John Wesley and

Eastern Orthodoxy:
Influences, Convergences
and Differences
For Albert C. Outler 1

RANDY L. MADDOX

John Wesley's overall theological orientation has proven to be surprisingly bard

to classify. The debate about his "place" in the Christian tradition began during his
lifetime and has continued through the whole of Wesley scholarship.
Given his Western Christian location, this debate has generally focused on
whether Wesley is more "Protestant" or more "Catholic." Early studies generally
assumed that he was Protestant, but differed over which branch of Protestantism he
more nearly resembled or depended upon. Some argued strongly that he was best
construed in terms of the Lutheran tradition. Others advocated a more Reformed
Wesley. Most assumed that such general designations must be further refined.
Thus, there were readings of Wesley in terms of Lutheran Pietism or Moravianism,
English (Reformed) Puritanism, and the Anninian revision of the Reformed tradi-
tion.
Dominantly Protestant readings of Wesley proved lo be inadequate. There were
clearly typical "catholic" themes in his thought and practice. Indeed, there have
been several appreciative readings of Wesley from the Roman Catholic tradition.
These counter-readings of Wesley have increasingly led Wesley scholars to speak
of a Protestant/Catholic synthesis in Wesley's theology.
Such a Protestant/Catholic synthesis should have been expected, given
Wesley' s Anglican affiliation and training-and Anglicanism's self-professed goal
of being a via media. Indeed, some recent Wesley interpreters argue that he was
simply an "Anglican theologian in emest." This reading of Wesley would seem to
be the most adequate so far.

Dr. Randy L Maddox is associate professor of religion and philosophy at Sioux

Falls College, Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

THE A SBURY THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL V OL. 45 No. 2 1990

30 Maddox

At the same time, the unique nature of Anglicanism has suggested a related
reading of Wesley that deserves more consideration. F.arly Anglican theologians
did not mediate directly between contemporary Protestantism and Catholicism.
Rather, they called for a recovery of the faith and practice of the first four centu-
ries of the Christian Church. Since this early tradition antedated the later divisions,
they believed its recovery would provide a more authentic mediating position. In
the process of this project they reintroduced an awareness of many early theologi -
ans, particularly Greek writers, who had been lost from Western Christian con-
sciousness.
Even a cursory reading of Wesley shows that these recovered early Greek theo-
logical voices were important to him. This influence is particularly evident in
some of those convictions that have been at the heart of the debate over his distinc-
tive "place." Since these early Greek theologians remain nonnative for the Eastern
Orthodox tradition, the possibility that Wesley should be read in tenns of this tra-
dition, or as a bridge between Eastern and Western Christianity, has begun to re-
ceive scattered attention.2 The goal of this essay is to collect and summarize the
suggestions of those contributing to this investigation, thereby increasing general
awareness of this perspective on Wesley 's theology. Hopefully, it will also deepen
the self-awareness of and suggest future research agendas for this discussion.

WESLEY AND GREEK/EASTERN ORTHODOX THEOLOGIANS

It is generally recognized that the first four centuries of Christian tradition
played a significant role in Wesley's theology. What is not as often noted is that he
tended to value the Greek representatives over the Latin. 3 It was a preference he
inherited from his father. It deepened during his Oxford years as he studied newly-
available editions of patristic writings with his fellow "methodist," John Clayton.
As such, it is not surprising that Greek theologians predominate when Wesley
gives lists of those he admires or recommends for study. Frequently cited were
Basil, Chrysostom, Clement of Alexandria, Clement of Rome, Ephraem Syrus, Ig-
natius, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Origen, Polycarp and (Pseudo-)Macarius. By con-
trast, references to Augustine, Cyprian and Tertullian were relatively rare. 4
Obviously, one important means for assessing Wesley's indebtedness to and/or
congeniality with the Eastern Orthodox tradition would be detailed studies o f his
use of and agreement with these early Greek fathers. A few such studies have ap-
peared.
For example, K. Steve McConnick has studied Wesley's use of John Chrysos-
tom and argued that it was primarily through Chrysostom that Wesley came to his
distinctive assessment of the Christian life as "faith filled with the energy of
Likewise, Francis Young has drawn attention to the way Chrysostom's and
Wesley's preaching both balance grace and demand, thereby suggesting parallels
in their soteriology. 6
Again, several scholars have suggested that Wesley modeled his tract, The
Character of a Methodist, on Clement of Alexandria's description of the perfect
Christian in the seventh book of his Stromateis, though a detailed comparison has
not yet been made.7
 John Wesley and Eastern Orthodoxy 31

Macarius was clearly influential on Wesley, being cited by him in such crucial
contexts as the issue of sin remaining in believers.• Thus, it is no surprise that
there have been fruitful comparative studies here-though fewer than one might
expect. These studies have focused on two basic areas. First, there have been brief
positive analyses of the shared synergistic implications of Wesley's doctrine of
prevenient grace and Macarius's general soteriology.9 Second, there have been
more detailed-and strikingly contrasting-comparisons of Macarius and Wesley
on the issue of Christian maturity or ·perfection." David Ford has emphasized the
differences between Wesley and Macarius, arguing that Wesley understood perfec-
tion primarily as an identifiable, instantaneously-achieved state, while Macarius
emphasized the tenacious entrenchment of sin in even the most mature Christian
and the constant need to seek God through prayer. 10 Most other studies, while ad-
mitting differences of emphasis, have stressed the similarities between Macarius
and Wesley. 11 Overall, the similarities are much stronger than the differences, par-
ticularly when one deals with the thought of the mature Wesley (which Outler has
emphasized) and with the full range of Macarius's work (as the best secondary
study has exemplified). 12
If Macarius has received less attention from Wesley scholars than we might ex-
pect, it may be partly due to a suggested relationship between him and Gregory of
Nyssa, one of the most important early Greek fathers. In 1954 Werner Jaeger ar-
gued that Macarius's ·Great Letter" was dependent upon Gregory's De /nstituto
Christiano.13 If this were true, then it could be argued that when Wesley read
Macarius he was really coming in touch with Gregory,'• of whom we have little
other evidence that Wesley read. However, more recent scholarship has argued
convincingly that the relationship is really the reverse. Gregory took up Macarius's
..Great Letter" and edited it to correct its Messalian tendencies, in order to lead
those attracted lo Messalianism back into the orthodox fold. u
As such, we have little clear evidence of direct historical connection between
Wesley and Gregory. Nonetheless, comparative study of the two remains appropri-
ate since Gregory is such a key figure in early Greek tradition and shares the gen-
eral outlook of others Wesley did read. Paul Bassett has suggested some compari-
sons between the two on the specific issue of Christian perfection, as has John
Merritt. 16 Robert Brightman has undertaken a broader comparative study, stressing
common themes rather than historical connection.17 Unfortunately, Brightman
tends lo ·westernize" Gregory too much in his exposition. Future general studies
would be well advised to draw on Gregory scholarship which presents a more
authentic (and more amenable) understanding of Gregory for comparison with
Wesley. 11
While suggestions of comparisons between Wesley and other early Greek writ-
occasionally surface in Wesley scholarship, there are no extended studies. This
ack is particularly striking, and regrettable, in the case of Ephraem Syrus, who
vas Wesley's favorite such author. 19
While Wesley conceivably could have been familiar with the writings of John
f Damascus, the works of later Byzantine writers like Symeon the New Theolo-
:an, Nicholas Cabasilas and Gregory Palamas would not have been available to
32 Maddox

him. Again, however, thematic comparisons with these later writers would be ap-
propriate and could cast further light on Wesley's relationship to the general East-
ern theological temperament. Examples of such studies include A. M. Allchin's
comparison of Wesley's spirituality and theological approach with that of Symeon
the New Theologian and Craig Blaising's comparison of Wesley's view of the gra-
ciously empowered human will with the Eastern understanding of divine energies
and uncreated grace, first fully articulated by Gregory Palamas.20
Finally, it must be admitted that Wesley had little first-hand contact with or
knowledge of contemporaneous Eastern Orthodox traditions. Indeed, the best
claim to direct contact is the perplexing interaction with the purported Greek
bishop Erasmus.21 As a result, despite his sympathies with early Greek theologi-
ans, Wesley offered generally negative judgments concerning contemporary East-
ern Orthodox life and thought-in keeping with most Western Protestantism,
though perhaps less nuanced than some Anglicans of his day.22

