Calvin and Wesley
August 18, 2010
There is an interesting video over at Biologos by Rev. Dr. Joel Hunter. It is a graciously worded and gentle piece but does leave some questions. The major burden seems to be that Reformed and Wesleyans need each other -- the former providing the intellectual and analytical rigour, the latter the zeal and the passion. Dr. Hunter, however, does concede that Wesleyans too have a strong and vigorous intellectual heritage which might leave the viewer wondering why they would then need the Reformed. Is it that they are doctrinally deviant? If so, shouldn't that be stated? Further, given the strong Puritan aspect of the history of Reformed theology, I am guessing that Dr. Hunter would concede that the Reformed were/are quite capable of zeal and passion themselves.
Given this, the video seems ultimately to be making a rather insubstantial and somewhat paternalistic point - "different traditions can learn from each other" - undergirded by strong hints that what separates these two traditions is not that significant.
Pastorally, there is, of course, a huge difference between Wesleyan and Reformed: whichever side one comes down on, on sin, on redemption, on election, on sovereignty, on sanctification etc., is going to have a profound impact on how one preaches the gospel on a Sunday, counsels the woman who has just had a miscarriage, or consoles the family whose father has just died of cancer. In saying this, I am not making a qualitative judgment on which of the two approaches is more biblical, simply commenting that the differences in theology between the two make a significant difference at the grassroots level of church practice.
In this context, I suspect videos such as this succeed only in appealing to intellectuals who like a theological conversation; for pastors and people (Reformed and Wesleyan), they probably serve only to confuse them about why issues the church has thought of as vitally important, doctrinally and practically, throughout the centuries, are suddenly matters of comparative indifference.
Given this, the video seems ultimately to be making a rather insubstantial and somewhat paternalistic point - "different traditions can learn from each other" - undergirded by strong hints that what separates these two traditions is not that significant.
Pastorally, there is, of course, a huge difference between Wesleyan and Reformed: whichever side one comes down on, on sin, on redemption, on election, on sovereignty, on sanctification etc., is going to have a profound impact on how one preaches the gospel on a Sunday, counsels the woman who has just had a miscarriage, or consoles the family whose father has just died of cancer. In saying this, I am not making a qualitative judgment on which of the two approaches is more biblical, simply commenting that the differences in theology between the two make a significant difference at the grassroots level of church practice.
In this context, I suspect videos such as this succeed only in appealing to intellectuals who like a theological conversation; for pastors and people (Reformed and Wesleyan), they probably serve only to confuse them about why issues the church has thought of as vitally important, doctrinally and practically, throughout the centuries, are suddenly matters of comparative indifference.
