than rational. We can certainly apply the discipline of systematics upon his sacramental practice, as long as we don't end up with another quadralateral. :-)
I may be barking up a strange tree.
Peace,
Brian
This is well travelled ground you are beginning upon. Ole Borgen's book "John Wesley on the Sacraments" would be one of the main books to deal with, as well as Ted Campbell's "John Wesley and Christian Antiquity." Wesley's own essay "On the Duty of Constant Communion" would be a good read.
[Having just re-read what I have written below, let me begin by apologizing, to Joseph primarily, for being an antagonistic git in what follows - you know where I'm at, brother, so just take this as a healthy intellectual challenge to think meta-critically about what you're setting out to do in this dissertation.]
I am suspicious of any attempt to construe from Wesley either a systematic or a sacramental theology per se. But then again, I don't make a habit of reading much Wesley! ;-) (as many of you know!)
No, seriously: what I mean is, it seems to me that the value of Wesley is precisely as a practitioner; not as an "academic" theologian (i.e. a "theologian proper") nor as a liturgist or a sacramental thinker (again, in any singularly coherent, proper sense) but as one who practiced what he believed and believed what he practiced. In this sense, I don't see how it is significant at all to the Church of the Nazarene what a "Wesleyan Sacramental Theology" might look like - determining such is not going to by any necessity compel us to adopt such. Rather, I would encourage anyone committed to thinking about and thinking through these issues to devote themselves to discovering (or recovering) a sacramental theology that is acceptable to and consistent with the Wesleyan tradition (which, again, is itself more practical than intellectual).
See, my suspicions kick in the moment someone says something like "the Lord's Supper has lost its importance in the CoTN." The Lord's Supper hasn't lost anything in the COTN because it has never occupied a central place in the COTN in the first instance. One might say: "In the C of N, we can see somewhat of a parallel in this regard [between the laxity of the later-Wesley and our own]. We seem to have become lax as we near our 100th birthday in our practice of being true to our Nazarene forefathers"; but in fact to the contrary, if anything we could chart a steady increase of the importance of the Lord's Supper in the COTN over its not-quite-100-yr. history, as many churches have moved from the "bare minimum" of once per quarter to once a month, and with many churches (and in increasing numbers) moving toward weekly or nearly-weekly communion services. Correspondingly, all it takes is a conversation with a Nazarene "old-timer" to realize that our observance of select aspects of the liturgical calendar such as Advent and Lent have risen dramatically in just the last few decades, and many pastors have begun to discover the value of the lectionary in their preaching ministry. These are all steps in the direction of what I would call a more "sacramental" way of being-the-Church, and we shouldn't disparage in the least the strides we have made or are at least beginning to make.
Now, bear in mind that the tendancy toward quarterly communion can be definitively traced back to the Reformation in general and Calvin's teaching in particular, which was a direct response to the lack of congregational involvement in the Mass (e.g. the faithful receiving only the bread but not the wine, and/or communicating only once a year, etc) in the (late-)medieval church. In short, this is not a Wesleyan thing, nor is it an American Holiness thing. It is a Protestant thing par excellence, with even deeper roots in what was at the time a Catholic thing, and we are simply the heritors of that tradition, in all its awful and beautiful complexity. (To invoke Jaroslav Pelikan's oft-cited observation, we must never forget that the Reformation was a necessary tragedy, and all the moreso because those who considered it necessary didn't see it as tragic, while those who regarded it as tragic failed to grasp its utter necessity.)
Again, this is just my take on the matter, but it seems to me that any attempt to understand why or how the COTN (or whatever denomination) lost the plot when it comes to the sacraments is finally time wasted - what we should be doing if we want to renew our sacramental life as a church is figuring out ways to rediscover and reconnect ourselves to that greater tradition that we have for so long defined ourselves in opposition toward. So, again, not so much "what was Wesley's sacramental theology?" so that we can act in accordance, but rather, "what could a truly robust and fully sacramental theology that is still in accordance with our Wesleyan/Holiness/Nazarene tradition look like, in doctrine and in practice?" so we can then work towards the latter.
Brannon's last paragraph there is probably a good way of framing the main question. Wesley himself assumed most of his sacramental theology, and didn't feel the pressing need to explicate it. Hence you have Churches in the Wesleyan tradition now in crisis over the actual meaning of things like baptism. Eucharist seems to be less problematic, from my point of view, in Wesleyan-stream Churches than baptism. E.g., I have come across ordained Nazarene ministers who have never been baptized! Now, how does that work out?
Holy crap, that actually makes my heart physically ache... I don't even know what to say...
The ache is in Manchester as well, Brannon and Matthew, but it does not surprise me in our eclectic Church we call, Nazarene. More on this in a later post.
To all, Brannon and I have made up. We discussed our issues and worked them out yesterday, so we can continue.
The former statement is in reference to Brannon's comment that seemed to "bash" me. Brannon and I have been going back and forth for a long time, so don't think he's ripping me a new one. It is always in Christian and academic love.