WESLEY AND EASTERN ORTHODOX THEOLOOY

The focus of the preceding section was primarily historical, suggesting possible
contacts between Wesley and Eastern Orthodoxy. We tum now to a more thematic
approach. Recently, a fledgling discussion comparing Methodism and Orthodoxy
has emerged. It began as a subsidiary of the ongoing dialogue between Anglican-
ism and Orthodoxy and, to date, has largely remained in that setting. 23 Some Meth-
odist participants harbor doubts about the prospects of the comparison.24 However,
A. M. Allchin and Brian Frost have demonstrated important similarities between
the spirituality and theology of John and Charles Wesley and that of Orthodoxy,
thereby suggesting that Methodists are closer to Orthodoxy than they usually sus-
pect.
It would be misleading to term this discussion a "dialogue" between Methodism
and Orthodoxy. Nearly all the extant contributions have been from the side of
Methodism (or Anglicans sympathetic to Methodism). Other than an occasional
passing reference, there have been only two studies of Wesley by an Orthodox rep-
resentative- David Ford's comparison of Wesley and Macarius and a master's de-
gree thesis by Harold Mayo.2'
For Wesley scholars, the specific importance of this discussion is the light it
throws on his distinctive theological vision. A summary of some similarities and
differences between Wesley and Orthodoxy revealed by this comparative study
should suggest the impact of his study of early Greek theologians upon Wesley's
overall theology.26

The Nature of Theological Activity per se

In general, Christian theology is the attempt to understand, contemplate and live
out the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. One of its most basic questions is where
one locates that revelation. Western Christian traditions have generally debated the
relative priority of Scripture or tradition. The starting point for understanding the
Eastern Orthodox style of theology is to note that they reject any understanding of
 John Wesley and Eastern Orthodoxy 33

Scripture and tradition as items that can be so separated and contrasted in authority
claims. They hold that tradition and Scripture are in perfect unity. 27
Thus, for Orthodoxy, the question of the sources of theology becomes esscn-
tiaJly that of the sources of tradition. Typically, four such sources are emphasized:
Scripture, the definitions of the ecumenical councils, the liturgical texts, and the
writings of the Fathers.21 From a Western perspective, the most notable aspect of
this description of tradition is the inclusion of liturgical texts. Western theology
has emphasized the councils and endorsed theologians more than liturgies, because
the former can be more easily used as juridical sources than the latter.
Here, however, is a key area where Anglicanism has differed from the rest of
the West. From the beginning, it viewed the doctrinal authority of the Book of
Common Prayer as equal to , if not higher than, its Articles of Religion. Wesley
clearly embraced this belief in the nonnative value of liturgy.29 As such, Wesley·s
understanding of the sources of theology was closer to that of Orthodoxy than
most Western traditions. Ho wever, the re were key differences. First, Wesley
joined the West in affirming more explicitly than the East a ro le for reason and
experience in theological activity. 30 Second, Wesley restricted the authority of tra-
dition to the ftrst four centuries of the Christian Church (and contemporary Angli-
can standards) in a way that Orthodoxy would never accept.3'
Liturgy·s importance in Orthodox theology is not limited to its role as a source
of tradition. It is also valued as the most authe ntic form of present theological ex-
pression. For Eastern Orthodoxy, the model theologian is one who constructs or
inte rprets liturgy.32 While such a role is no t usually as valued in the West, Wesley
is an important exception. He was very concerned to provide his revival movement
with prayer books, liturgies and collections of hymns-all theologically crafted or
edited. 33
This specific emphasis on liturgy is actually an expression of a larger character-
istic of Eastern Orthodox theology. In general, it has maintained the early Chris-
tian understanding of theology per sc as a practical endeavor, while the Western
traditions have largely adopted the model of theology as a theoretical science. 34
One result of this is that Eastern Orthodox theology has typically maintained a
closer unity between theological learning and spiritual life than the West. A second
result is that they have involved laity more in theological education than the
West.35
It is no accident that John Wesley has also often been praised for maintaining
the relationship between spiritual life and theology, and for involving laity in theo-
logical education. His general theological practice can best be described as a return
to the early Christian approach of theology per sc as practical. 36
Thus, it would appear that Wesley·s understanding of the nature of theology
and the style of his o wn theological activity had strong resemblances to those of
Eastern Orthodoxy- with corresponding contrasts to the dominant Western model.
This obviously raises the question of whether the resemblance carried over into
specific doctrinal commitments. 37
34 Maddox

Anthropology
At least since Augustine, the Western and Eastern Christian traditions have op-
erated with significantly different understandings of human nature and the human
problem.31
Western Christians have generally assumed that humans were created in a com-
plete and perfect state-the epitome of all that God wanted them to be. God's
original will was simply that they retain this perfection. However, humans were
created in the Image of God, which included, in particular, an ability for self-deter-
mination. Unexplainably, Adam and Eve used this self-determining power to tum
away from God. Thus came the Fall with its devastating effects: the loss of self-
determination (we are free now only to sin), and the inheritance of the guilt of this
original sin by all human posterity. Since this fallen condition is universal, the
West has a tendency to talk of it as the Mnatural" state of human existence; i.e.,
they base their anthropology primarily on the Fall, emphasizing the guilt and pow-
erlessness of humans apart from God' s grace.
Eastern anthropology differs from the West on nearly every point. First, Eastern
theologians have generally assumed that humanity was originally innocent, but not
complete. We were created with a dynamic nature destined to progres.s in com-
munion with God. 39 This conviction lies behind their typical distinction between
the Mimage of God" and the Mlikeness of God." The Mimage of God" denoted the
universal human potentiality for life in God. The Mlikeness of God" was the reali-
zation of that potentiality. Such realization (often called deification) is only pos-
sible by participation in divine life and grace. Moreover, it is neither inevitable
nor automatic. Thus, the image of God necessarily includes the aspect of human
freedom, though it centers in the larger category of capacity for communion with
God.40
Like the West, Eastern theology sees the Fall as a result of the human prefer-
ence to compete with God as God's equal instead of participating in the divine
gifts. However, they understand the results of the Fall differently. First, they reject
the idea of human posterity inheriting the guilt of the Fall; we become guilty only
when we imitate Adam's sin.41 Second, they argue that the primary result of the
Fall was the introduction of death and corruption into human life and its subse-
quent dominion over humanity.42 Finally, while Orthodoxy clearly believes that the
death and disease thus introduced have so weakened the human intellect and will
that we can no longer hope to attain the likeness of God, they do not hold that the
Fall deprived us of all grace, or of the responsibility for responding to God' s offer
of restored communion in Christ.43 That is, the distinctive Orthodox affirmation of
cooperation in divine/human interactions remains even after the Fall.44 In this
sense, the East ultimately bases its anthropology more on Creation than on the
Fall.
When we turn to Wesley, we find an intriguing blend of elements from Eastern
and Western anthropology. To begin with, Wesley assumed the Western view that
humanity was originally in a state of complete perfection!' Indeed, he argued that
this had been the universal Christian position.46 And yet, Wesley scholars have
also discerned a deep-seated conviction in Wesley that humans are beings Min
 John Wesley aNJ Eastern Orthodoxy 35

