So this semester has been a great time of personal growth for me, not due in small part to a class I've been taking on John Wesley's theology. I've learned a great deal and come to expect more from faith. Wesley's emphasis on spiritual growth and his emphasis on grace, as well as the place of holiness, has caused me to view faith differently than I did a few months ago.
But at that end of the semester, I wanted an additional perspective; for Wesley's faith demands much and promises much. I wanted something different to add some balance; so I grabbed
Messy Spirituality by Mike Yaconelli. I found it to be an interesting read; Mike speaks of the power of a life not lived according to spiritual stereotypes and popular (mis)conceptions.
And somehow, while pondering, these two views came together in my mind to form an odd sort of synthesis... I had thought that these thinkers would prove to be at odds with each other. Wesley with his paradigmatic understanding of God's operation, set against Mike with his distinct lack of rules and qualifications. Wesley's demand for holiness seemed to fly in the face of Mike's emphasis on brokenness, and Mike's longing for humility could be seen as contrary to Wesley's expectation of perfection.
But as I continued to ponder these ideas, I came to see that they do not necessarily contradict each other. To be sure, the social context and presentation of these ideas varied greatly. They have much in common, though; both fought against the established religious status quo. They both emphasized spiritual growth, as well as the importance of grace.
As it should be, grace is central to both thinkers' understanding of God, as well as human depravity. After all, grace isn't a big deal unless someone needs it. They both would agree that love is the primary evidence of holiness; and both would agree that the "messiness" of the Christian life is simply part of the game. The difference between the two would seem to be that Wesley expects the believer to move beyond the messiness, and Mike expects the messiness to always be present.
And even here, they may not be as separate as one would think. Wesley believed that the sin nature remained in a Christian, just that the sin nature no longer had power in his or her life. However, the battle to fight with temptation would always remain. A believer does not have to succumb to it. It also seems that Wesley expected some form of spiritual dark times to be present.
Mike presented spiritual growth as a jagged line of peaks and valleys with a net positive result; and just as Wesley expected holiness, Mike expects dark times to be prepared for and and embraced. The spiritual journey cannot all be positive times and a straight line of growth shooting for the stars.
And on this tiny point, I think I would agree with Wesley more; not for his beliefs necessarily, but for his emphasis. He would have a believer expect perfection, and press through rough times with that end in sight. My concern with Mike's point of view is that while spirituality is (and should be, to a degree) messy, I get the idea that "mess" is included in his ultimate understanding of the Christian life. (Hence the title of the book...) And even this I would agree with, if what is meant by "mess" could be clarified. God loves us and our mess just as we are, and yet desires to deliver us from our messiness; sometimes by throwing a divine mess into our human one. Our human shortcomings and failures are obliterated before a mysterious God who, in his love, hurls his topsy turvy Kingdom into our world and our hearts.
Messy Spirituality contained this sentiment, but I think Wesley presented the argument with more force and clarity; and so, it is harder to mistake his meaning. I do not think that Wesley would disagree with Mike, except for the use of the word "mess." Wesley did not say that the mess did not exist; instead, he believed in a God that was capable and desirous of saving us from sin. If God is able to do it, we can expect that he will; and if he wants to do it, we can expect that he will do it now. Therefore, we should expect to be free from sin.
Wesley had no patience with those who said that people were free from habitual sin only; he pointed out that the word "habitually" is not in the Bible. Children of God do not sin; it is a defining characteristic of the state of being one of God's children. Can we not take God's Word at face value?
Part of Wesley's animosity toward those who would shortchange the power of grace was based off of his high regard for the Scriptures and the commands contained therein. If one cheapens the commands, then God's promises are also cheapened. We expect much of God, and God promises to deliver; is it so much that God expects things of us as well?
This is why I love Wesleyan theology. His thinking asks for cooperation and promises perfection; Mike's demands humilty and promises love, which Wesley would agree with wholeheartedly. These are not exclusive views; rather, they are concurrent. I think part of the trouble lies with the simple fact that we do not expect perfection, or we do not believe that God desires to perfect us. And so, we do not become perfect. Wesley's thinking attacks this belief; I was not impressed that Mike's did.
On the whole, though, this issue of growth and perfection was the only area that presented differing views to me, serious or otherwise. These theologs would agree on much, and their contributions to spirituality should be appreciated.
Thoughts? Gold star if you read this far and didn't skip anything...