But out of our conversasion surfaced some good things, which I will try to put together in some form of coherence to the benefit of the crew here. I will post this as a dialogue and hopefully it will make sense. (Posted with permission of Brannon and Joseph; edited for clarity by Joseph)
Joseph: there is no systematic wesley, he was practical in nature, yes, but there have been those who have attempted a systematic approach to his theology, but this cannot be properly done outside of his practical life
Brannon: based on what little of Wesley i know, that's what i've come to think - that Wesley isn't doing anything "systematically"
Joseph: my attempt, is not practical, and is not systematic, i am just reading right now
Brannon: sure, as you should be
Joseph: that quadrilateral is not a wesley concept, it was fabricated out of someones reading of him, therefore, he is labeled with it, so as to appease the systematic theologians who call themselves wesleyan
Brannon: it's just a reappropriation of the Anglican tripartite notion of Scripture, Tradition and Reason (in that order) which Wesley would have believed. but yeah, as i understand it, it is something that those who began labelling themselves as Welseyans construed out from his work. well, as with most reformative-types - i mean, Luther was in no way a "Lutheran" - Calvin was not a "Calvinist" - Wesley is a far cry from "Wesleyan"
Joseph: one cannont take wesley out of the context of the church of england
Brannon: its always those overzealous converts who come after who cock it all up
Joseph: ie, coke, asbury, flecher
my attempts in this paper is to read Wesley and what he says about the sacraments, instead of taking a specific "approach" (systematic, practical, piety) i am reading him narratively, as one would read the bible, or one should (?) read the bible
Brannon: there you go - should
yeah, don't get me wrong at all - i think an understanding of Wesley's own Anglican sacramental piety and theology is an invaluable resource for thinking about these issues in our own church and in our own time - i mean, considering we regard ourselves as part of that theological/practical/missional (whatever) "tradition". but personally, as i said, i'd be more interested in thinking about "sacramental renewal" for our church today in a way that is consistent with our tradition going back to Wesley, but I suspect that an attempt to resurrect something like "Wesley's sacramentalism" would have no real appeal to the COTN - i mean, why should we suddenly begin caring about such things when we never have?
Joseph: i want to know wesley and his understanding and practice of the sacraments as fully as possible, before i make an assessment on the church of today or how this understanding can be implemented to the church of today
Brannon: what i mean is "how catholic/orthodox can we be and still be consistent with our denomination's own heritage?"
Joseph: "our denomination's own heritage" has to answer for making the claim, "we are wesleyan" no?
Brannon: yes, but again, Wesley and "Wesleyan" are not the same thing
Joseph: but it is interrelated, to claim wesleyan, one has to look at the man, wesley
Brannon: i agree - and admire you (and others) for taking up this task... i'm just not convinced that Nazarenes are all that Wesleyan, really. maybe that's it - i mean, your avg Nazarene couldn't tell you the first thing about Wesley - I suspect most wouldn't even know what century he lived in
Joseph: : thats my premise! nazarenes are not all that wesleyan, so what does this mean? for us now and for our heritage
Brannon: so i just remain concerned that the way "forward" for us isn't necessarily by going back to a figure that we have so little actual relationship to
Joseph: right, my task is to find the difference in wesleyan understanding and wesley's understanding of the sacraments, and how these understandings have been translated through the past 200 years to our c of n today
Brannon: and i think you're right - we do need to understand this part of our own heritage to be able to truly think constructively about how to proceed - i'm just glad there are other people to dig into all the Wesley stuff, so i don't have to! :-) we could say we've been in identity crisis since day-one. but then, we're all about "crisis" - always have been
Joseph: thank you pheobe palmer
Brannon: i guess that actually quanstrom's book illustrates the problem i see in trying to re-connect (or indeed connect for the first time) the COTN to our methodist/anglican roots by "going back to Wesley" - i mean, there is a very large and loudly-voiced contingency of the denomination, which Quanstrom represents, i think, who see each attempt to "go back to Wesley" as a departure from our holiness-Nazarene identity
Joseph: true, but it seems as if the church needs an identity that surpasses our 100 yr life. seems like there are those out there who need a connection to the nearer past rather than just claiming orthodox Christianity
Brannon: so yes, we have this crisis, and i'm afraid that using Wesley as the resource or the template is almost immediately divisive between those who would say we are WESLEYAN-holiness and those who would call us Wesleyan-HOLINESS
Joseph: esp being an american born denomination where one has to fight to be known, "church of the nazarene, eh? what is that?" "well, we are like the methodists, wesleyan churches", "oh, methodist, like the President?"
Brannon: sure - it's market-share, etc. that's always going to be the downfall of the american church, i suspect our über-capitalist mentality
I will stop this dialogue here for our purposes of this conversasion on the MA Dissertation Proposal. This is to help you gain a better understanding of where I am taking this dissertation, and where I am now in the research.
There is more to the dialogue, but I will save that for a later post.
May we continue in the Love of Christ...
Joseph
Did we make UP, or make OUT...? ;-) You know I love you, brother. ~bh
By the by, I need to make a correction: Pelikan's phrase to describe the Reformation is "tragic necessity"...not "necessary tragedy" as I mistakenly said - his way sounds so much better (even though it evinces basically the same idea).
Also, I deeply apologize to anyone who might have found my "overzealous converts" comment offensive. This was actually in jest and in our IM chat was (or should have been) accompanied by a winking-smiley that may have been lost in translation. That's what I get for trying to be witty, and end up coming off as crass and boorish.
This would be a very welcome addition to the research on this subject. Ole Borgen's John Wesley On the Sacraments, while largely unsurpassed, certainly needs critical re-thinking in many points.
Wow! Was this really your dissertation? It’s really rare to see dissertation that deals with John Wesley. I bet you paper was a good Master dissertation, that it can even be compared to a PhD dissertation. Anyway, did you publish the research online? I wish you did so that we can read it.
Post a Comment
<< Home