process" and that God does not implant holiness in us instantaneously.47 The latter
conviction is clearly present in Wesley, but relates to growth in godliness and holi-
ness after the Fall. He frequently stressed that such growth is gradual and lifelong,
even if there are important instantaneous changes as part of it.•• He even suggested
that growth in grace will continue through all eternity.•' Importantly, he drew on
Eastern sources to warrant this stress on gradual growth.'°
In this light, it is not surprising that Wesley's of the image of God
shows strong resemblances to that of the Eastern tradition. In particular, he made a
distinction between the "natural image of God" and the "moral image of God" that
functioned analogously to that between the image and the likeness of God." The
natural image of God is es.5entially the capacity for knowing, loving and obeying
God. Th05C who do so love and obey God express the true holiness characteristic
of the moral image. ' 2
When we turn to his understanding of the effects of the Fall, the mixed influ-
ences on Wesley are m05t evident. On the one hand, be affinned that all human
posterity inherits the guilt of Adam's sin. 33 On the other hand, his primary concern
was bow the Fall introduced spiritual corruption into human life. He suggested ties
between the introduction of human mortality at the Fall and this spiritual corrup-
tion, thereby approaching the Eastern understanding of the
Again, Wesley adopted the Western proclivity to term the guilty, powerless
condition of fallen humanity our "natural" state." And yet, he was quick to add
that no one actually exists in a state of ·mere nature," wtless they have quenched
the Spirit. 36 At issue here is Wesley's affirmation of a gift of prevenient grace to
all fallen humanity. This grace removes the guilt inherited from Adam and re-em-
powers the human capacity to respond freely to God's offer of forgiving and trans-
forming grace." Importantly, Wesley's actual sources for this idea lay more in
early Greek theology (especially Macarius) than in Arminius." This distinctive
wedding of the doctrines of original sin and prevenient grace allowed Wesley to
emphasize the former as strongly as anyone in the West, yet hold an overall esti-
mation of the human condition much like that of Eastern Orthodoxy."

Christology
Both Eastern and Western Christianity endorse the general Christological
guidelines of the early ecumenical councils. Within these parameters, however,
they have developed distinctive emphases correlating to their differing anthropolo-
gies.
The Western understanding of the human problem was primarily juridical, em-
phasizing the guilt of sin and our inability to atone for ourselves. Accordingly, the
focal truths about Christ became th05C that center around the Atonement. For ex-
ample, the West has generally been more concerned than the East to maintain the
distinctness of the two natures (divine and human) in Christ- since contact with
both "parties" is essential to the Atonement. Likewise, the death of Christ has gen-
erally been viewed as the central point of his mission. Explanations of the import
of this death could differ: it might satisfy God's wrath; or, it might fulfill the law;
or, it might demonstrate God's forgiveness to us. Whatever the explanation,
36 Maddox

Christ's death remained central. By contrast, F.astern Orthodoxy places the empha-
sis more on the fact of the Incarnation per se. This corresponds to their judgment
that the essential human need is to develop the likenes.5 of God in our lives and
that we cannot do this without the gracious assistance of God. The Incarnation is
seen as the condescending act by which "God became like us so that we might be-
come like
Orthodoxy has generally assumed that the Incarnation would have been neces-
sary even if there had been no Fall. The Fall accented this need because of its in-
troduction of mortality and corruption into human life. The Fall also necessitated
the death of Christ. However, this was not a juridical necessity of dealing with
guilt. Rather, if Christ was to identify fully with and reclaim human nature, then he
must identify with human mortality. He must "recapitulate" the whole of the hu-
man state, and thereby redeem it-making it capable of "deification."6 1
The focus on Christ's recapitulation and deification of human nature underlies
the distinctive Orthodox interpretation of the person of Christ. They affirm the
creedal definition of the two natures. However, drawing on the Greek notion of
"participation," they emphasize the interpenetration of the two natures. To West-
ern observers, this interpenetration has often appeared to reach the point of Mono-
physitism-i.e., the divine nature "swallowing up" the human nature. Orthodox
theologians have vigorously denied such an implication. However, they have ad-
mitted that Byzantine Christology has generally been uncomfortable with such ap-
parent human properties in Christ as the lack of omniscience.62
Finally, if Western Christianity has tended to emphasize the crucified Christ,
F.astcm Christianity has placed more emphasis on Christ as the resurrected and as-
cended King. In these events of resurrection and ascension are epitomi7,ed the
transformation and exaltation of human nature made possible by Christ.63
Like his anthropology, Wesley's Christology contains a mixture of Western and
F.astcm elements.64 Clearly, the dominant motif in both his and Charles's under-
standing of the Atonement is that of satisfying divine justice.6' However, hints of a
"recapitulation" model, with its emphasis that Christ became human so that we
might be delivered from corruption and sin and restored to God-likeness, can be
found in their work. 66 Indeed, there is some attempt to fuse the two understand-
ings. 6'
Likewise, while it is clear that the death of Christ has central importance to
Wesley, he gave more emphasis to the resurrected Christ as lord and king than was
typical of eighteenth-century Western theology.61 Finally, the recognition of F.ast-
em influences on Wesley's Christology may help explain his similar emphasis on
the divine nature of Christ, almost to the absorption of the human nature. 69

Pneumatology and the Nature of Grace

If Christology answers the question of how God has acted to provide for human
need, pneumatology deals with how the provisions won by Christ are effectively
communicated to fallen humanity. As such, understandings of pneumatology are
closely connected with the general topic of grace. Indeed, the doctrine of the Holy
Spirit has, until recently, been nearly reduced to the doctrine of grace in both F.ast-
 John Wesley and Eastern Orthod/Jxy 31

