Tag: Grace

Wesley on Elections (and the challenge of staying in my lane)

After the recent election, I found myself in a fog and unsure of what to say as a pastoral leader. I ended up – thank God – in a familiar place and one that rarely fails to inspire.  I began to wonder – What does John Wesley have to say about elections?  I will jump into the theological deep end and then explore some implications on our human elections.

Generally speaking, there are two very different understandings of election within the Body of Christ.  A perspective born out of Augustinian/Calvinist theology uses this word to describe how some are predestined to salvation and others are damned based on an irrevocable decision from a God who is sovereign and knows all, an absolute decree made from the “foundation of the world.” (Matt 25:34; Eph 1:4; Heb 9:26).  This perspective puts a lot of weight on, what is called, the foreknowledge of God (Rom 8:28-30; Acts 2:22-24; Rom 11:1f). This perspective is popular in our culture and is being expressed in some bold, even militant forms.

While still using the terms election and predestination, Wesley offers a more nuanced perspective, seeking to honor both the scriptures and our experience of having free will and learning to love in relationship.  We are elected or chosen to give witness to a grace and a way of salvation that is available to all. Our election is about so much more than “just believing.” We are invited to open our hearts to God’s transforming grace and to reflect the image of God.  Our participation is a part of God’s election, God’s purpose for us, from the “foundation of the world.”  And to be clear there are reformed theologies that share a softer approach, to use Wesley’s language. 

These two perspectives lead to different understandings of God’s sovereignty.  One is often viewed through the metaphor of a monarch (or dictator) with an emphasis on the depravity of humanity and the need to control and protect from the top down. From this perspective we might ask, why would we be more merciful than God?   A Wesleyan perspective can be seen through the metaphor of a loving parent, where authority is revealed as respectful, trusting, and empowering love.  In this love we are chosen, not for special privilege but to be a blessing (2 Pet 2:9-10; Col 3:12-17).  This view is much more optimistic about our capacity to reflect the image of God in the world.  From one perspective holiness is viewed through the lens of obedience and perseverance (key terms in Calvinist theology); from the other perspective holiness is seen through the virtues of patience, kindness, humility and a grace that can overcome even our human trespasses with restorative justice rather than punitive or retributive justice.

From Wesley’s perspective, the more hardline perspective turns Christ into a hypocrite. It portrays Christ as one who offers something that he never intends to give (like a cynical view of some politicians). It leads to a “sharpness of temper” that is inconsistent with the virtues to which we are elected or chosen.  The “elect of God” practice mercy, humility, kindness, and patience (I Cor 13:1-4; Col 3:12-17).  The “elect of God” “bear one another in love” and actively seek “unity of spirit in the bond of peace.” (Eph 4:1-3).  In connection to these “tempers” and virtues, Wesley uses the phrase “the elect of God” in at least five of his sermons.

In the scriptures we read that God’s desire is that all would come to salvation (John 1:29; II Peter 3:9).  We read that Christ died for the sins of the whole world, not only some who are “unconditionally elected.” (John 4:42; Acts 10:34-36; I Tim 4:1; Heb 2:9; I John 2:2).  We read that in Adam all die and in Christ shall all be made alive, but each in their own order (Rom 5:18; I Cor 15: 21-23; there is a mystery to it all).  These passages give important clues for how we are to relate to others – even our enemies.

What happens when the “elect of God” betray this trust?  It can look like being “mad with party-zeal,” to use a phrase from Wesley.  For the sake of the whole body, it is important to remember that the word “party” is built on the word “part.” Attempts to turn a part into the whole, and the arrogance of spirit that is necessary for this endeavor, can be so destructive.  Wesley calls the “elect of God” to purify themselves from all party-zeal, from all bigotry and narrowness of spirit, from impatience with differences, and every degree of unmercifulness.  All of this only leads us to “bite and devour one another.” (Gal 4:14-15).  This is a betrayal of our election.

In addition, please do not think that election from God is a call to be passive or weak. Anchored in these virtues, the “elect of God” work for peace, as peacemakers rather than peacekeepers, and there is a difference. Peacemakers acknowledge brokenness and harm among us, and yet continue to work for reconciliation in a way that restores justice and reveals God’s love for all. The “elect of God” stand with the marginalized, feed the hungry, welcome the stranger/immigrant, and stand with those who are marginalized by the “madness.” (See Matt 25:31-46 in the context of the that can save us from a fate that we deserve).

For a recent (and political) example, I think of how the statement “Your body, my choice” has been used over 50,000 times on Facebook (and that’s only one social media site).  I know that some boys in our community are vocalizing this and similar phrases, acting on the bullying and demeaning and abusiveness that has been normalized and is seen as strength in the hearts of many.  If our children are scared (and some are), we need to listen and stand with them.   This is what the elect of God do.

