![]()
Part I
Theological, Historical, and Spiritual Contexts
![]()
1 Charles Wesley and Sanctification
One the Body Mystical
Is with its heavenly Head,
Therefore God vouchsafes to dwell
In all the faithful seed,
In the heart of man tâ abide
When throughly cleansâd by Jesus blood,
By the Spirit sanctified,
And all resignâd to God.
â Charles Wesley1
Introduction
Charles Wesley was a theologian in his own right; so asserts Newport, referencing Tyson, Rattenbury, Hildebrandt, and Wiseman; though he notes Langford had a different view.2 Newport continues, âCharles did not simply reflect his brotherâs thoughts, as his views on ordination, lay-preaching, and eschatology, for obvious and easily documented examples, surely prove.â3 We might add to this collection of views Charlesâ position on sanctification. Here too Charles was a theologian in his own right, though his distinct perspective has only been given recognition by a few. Those few, however, have made important contributions and this chapter outlines the key research undertaken in this area.
Inevitably there are many similarities in outlook between Charles and John arising from incidental or intentional means. Born and raised in the same family; inhabiting the same eighteenth-century culture; imbibing the same moral, ecclesial, theological, and spiritual climate; reading much of the same literature; sharing similar experiences â boarding school (though different schools), studying for the same degree at the University of Oxford, travelling as missionaries to Georgia â and even their conversion experiences occurring within three days of each other. Add to these the deliberate emulation of his brother by the youthful Charles,4 and any detected similarity in the brothersâ thinking, faith, and action is unsurprising. Nonetheless they were different people and had differences of opinion and emphasis; differences which became embedded and emerged more noticeably as they matured. As Charlesâ perspective is examined, it is unavoidable that Johnâs voice will also be heard, but here, in the context of Charles Wesley research, Johnâs position acts as a foil to illuminate Charlesâ distinctive position.
This chapter fulfils three functions. First, its task is to set a theological context. The question of this book might be âis it possible to have a discussion of sanctification in the theology of Charles Wesley without discussing resignation?â To date this is precisely what has been done. The centrality of resignation to Charlesâ understanding of sanctification has not been recognised. The first task therefore is to establish what has been said to this point about sanctification in the Wesleys, and particularly in the thinking of Charles Wesley. Secondly, to undertake this task the chapter notes areas of difference between Charles and John regarding sanctification both to illuminate Charlesâ perspective and to construct a theological and spiritual framework within which Charlesâ understanding of the relationship between resignation and sanctification might be explored. The third function of the chapter is to provide a review of relevant literature in the area. This is accomplished by acknowledging the work of Charles Wesley scholars in the area of sanctification; however it is a limited exercise for two reasons: first, there are relatively few scholars working in the field, particularly of Charlesâ theology, even though interest in Charles Wesley has grown of late. Secondly, the emphasis of this book is on resignation and yet the literature reviewed addresses sanctification; the reason is simple, there is nothing written yet which has focussed on resignation in Charles Wesley.5 Furthermore, whilst material about sanctification is relevant â this book, arguing as it does, that resignation and sanctification are interdependent for Charles â emphasis on sanctification needs to be restricted; it is not the main focus of this work.6
1 Theological approaches in Charles Wesleyâs concept of sanctification
In the work of Wesley scholars, it is possible to identify four fundamental theological approaches to John and Charlesâ understanding of sanctification: experiential, eschatological, liberationist, and moral.
i Experiential theology
Charles and John are frequently considered to be experiential theologians. John Tyson7 and Ernest Rattenbury8 recognise sanctification as a theology emerging from religious life and experience for the Wesleys. Certainly for Charles the religious experience claimed by many in what became known as the Perfectionist controversy in the 1760s, significantly shaped his understanding of sanctification, and specifically when entire sanctification could be attained. For Charles, whose hymns frequently testify to his personal religious experience, this was the crucible from which his theology was known to emerge and by which it was tested. Rattenbury suggests that Charlesâ understanding of perfection is more reliable than Johnâs, based as it was on his personal religious experience, whereas Johnâs teaching on perfection was based on the experience of others. Rattenburyâs claim is not immune to challenge, but evidence such as Johnâs response to the Perfectionist controversy, and his arguably gullible attitude towards those claiming perfection for themselves lends weight to Rattenburyâs position. Certainly Charlesâ experiences of God and life shaped his theology throughout. Tyson comments,
First, his poetic and mystical temperament predisposed him to the quest after perfection⌠. Second, clinging tenaciously to his unqualified conception of Christian perfection, Charles increasingly adopted progress language or developmental models for describing his doctrine. Third, shaped by a certain sadness of the times and impressed by the testimonies of dying saints, Charles became convinced that perfection was certain in âthe article of death.â9
Charlesâ progressive experience taught him that sanctification was a gradual journey, rather than the instantaneous sanctification John maintained and with which Charles had concurred in the beginning. Consequently Charles came to believe that sanctification could only happen in the article of death, rather than in this life, as John insisted was possible. Charles was keenly aware of the depth of his own sinfulness, and the necessity of humility before God which pushed him to an uncompromisingly high concept of perfection, and determined his attitude to those who claimed âangelic perfectionâ; moreover, his considerable personal experience of suffering led him to reflect on its purpose in the process of sanctification.
ii Eschatological theology
Monica Coleman develops an eschatological perspective of sanctification in the Wesleys.10 Her aim is to reconstruct the differing views of Charles and John Wesley on sanctification within a framework of process theology, producing a synthesis within which their divergent views held together produce an eschatological construction of entire sanctification. This is a valuable contribution to the debate. The theology of the Wesleys is one of realised eschatology in their emphases on instantaneous sanctification (John), or in its realisation at death (Charles). Sanctification is also a realised eschatology in its embodiment in works of mercy. However for the Wesleys sanctification is also inaugurated; it is a journey begun in this life and continued into the next. There is an element of the ânot-yetâ; sanctification can be lost, and for John, even in those perceived as sanctified, the possibility for mistakes and infirmities was allowed. The ânot yetâ is evident in the reciprocal relationship of repentance and faith, of grace and forgiveness between humanity and ...