em and Western Christianity. There has been little independent theological reflec-
tion upon the Holy Spirit per se beyond the basic creedal affirmations of the
Spirit's divinity and cotlllCCtion with the other members of the Trinity. 70
1be characteristic Western concern to preserve the distinction between the di-
vine and the human carries over into their Wlderstandings of the Holy Spirit and
grace. While accepting the general assumption that the Holy Spirit's central role is
that of dispensing grace, they have emphasized the difference between the Spirit as
Giver and grace as gift.
Protestants have typically understood grace to be primarily God's extrinsic act
of forgiveness. If they include the notion of power for obedient life, it is typically
understood as a Msupcrnatural" power that irresistibly refonns human nature. For
Catholics, the role of grace bestowing power upon sinful humanity, enabling us to
recover God-likeness and, thereby, God's acceptance, has been the dominant mo-
tif. They have generally assumed this power to be more cooperant than most Prot-
estants. However, they are equally as clear that this power is a product of the Holy
Spirit (created grace), not the Holy Spirit per se.71
Characteristically, Orthodoxy has rejected the antinomy between Mgrace" and
Mnature" common in the West. They understand grace as empowering capacities
already resident (though corrupted) in human life. While grace enables a realiza-
tion of God-likeness that we could not achieve on our own, it does not act irresisti-
bly or extrinsic of our cooperation. In contrast with the Western distinction be-
tween the Spirit and grace, Orthodoxy views grace as the actual, though not ex-
haustive, presence of God's Spirit (un-created grace), rejuvenating human life. 72
Overall, Orthodoxy has retained a more dynamic understanding of the Holy
Spirit and the Spirit's work in human life than that which developed in the West.
This Eastern understanding of the Spirit has received favorable attention in the re-
newed consideration of pneumatology in the West.73 Among the important stimuli
for this renewed consideration are the Holiness and Pentecostal Movements. Since
these movements trace their roots back to Wesley, the possibility of similarities
with Orthodoxy is again suggested. There is good warrant for such a suggestion.
The similarity of Wesley's understanding of responsible grace"74 with Ortho-
doxy's affirmation of the cooperant nature of grace is frequently noted. 75 Actually,
the commonality is much broader. Wesley clearly believed that grace involved
more than mere pardon. It was the transfonning power of God in human life.76
Moreover, he connected grace closely with the presence of the Holy Spirit in hu-
man life.n This explains why recent Wesley scholarship has found the Eastern no-
tion of Muncreated grace" uniquely amenable to Wesley's understanding of grace.71

The Trinity and the Spirit

The more dynamic understanding of the Spirit in Eastern Orthodoxy is mirrored
in the widely-recognized distinction between Eastern and Western approaches to
the doctrine of the Trinity. While both traditions stand within the basic confes-
sional boundaries, the Eastern tradition has emphasized the distinctness of the
Mpersons" of the Trinity, while the West has emphasized the unity. Thereby, the
East has verged on tri-theism while the West has stood in danger of Unitarianism
38 Maddox

or Sabellianism.79
This difference between East and West has found its most controversial expres-
sion in the West's unilateral addition of the filioque to the Nicene Creed. Obvi-
ously, issues of papal authority are involved in this debate. However, pneumatol-
ogical issues are also at stake. The East has charged that the filioque expresses a
characteristic Western domestication and subordination of the Spirit, while the
West has feared that the rejection of the jilioque renders the Spirit overly inde-
pendent from the definitive revelation of Christ. It is doubtful that either charge is
fully justified. Hopefully, an ecumenical affirmation that both preserves the dis-
tinctness and importance of the Holy Spirit and makes clear that the Spirit is the
Spirit of Christ will emerge from current dialogues. 10
On the surface, Wesley would appear to stand with the West in these debates.
While he never discussed thejilioque, he clearly ascribed to it-retaining the rele-
vant Anglican article (number four) in the Methodist Articles of Faith. 11 On the
other hand, his understanding of the Holy Spirit and the Spirit's relation to Christ
was somewhat more dynamic than Western precedents. Thus, one could plausibly
argue that Wesley was closer to the Eastern tradition on this point than he real-
ized.12 Likewise, Wesley's interest in the distinct operations of the Mpersons" could
be viewed as sympathetic to the Eastern approach to understanding the Trinity.13

General Soterioloqy
The characteristic emphases distinguishing East and West naturally carry over
into their general understandings of soteriology. The West focuses on the issue of
forgiveness for guilt. Thus, its most central soteriological images are juridical. By
contrast, the East focuses on the issue of healing the corruption of human nature
resulting from sin. Its most central images are therapeutic. The two approaches are
not mutually exclusive. However, the emphases are detenninative. The concern of
the other tradition is subsumed under each dominant approach.14
The West's focus on forgiveness results in the doctrine of justification assum-
ing primary importance. This is not to say that Western traditions totally ignore
growth in Christ-likeness (sanctification), only that such growth is expected or ap-
pealed to within the context of justification. A good example is the traditional
Catholic emphasis on infused grace. It may appear to overthrow the doctrine of
justification. However, its purpose was to explain how a just God could declare
sinners justified. Thus, the major distinctions in Western soteriology are not over
the centrality of the issue of justification, but over how best to understand the con-
ditions, process and implications of justification. Different emphases in answering
these questions naturally lead to differing degrees of tension with the alternative
approach of Eastern Christianity.15
The East's answer to the question of how God could accept fallen humanity is
simple-by condescending love. They have not felt it necessary to elaborate this
point.16 Rather, they have dealt with the question of how fallen humanity can re-
cover their spiritual health and the likeness of God. Their answer has centered on
the need for responsible human participation in the divine life, through the means
that God has graciously provided. 17 Western observers have characteristically con-
 John Wesley and Eastern Orth<><Wxy 39

strued this answer as a form of works-righteousness. However, Eastern theologians

insist that the question of meriting God's acceptance is not at issue. They are sim-
ply recognizing that participation in God's freely-bestowed grace empowers hu-
mans for responsible cooperation. 11
On the issues of soteriology, Wesley once again offers an intriguing blend of
Eastern and Western emphases. On the one hand, after 1738, he consistently advo-
cated the doctrine of justification by faith, often by appeals to the Anglican stan-
dards of doctrine.19 On the other hand, therapeutic metaphors and emphases per-
vade his works- arguably outweighing forensic ones. 90 Indeed, his characteristic
definition of salvation has a remarkably "Eastern" tone:

By salvation, I mean, not barely (according to the vulgar notion)

deliverance from hell, or going to heaven, but a present deliverance from
sin, a restoration of the soul to its primitive health, its original purity; a
recovery of the divine nature; the renewal of our souls after the image of
God in righteousness and true holiness, in justice, mercy, and truth.91

Wesley's dominant therapeutic interest ultimately led him to center soteriology

on sanctification rather than justification.92 However, he did not totally abandon
the Western concern for justification. Indeed, he argued that we cannot be deliv-
ered from the power of sin until we arc first delivered from the guilt of sin.93 This
attempt to unite the "pardon" and "participation" motifs has been judged by some
as Wesley's greatest contribution to ecumenical dialogue.94 A similar blending has
been praised in his brother Charles. 9' As might be expected, it has also been judged
by some Western observers as dangerously close to the type o f works-righteous-
ness they fear in Orthodoxy. 96

Sanctification/Deification
Perhaps the closest resemblance between Orthodoxy and Wesley lies in the ar-
ticulation o f their respective doctrines of deification and sanctification. The Ortho-
dox doctrine of deification has often been misunderstood by the West.9 7 It is not an
affirmation of pantheistic identity between God and humanity, but of a participa-
tion, through grace, in the divine life. This participation renews humanity and pro-
gressively transfigures us into the image of Christ.91 Analogously, Wesley's af-
firmation of entire sanctification is not a claim that humans can embody the fault-
less perfection of God in this life, but a confidence that God's grace can progres-
sively deliver us from the power of sin-if not from creatureliness. 99 For both
Wesley and Orthodoxy, the transformation desired is more than external confor-
mity to law. It is a re newal of the heart in love-love of God and love of others. 100
Mo reover, they agree that such transformation is for all Christians, not merely a
monastic or spiritual elite. 101
What is m05t characteristic of and common between Wesley and Orthodoxy is
their conviction that Christ-likeness is not simply infused in believers instantane-
)usly. It is developed progressively through a responsible appropriation of the
which God provides. •02 Spiritual disciplines are essential to this process of
40 Maddox