I think of political ads that stereotype, demean, and misrepresent particular minority groups to score political points. It reminds me of the Greek word “pornia” which can be defined as the objectification of others as a way to justify using them for our own perverted ends.  This word is about so much more than the way it is typically applied.  The “elect of God” are those called to speak up.

Concerning predestination and election, Wesley is willing to engage in the philosophical argument, but only to a point. He is keenly aware that we can only speak in human terms about the deep things of God. It is a mystery to us how eternity works, with all things being present at once.  There is, however, nothing in our experience that should make us think that things happen because they are known.  It may also be that God, infinite in wisdom and love, is able to set aside this so-called foreknowledge in time and space for the sake of relationship.  Perhaps God can even be surprised, grieved, and overjoyed by what happens in creation.  Such attempts to speculate can only carry us so far.  It is our experience that we are able to choose and participate in our own salvation, using our God-given free-will.

Therefore, as Wesley says often, a choice is before us.  In our culture, it is popular to see elections as win/lose, us/them, righteous/damned.  Reading scripture through a Wesleyan lens offers us a different way to see it.  The question becomes, which way is more life-giving for you?  Which way rings true in your spirit?  Which way will lead us into the goodness that God wants for us?  I invite you to ponder these things in your heart. 

(For a deeper dive, I recommend Wesley’s sermons: Free Grace, On Predestination, The Wedding Garment, Eulogy for George Whitefield, and On Working Out Our Own Salvation, among others. I hope to share a paraphrase of “Free Grace” soon).

Is There Grace in Gracious Exits?

Around the Way Forward there is much talk about the need for legislation that allows clergy, congregations, and conferences to exit the denomination without penalty.  The proposal is being called “Gracious Exit.” I get the rationale at a surface level, and may even be put in a position to employ it, but I also find it theologically disturbing.  Here are my prayerful musings.

Using the word grace in this context feels like a violation to me.  Grace is a theologically charged word. Grace is much more than a synonym for “kind,” “polite,” or “civil.”  To attempt to define it, grace is the unmerited gift of relationship with the One who is above all, in all, and through all. Grace is knowing that we are not alone and that nothing can separate us from God’s love.  Grace is being included into something bigger than ourselves, indeed into an infinitely larger community where we get to practice the virtues of patience, kindness, humility, forgiveness, never insisting on our own way, and bearing one another in love – virtues not really needed in like-minded religious clubs or if grace is seen only as a personal transaction.  Grace holds all labels loosely.  Grace always works for reconciliation and unity, and in this work challenges our prejudices and holds up a mirror to our narrowly-defined agendas to secure our own comfort and get our own way.  It is this challenge that makes grace hard to accept or trust because this grace requiring so much sacrifice and even more humility.  Faith in something beyond ourselves and our own efforts is so hard, and that’s what is needed to know God’s grace. And so, we often turn away from grace in order to promote our own religious agenda.  And here is the really good news about grace; even in our self-righteousness, grace remains and works for good.  That’s what makes grace so amazing!

In recent days I have heard calls from several “camps” to allow for gracious exits as a part of our Way Forward.  I have heard people call for this freedom to “depart and thrive.”  Often, it feels much more like an invitation for others to leave, wrapped in polite or “gracious” language.  Many want this so that “the issue” will go away and so we can stop talking about it.  It just doesn’t feel right to me to use this sacred word to justify easy divorce and civil schism.  Grace is what beckons us to the common table, not to divide it.  Grace is what allows us to find our true selves in the presence of the Other and “others.”  Grace is knowing we are not alone, and thus the challenge to build life-giving relationships and to truly learn how to love.  Grace is the hard work of our calling.

Yes, we can be polite and civil in our eagerness for divorce, but I wonder, are we denying or cheapening grace in the process? While God can work for good in all things, will we be able to “thrive” with any sense of faithfulness to anything “Other” than ourselves, if we make divorce and cheap grace the accepted norm?   Perhaps our divisions and differences are not “impeding our mission,” as some claim, but are the very realities that make it possible for us to truly fulfill our mission and offer something truly life-giving to the world.  I wonder.

If we make this policy, what are the unintended consequences? Would it not be the de-facto demise of the denomination? What would hold the covenant together in terms of accepting things like apportionments or appointments? Could congregations come and go depending on the current climate?  Could congregations apply this same grace to staying instead of exiting, continuing to act upon the spirit of our doctrine and discipline, as they see it, and with the grace of their contextual colleagues and conference, until another who can claim to have never committed disciplinary sin is thus able to act in righteousness, instead of grace, and start casting stones? (Which may be a good way to look at it).  I wonder and will continue to pray for deeper understanding.