It was a modest project – to look directly at Wesley’s notes on the passages that are often used and to see what he had to say. I was not expecting to find some of the things I did. With all the attention the previous post received, I want to look again, in light of some of the comments, and ask if my conclusion needs to be modified.
Concerning Wesley’s notes on Romans 1:26-27, much more can be said. Wesley speaks of three degrees of ungodliness – uncleanliness (v.24), being given up to vile affections (vs.25-27) and the vilest abominations (vs.28-31). The word “abominations” is reserved for his long list that includes envy, deceit, covetousness, gossip, and fornication, which Wesley specifically used as a blanket term for all “pornia.” Under the second category of “vile affections,” Wesley’s illustration is the “heathen Romans…and none more than the emperors themselves.” As a point of interest, he also speaks of “American heathens,” in the note on v.31. Under this category, Wesley speaks of idolatry being “punished with unnatural lust.” The only other time “lust” is mentioned in his commentary on Romans is in the note on 7:7 where it is specifically defined as “evil desires.” Once again, we can conclude that Wesley wants to point us beyond sexuality only.
Referring to Wesley’s note on I Cor 6:9-10, I can state it even more emphatically. Wesley wants us to think beyond sex! He struggles with the word translated as “effeminate” or “soft.” He gives this definition – those “who live in an easy, indolent way; taking up no cross, enduring no hardship.” At the same time, he does address the type of person that people would have had in mind. He asks, “How is this? These good-natured, harmless people are ranked with idolaters and sodomites! Wesley has trouble with this group being on the list – whoever he had in mind. I included more commentary in the previous post, making sure I didn’t make too much of this or impose too much of a 21st century perspective. With statements like this, I do wonder how this matter can rise to the level of schism.
Referring to Wesley’s note on I Timothy 1:8-11, Wesley gives no commentary on the word “sodomite.” Here I did have to look in other places. There are a handful of mentions in the Notes. When he elaborates beyond an assumed definition, he points us beyond sexuality. He equates this word to idol worship (2 Kings 23:2), to corrupt principles and practices of government (Deut 32:32), and all things abominable (Rev 21:8). In addition to this, he elaborates on the sin of Sodom in his note on Ezekiel 16:47, mentioned in the earlier post. It is clear that sodomy is not good. It is also clear that we cannot project the sin onto a particular group of people. Wesley wants us all to understand our complicity and involvement in sin as a step into a life-giving relationship with God.
I spent a lot of time on Wesley’s commentary on Matthew 19 in the previous post. In the notes of this chapter, and in other notes mentioned, Wesley does have some thought-provoking things to say about eunuchs, including that we cannot always take the term literally. In the context of current discussions, his words are remarkable – as seen in the previous post.
To conclude, I want to state my previous and modest conclusion with more fervor. ”Wesley’s willingness to struggle with these texts gives us permission to do so as well.” To state it another way, there is much room in Wesley for other perspectives. An honoring of perspectives is woven into Wesley’s larger corpus of teachings. To paraphrase Wesley’s own words, a Methodist is not distinguished by this or that opinion or scheme of religion. All of that is “quite wide of the point.” I love that line! Methodists are to be distinguished by the love of God in our hearts.
Yes, there is room in Wesley. The question is – is there room in the church? For you? For me? For us together in communion? I say “yes,” with Wesley among our guides.