growth. There is no room for quietism. 103

Af. a corollary of the progressive nature of salvation, both Orthodoxy and
Wesley construe Christian life as a continuwn of stages, from novice to the mature
(te/eioi). 1°' Not only can Christians experience a beginning transformation in this
life, they can hope lo attain a perfect expression of Christ-likeness. However, this
is a distinctly Greek "perfection" (teleios). While available to all, it is not quickly
or easily attained. Moreover, it is not a static absolute perfection, but one appropri-
ate to the present hwnan situation and continually open to more growth.'°' Af.
such, while clearly affirming its pa<>Sible attainment, a primary concern is to insure
that neither despair over lack of attainment nor preswnption due to believed attain-
ment will undercut the continual responsibility for further growth. Indeed, even the
claim of pa<>Sible attainment is justified by the incentive it gives for further
growth. 106
The extensive commonalities between Wesley and Orthodoxy on issues of sanc-
tification surely warrant the claim that the final form of Wesley's doctrine is heav-
ily indebted to the early Greek theologians that he read. 107 This is not to deny that
other Western voices echo some of these points and also contributed to Wesley.
Nor is it to deny that Wesley differs from some aspects of the Orthodox under-
standing of deification.
For example, without lessening the moral aspects of deification, Orthodoxy also
stressed the mystical aspects of the "vision of divine light."'°' John Wesley had
become increasingly uncomfortable with any such mystical emphasis. However,
his brother Charles was more open, and bears a stronger resemblance to the East
on this matter. 109 Again, the Eastern association of mortality with spiritual corrup-
tion inclined them to view deification as including not just spiritual but bodily
transformation in this life. Wesley clearly asswned that the latter would be avail-
able only in the next life. 110

Sacramental Spirituality
One further characteristic of the Eastern understanding of deification through
the uncreated grace of God is that this grace is mediated sacramcntally. Indeed, it
is not uncommon for them to orient their discussion of sanctification around the
major sacraments. 111
Western Christian traditions divide over the issue of the centrality or indispen-
sability of sacraments to spirituality. The Anglican tradition was among the more
sacramental. Even so, Wesley's stress on the importance of the Eucharist for
Christian life was uncharacteristically strong. 112 That this emphasis owed some-
thing to Eastern influence is suggested by issues of sacramental doctrine where he
resembles Orthodoxy, against the West.
Wesley agreed with those Western traditions that believed the faithful commu-
nicant actually received grace through the Eucharist. However, like the East, he re-
jected philosophical attempts to explain this reality. Rather, he stressed the role of
the Spirit, retrieving the Eastern practice of an invocation of the Spirit upon the
elements and the congregation. 113
The Eastern understanding of baptism differed significantly from that of the
 John Wesley and Eastern OrthodcJxy 41

West. While they practiced infant baptism, they obviously rejected the Western as-
sumption that the purpose of such was forgiveness of inherited guilt. Rather, they
stressed that infant baptism restores a power of life to the baptized, who then com-
mences the growth in Christ-likeness. It does not immediately remove all corrup-
tion, but restores the participation in God's grace through which progressive deliv-
erance can come. Like all grace, the grace of baptism is cooperant. As such, bap-
tism alone is not a guarantee of salvation. 114
The subject of Wesley's understanding of baptism is complex and controver-
sial.'" Early on, he strongly defended infant baptism. Over time, he became in-
creasingly uncomfortable with the popular presumption that one's baptism as an
infant absolved all future guilt. In addition, his mature conviction that prevenient
grace removes the guilt of original sin undercut the traditional Western rationale
for infant baptism.' 16 As such, in his later writing and editing, he appears to aban-
don the idea that infant baptism is concerned with forgiveness of sins. He does not
surrender, however, the conviction that baptism conveys spiritual vitality to the in-
fant; nor the belief that this grace can be ·sinned away."
Wesley's mature convictions about baptism are hardly fonnalized into a .. posi-
tion." Still, their similarity to the Eastern understanding of baptism is striking.
Likewise, his eventual rejection of the Anglican practice of a separate rite of con-
fmnation approximated, intentionally or not, the Orthodox pattern of initiation.' 17
While significant differences remain and conscious imitation is doubtful, Wesley's
exposure to the Eastern alternative through study of early Greek theologians must
again be taken into account.

Nature of the Church

On first reflection, similarities between Wesley and Orthodoxy regarding the
nature of the Church seem doubtful. Orthodoxy is known for its emphasis on the
nonnativity and importance of the traditional fonn of the Church, while Wesley
was willing, when necessary, to adapt or ignore traditional fonns for the sake of
witness and mission.'"
However, Orthodoxy is also known for its encouragement of lay ministries and
for defining the essence of the Church as sobornost (community, togetherness).
Both of these emphases were also characteristic of Wesley's practice and teaching
about the Church, as has been frequently noted in the recent discussions. 119

IMPLICATIONS
Hopefully the preceding survey has demonstrated that Wesley's appreciation
for early Greek theologians resulted in his appropriation of several distinctive
Eastern Orthodox theological convictions. The presence of these convictions, and
their tension with corresponding Western views, helps explain why the various at-
tempts to .. locate" or explain Wesley solely within the Western theological spec-
trum have lacked consensus and persuasion. It also raises an important question:
.. How should Wesley's resulting theological blend be judged?" Answers to this
question will depend largely on one's assumptions about the compatibility of the
general Eastern and Western viewpoints.
42 Maddox

If one views East and West as incompatible competitors, Wesley's fortunes are
dim. His Western defenders would either have to argue that the resemblances to
Orthcxloxy are only accidental or try to accommcxlate them to the Western per-
spective.120 By contrast, Orthcxlox theologians would see him as one imperfectly
converted .to the true faith.121
If one adopts the recently-suggested notion of the "complementarity" of East
and West,'22 the results are no better. This mcxlel assumes that there are equally
legitimate alternative ways of explaining the same phenomena, which neither con-
flict with nor overlap each other because they function on different levels. On this
assumption, Wesley made a fatal mistake in trying to integrate them. He should
have left each with its own integrity.
The other possible major assumption is that both the Eastern and Western theo-
logical traditions embody important, but partial, truths. From such a perspective,
Wesley's theological program might be judged more positively. At the least, he
could be honored as an eclectic who gathered disparate truths whcreever he found
them. More ambitiously, some have advanced the claim that he has forged a
unique synthesis of these two major Christian traditions. 123 If this latter claim is
true, then Wesley's theology holds truly ecumenical promise. Such a possibility
surely warrants continuing the current discussion.
 John Wesley and Eastern OrthO<kJxy 43

Notes

ABBREVIATIONS

BE The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley. Editor in Chief, Frank Baher.
Nashville: Abingdon, 1984ff. (Volumes 7, 11, 25 & 26 originally appeared as the Oxford
Edition of The Works of John Wesley [Oxford: Clarendon, 1975- 1983).

Jackson The Works of John Wesley. 14 vols. 3rd. ed. Ed. 'Thomas Jackson. London:
Wesleyan Methodist Book Room. 1872; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979,

Journal The Journal of the Rev. John Wesley, A. M. 8 vols. Ed. Nehemiah Cumock.
London: Epworth. 1909-1916.

JW John Wesley. Ed. Albert C. Outler. A Library of Protestant Thought Series. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1964.

Letters The utters of the Rev. John Wesley, A. M. 8 vols. Ed. John Telford. London:
Epworth, 1931.

NT Notes Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament. 2 vols. London: Bowyer, 1755;
reprint ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1986.

PW The Poetical Works ofJohn and Charles Wesley. 13 vols. Ed. Grant Osborn. London:
Wesleyan Methodist Conference Office, 1868-1872.

I. 1lris paper is dedicated to the memory of Albert C. Outler, in appreciation for his
notable contributions to Wesley scholarship.

2. Isolated early suggestions can be found in Alexander Knox, Remains of Alexander

Knox, esq. (London: Duncan & Malcolm, 1844), 3:483; and Richard Denny Urlin, John
Wesley's Place in Church History (London: Rivington's, 1870), pp. 10, 59-86. 1be one
responsible for recovering this agenda in contemporary Wesley studies is Albert Outler. Cf.
MJohn Wesley's Interest in the Early Fathers of the Church," Bulletin of the United Church
of Canada Committee on Archives and History 29 (1980-2):5-17 and JW, pp. viii-ix. For a
similar suggestion in regard to Charles Wesley, see Brian Frost, Mlbe Idea of Fullness in
the Hymns of Charles Wesley," Sobornost 4.1 (1962): 373-382.

3. 1be best study of Wesley's appeal to tradition is Ted Campbell, MJohn Wesley 's
Conceptions and Uses of Christian Antiquity" (Southern Methodist University Ph.D. thesis,
1984). However, Campbell does not focus on the Greek fathers. For this, see Albert Outler
in BE 1:74.

4. For three typical listings, see MPlain Account of Genuine Christianity," §3. 11 (JW, p.
195); MAn address to the Clergy," §1.2 & 2.1 (Jackson, 10:484, 492); and Sermon 112, MOn
Laying the Foundation of the New Chapel," §2.3 (BE, 3:586). Note also that Wesley
included excerpts for Clement, Ignatius, Macarius and Polycarp in Volume 1 of his
'::hristian Library.
44 Maddox

5. K. Steve McConnick., wJohn Wesley's Use of John Chrysostom on the Christian Life:
Faith Ftlled with the Energy of love" (Drew University Ph.D. thesis, 1983).

6. Francis Young, wGrace and Demand-1be Heart of Preaching," Epworth Review 12.2
(1985):46-55.

7. Cf. Harald Lindstrom, Wesley and Sanctijicalion (Stockholm: Nya BokfOrlags

Aktiebolaget, 1946), p. 159; and Outler, wWesley's Interest in the Fathers," p. 11.

8. Cf. Sermon 43, w1be Scripture Way of Salvation," (BE, 2:159).

9. Outler, wWesley's Interest in the Fathers," p. 12; and Charles Rogers, w1be Concept of
Prevenient Grace in the 1beology of John Wesley" (Duke University Ph.D. thesis, 1967),
p. 29, note 1.

10. David C. Ford, WSaint Makarios of Egypt and John Wesley: Variations on the lbeme
of Sanctification," Greek Ortho<kJx Theological Review 33 ( 1988):285-312. Ford appears to
know Macarius much better than Wesley.

11. Cf. Paul Bassett and William Greathouse, Exploring Christian Holiness, vol. 2, The
Historical Development (Kansas City: Beacon Hill, 1985), 2:69-79; Ernst Benz: Die Pro-
testantische Thebais: Zur Nachwirkunq Makarios des A"qypters im Protestantismus des 17.
und 18. Jahrhunderts in Europa und Amerika (Weisbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1963), pp.
117-129; Robert G. Tuttle, Jr., wlbe Influence of Roman Catholic Mystics on John Wesley"
(University of Bristol Ph.D. thesis, 1969), pp. 300-310 (note that Tuttle treats Macarius as a
general wcatholic" theologian); and Gordon Wakefield, WLa Litterature du Desert chez John
Wesley," lrenikan 51 (1978):165- 167.

12. Cf. Hennann Dorries, Die Theologie des Makarios/Symeon (GOttingen: Vandenhoeck
and Ruprecht, 1978).

13. Werner Jaeger, Two Rediscovered Works ofAncient Christian Literature: Gregory of
Nyssa and Macarius (Leiden: E. J . Brill, 1954),

14. This claim was advanced first and most strongly by Albert Outler in JW, p. 9, note 26.

15. See Reinhart Staats, Gregor von Nyssa und die Messalianer (Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter, 1968); and Makarios-Symeon Epistola Magna: Eine messalianische Mi5nchsregel
und ihre Umschrift in Gregors von Nyssa "De instituto christiano • (GOttingen: Vanden-
hoeck and Ruprecht, 1984), pp. 28-30.

16. Paul Bassett, Exploring Christian Holiness, pp. 79-87; and John Merritt, w'Dialogue '
Within a Tradition: John Wesley and Gregory of Nyssa Christian Perfection,"
Wesleyan Theological Journal 22.2 ( 1987):92- 116. Overall, Bassett's presentation is the
most suggestive. In particular, Merritt explicitly assumes the dependence of Macarius on
Gregory and subsumes of Macarius within his study.
 John Wesley and &stern Ortho<k>xy 45

17. Robert Brightman, MGregory of Nyssa and John Wesley in Theological Dialogue on
the Christian Life" (lb;ton University Ph.D. thesis, 1969). Note his appendix on the issue
of Wesley's relation to Gregory, pp. 359ff.

18. To mention just two: David Balis, Metousia Theou: Man 's Participation in God's
Perfections According to Saint Gregory of Nyssa (Rome: Libreria Herder, 1966); and Verna
Harrison, Morace and Freedom According to Gregory of Nyssa" (Graduate Theological
Union Ph.D. thesis, 1986).

19. Wesley repeatedly read and referred to Ephraem, calling him the Mmost awakening
author of all the ancients" (BE, 18: 172 [Journal, 10/12/1736]). For records of reading see
the Georgia Diary (BE, 18:424-449); and journal entries for 3/4/1747 (Journal, 3:284) and
5/21/1761 (Journal, 4:457-459). There is some question whether he was reading the actual
"Ephraem."

20. A. M. Allchin, "Our Life in Christ: In John Wesley and the Eastern Fathers" in We
Belong to One Another: Methodist, Anglican and Ortho<k>x, ed. A. M. Allchin (London:
Epwo rth: 1965), p. 62-78; and Craig Blaising, "John Wesley's Doctrine of Original Sin"
(Dallas Theological Seminary Ph.D. thesis, 1979), pp. 242-286. Allchin is clearly aware
that Wesley could not have known the works of Symeon. It is not clear that Blaising
acknowledges this about the Palamite idea of divine energies.

21 . For a brie f summary of the questions concerning the status of Erasmus and what
Wesley may or may not have requested from him, see Colin Williams, John Wesley's
Theology Today (Nashville: Abingdon, 1960), pp. 223-225.

22. Cf. "The Doctrine of Original Sin," Pt. l, §2.7 (Jackson, 9:2 16-7); Sermon 63, "The
General Spread of the Gospel," §5-6 (BE, 2:487); Sermon 69, "The Imperfection of Hwnan
Knowledge," §2.7 (BE, 2:580-581); Sermon 122, "Cause of the Inefficiency of Christian-
ity," §4 (BE, 4:88); and John Wesley, A Concise Ecclesiastical History (London: Paramore,
1781), 3: 171- 194 and 4:60-69 [note that Wesley is merely abridging the comments of J. L.
Mosheim here] . For a survey of preceding Anglican views, see Christopher Knight,
"'People so Beset with Saints': Anglican Attitudes to Orthodoxy, 1555- 1725," Sobornost
10.2 (1988):25-36.

23. The ground-breaking documents are: Anthony Bloom, et. al., Dialogue &st and West
(London: Faith Press, 1963), esp. pp. 41-44; and A. M. Allchin, We Belong to One Another.
See also: A . M. Allchin, Participation in God, A Forgotten Strand in the Anglican Tradition
:Wilton, CT: Morehouse-Barlow, 1988); Brian Frost, MOrthodoxy and Methodism," Londan
')uarterly and Ho/burn Review 189 ( 1964): 13-22; Brian Frost, Living in Tension Between
and West (London: New World Publications, 1984); John Newton, MThc Heart
:trangely Warmed: Eastern Orthodoxy and the Free Church Tradition in the West,"
obornost 6.2 (1984):43-54; and E. Gordon Rupp, "Methodists, Anglicans and Orthodoxy,"
'.>bornost 4.10 (1964):566-569.

L Note especially Gordon Rupp's contribution to We Belong to One Another (Allchin),

'· 13-29.
 Maddox

25. Harold Mayo, MJohn Wesley and the Christian East: On the Subject of Christian
Perfection" (St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary master's thesis, 1980).

26. The following summary includes both claims from studies introduced above and
suggestions from a comparative reading of contemporary Orthodox theology and Wesley.
The me of contemporary Orthodox theology is warranted by their normative ascription to
the early Greek theologians Wesley read.

27. Cf. Hieromonk Auxentios and Archimandrite Chrysostomos, MA Comparative Treat-

ment of Scripture and Tradition in the Orthodox East and the Catholic and Protestant
West," Dialconia 16 (1981):212-224, esp. pp. 217-218; John Meyendorff, The Living
Tradition (Crestwood, NY: ST. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1978), p. 20; and Timothy
(Kallistos) Ware, The Orthodox Church (NY: Penguin, 1984), p. 207.

28. Cf. A Monk (Lev Gillet) of the Eastern Church, Orthodox Spirituality, 3d ed.
(Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1987), p. ix; and Ware, Orthodox Church,
p. 204.

29. Cf. J. Brian Selleck, MThe Book of Common Prayer in the Theology of John Wesley"
(Drew University Ph.D. thesis, 1983).

30. This is not to say Eastern theologians do not draw on reason and experience, only that
they do not explicitly articulate these as sources in any way analogous to tradition. Cf.
Brightman's artificial attempt to demonstrate a MWesleyan Quadrilateral" in Gregory of
Nyssa (MGregory of Nyssa," pp. 31-41).

31. For an analysis of such a restriction in Wesley, see Campbell, MWesley's Conceptions
of Antiquity." For an Orthodox rejection of any such restriction, see Georges A orovsky,
Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View (Belmont, MA:
stalt, 1987), p. 111.

32. Cf. Vladimir Lossky, Orthodox Theology: An Introduction (Crestwood, NY: St.
Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1978), p. 14; John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology (New
York: Fordham University Press, 1974), pp. 7, 115; A Monk, Orthodox Spirituality, p. 17;
and Ware, Orthodox Church, pp. 213, 271.

33. Cf. the analysis of the forms of Wesley's theological activity in Randy L. Maddox,
MJohn Wesley-Practical Theologian?" Wesleyan Theological Journal 23 (1988): 122- 147.

34. For a survey of these developments and recent calls for Western theology to return to a
more Mpractical" approach, see Randy L. Maddox, MRecovering Theology as a Practical
Discipline," Theological Studies 51 (1990). For a strong argwnent that Eastern theology has
retained this early pastoral nature, see Alexander Sclunemann, Church, World, Mission,
(Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1979), pp. l 19ff.

35. Cf. Herbert A. Hodges, MMethodists, Anglicans and Orthodox," in We Belong to One
Another (Allchin), pp. 39-40; Mcyendorff, Byzantine Theology, p. 8; and Ware, Orthodox
Church, pp. 56, 215.
 John Wesley and Eastern Orthodoxy 47

36. Cf. Maddox, MJohn Wesley-Practical Theologian."

37. We will organize the doctrinal comparison of Orthodoxy and Wesley around the
pattern of Christian experience, as suggested by Meyendorff (Byzantine Theology, p. 128).

38. One of the best brief swnrnaries of the two basic traditiom is found in J. Pato ut Burns,
Mlbe Economy of Salvation: Two Patristic Traditiom," Theological Studies 37 (1976):598-
619. For a similar study mentioning variations from these two major positions, see J. Patout
Burns, Mlntroduction," in Theological Anthropology 1981), pp. 1-22.

39. C f. John Meyendorff, Christ in Eastern Christian Thought (Washington, DC: Corpus
Books, 1969), p. 122; and Father Kallistas (Timothy) Ware, The Orthodox Way
(Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1980), p. 66.

40. Cf. Burns, Mlntroduction," p. 7; Lossky, Orthocrox Theology, p. 71; Georgias I.

Mantzaridis, The Deification of Man (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press,
1984), p. 20; and Meyendorff, Christ in Eastern Thought, p. 95.

41. Cf. Mantzaridis, Deification, p. 25; and John Meyendorff, Catholicity and the Church
(Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1983), p. 72.

42. This difference centers, partly, around a debate over the correct reading of Rom. 5: 12.
Cf. the discussion in Meyendorff, BYl.llntine Theology, p. 144.

43. Cf. Meyendorff, Christ in Eastern Thought, p. 88; and Ware, Orthodox Church, pp.
227-228.

44. Cf. Meyendorff, BY'l.flntine Theology, pp. 138- 139; Meyendorff, Christ in Eastern
Thought, pp. 93-5; and Ware, Orthodox Church, p. 226.

45. Cf. Sermon 60, Mlbe General Deliverance," §1.2 (BE, 2:439). Ro bin Scroggs argues
that Wesley's Note on Rom. 5:21 suggests the contrary, but he appears to read too much
into this one reference (Scroggs, Mlohn Wesley as a Biblical Scholar," J ournal of Bible and
Religion 28 [1960]:415-422). Indeed, Wesley extended perfection to the rest of creation as
well. Cf. Sermon 56, MGod's Approbation of His Works," §1.2-6 (BE, 2:389-391).

46. Cf. his reaction to Dr. Taylor' s suggestion that Adam was not created perfect in MThe
Doctrine of Original Sin," Pt. 2, §3 (Jackson, 9:291-2).

47. One of the clearest examples is Mildred Wynkoop, A Theology of Love: The Dynamic
of Wesleyanism (Kansas City: Beacon Hill, 1972), pp. 70, 81.

48. Cf. MP!ain Accowit of Christian Perfection," §26 (Jackson, 11:442).

49. Ibid, Q. 29 (Jackson, 11 :426). This statement dates from 1763. In 1756 he had
commented that the cure to sin must be completed at least in paradise, it cannot wait for
heaven (letter to James Hervey, 10/15/1756 [Letters, 3:380]).

50. Cf. Sermon 43, Mlbe Scripture Way of Salvation," §1.7 (BE, 2:159).
48 Maddox

51. Cf. Sermon 45, MThe New Birth," §1.1 (BE, 2:188). This distinction and its precedents
in early Greek theologiaM bas been explored by Egon Walter Gerdes, MJohn Wesley's
Lehre von der Gottesebendbildlichkeit des Menschen" (Keil University Ph.D. thesis, 1958),
esp. pp. 10-15.

52. Cf. Sermon 60, MThe General Deliverance," § 1.2 (BE, 2:439); and Sermon 62, MThe
End of Christ's Coming," §1.7 (BE, 2:475).

53. On this point compare Lindst.rOm, Wesley and Sanctification, pp. 34-35; and Blaising,
MWesley's Doctrine of Original Sin," pp. 206ff.

54. 1bough there are occasional suggestions that the death incumbent upon Adam 's sin
was only spiritual death (cf. Sermon 45, MThe New Birth," § 1.3 [BE, 2: 190]), Wesley
generally ascribes the traMition to mortality and death to the Fall as well (Cf. Conference
Minutes, 6/25/1744 [JW, pp. 138-139]; and MThe Doctrine of Original Sin," Pt. 2, §1.5
[Jackson, 9:243]). He even speculates about the process of this increasing mortality and
resulting spiritual corruption-a type of Mhardening of the arteries!" (Cf. Sermon 141 , "The
Image of God," §2. l [BE, 4:246-247]; rewritten as Sermon 57, MOn the Fall of Man," §2.5
[BE, 2:407-4-08]). The main point is that he then attributes the shortcomings of even the
most perfect redeemed activity to the corruptions resulting from the Fall (e.g., Sermon 129,
"Heavenly Treasure in Earthly Vessels," §2.l [BE, 4:165]).

55. Cf. Sermon 45, "The New Birth," §2.4 (BE, 2:192); and Sermon 54, MOn Eternity,"
§ 16 (BE, 2:367).

56. Sermon 85, "On Working Out Our Own Salvation," §3.4 (BE, 3 :207).

57. Cf. John C. Cho, "Adam's Fall and God's Grace: John Wesley's Theological
Anthropology;· Evangelical Review of Theology 10 ( 1986):202-2 13.

58. Cf. David Eaton, MAnninianism in the Theology of John Wesley" (Drew University
Ph.D . thesis, 1988), pp. 222ff; Outler, "Wesley's Interest in Early Fathers," p. 12; and
Charles Rogers, "The Concept of Prevenient Grace in the Theology of John Wesley" (Duke
University Ph.D. thesis, 1967), p. 29, note 1. See also Meyendorffs description of the same
basic notion in Gregory of Nys.sa (Catholicity, p. 22).

59. Cf. the judgments of Blaising, "Original Sin," p. 270; and Frost, Living in Tension,
p. 45.

60. Cf. Mantzaridis, Deification, p. 30; and Meyendorff, Catholicity, p. 21.

61. Cf. George Cronk, The Message of the Bible: An Orthodox Perspective (Crestwood,
NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1982), p. 37; and Meyendorff, Christ in Eastern
Thought, p. 88.

62. For the best extended current Orthodox treatment of these issues, see Meyendorff,
Christ in Eastern Thought, esp. pp. 64-65, 128, 163ff.

63. Cf. Cronk, Message, p. 41 ; and Lossky, Orthodox Theology, p. 116.

 John Wesley and Eastern Orthodoxy 49

64. This is shown most clearly in Craig B. Gallaway, · Tue Presence of Christ with the
Worshipping Community: A Study in the Hymns of John and Charles Wesley" (Emory
University Ph.D. thesis, 1988), esp. pp. 106ff.

65. Cf. John R. Renshaw, •Tue Atonement in the Theology of John and Charles Wesley"
(Bo.ston University Ph.D. thesis, 1965), esp. pp. 123, 138; and John R. Tyson, •Charles
Wesley's 'Theology of Redemption," Wesleyan Theological Journal 20.2 (1985):7-28.

66. Wesley's NT Note on Luke 2:43 claims ·our Lord passed through and sanctified every
stage of hwnan life." Note also how he describes Christ's destroying of the works of the
devil with a focus on present delivery from sinfulness, rather than on the Cross (Sermon 62,
·The End of Christ's Coming," §3.1-4 (BE, 2:480-482). This theme can be found as well in
Charles's ·Hymns for the Nativity," especially hymn #5, vs. 5 (PW, 4: 110) and hymn #8,
vs. 5 (PW, 4: 114). Cf. The judgments of Renshaw, •Atonement," p. 222; and Tyson,
•Redemption," p. 17.

67. Cf. NT Notes, Col. 1: 14-·The voluntary passion ofour Lord appeased the Father's
wrath, obtained pardon and acceptance for us, and consequently, dissolved the dominion
and power which Satan had over us through our sins. So that forgiveness is the beginning of
redemption. .." [emphasis added].

68. Cf, Renshaw,· Atonement," pp. 234ff. On this point, Brian Frost would appear to go
too far in claiming that Wesley relegates the crucified Christ to the background. However,
his suggestion of a heightened emphasis on the resurrected Lord is on target. (Frost, Living
in Tension, p. 41 ). As such, John Deschner is correct to suggest that a deeper realization of
the Eastern Orthodox roots of Wesley 's thought calls in question his previous argument that
Wesley's Christology is oriented around Christ's priestly work (Deschner, •Foreword," in
reprint of Wesley 's Christology: An Interpretation [Dallas: Southern Methodist University
Press, 1985], p. ix)

69. Cf, Deschner, Wesley's Christology, pp. 28-32; and Cutler's comment in BE, I :470,
note f. Note also Roberta Bondi 's conclusion that there is no necessary conflict between
Wesley's Christology and that of the non-Chalcedonian East (Bondi, ·The Meeting of
Oriental Orthodoxy and United Methodism," in Christ in East and West, ed. P. Fries and T.
Nersoyan [Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1987], p. 171- 184).

70. The best recent survey and analysis of the development of the doctrine of the Holy
Spirit is Yves M. J. Congar, I Believe in the Holy Spirit, 3 vols. (New York: Seabury,
1983).

71. Fo r a dialogue between Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox on the subject of grace,
sec C . Moeller and G . Philips, The Theology of Grace and the Oecumenical Movement
(London: A. R. Mowbray and Co, 1961). This book is summarized extensively in E. L .
Mascall, ·orace and Nature in East and West," Church Quarterly Review 164 (1963):181-
198. An older, but still helpful, collection is N. P. Williams, The Grace of God (London:
Longmans, 1930).

72. For Orthodox reflections on grace and the related Palamite distinction between God 's
essence and God's energies, see Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern
 50 Maddox

Church (London: James Clark and Co, 1957), pp. 162ff; Meyendorff, Catholicity, p. 73;
Meyendorff, Christ in Eastern Thought, p. 87; and Meyendorff, Living Tradition, p. 172.
Cf. Roland Zimany, MGrace, Deification and Sanctification: East and West," Dialwnia 12
(1977): 121-144.

73. For an analysis of one example-Karl Rabner-see Gerry Russo, MRahner and
Palamas: A Unity of Grace," St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 32 ( 1988): I 57-180.

74. On this term and its characterii.ation of Wesley's thought in general, see Randy L.
Maddox, MRespomible Grace: 1be Systematic Perspective of Wesleyan lbeology,"
Wesleyan Theological Journal 19.2 (1984):7-22.

75. Cf. Frost, Living in Tension, p. 18; Mayo, MWesley and the Christian F.ast," p. 20; and
Outler, MWesley's Interest in the Early Fathers," p. 15.

76. This has been demonstrated (in contrast with Calvin) by Robert J. Hillman, MGrace in
the Preaching of Calvin and Wesley: A Comparative Study" (Fuller lbeological Seminary
Ph.D. thesis, 1978). See also, Robert Rakestraw, Mlbe Concept of Grace in the Ethics of
John Wesley" (Drew University Ph.D. thesis, 1985). Rakestraw emphasizes the F.astem
roots of Wesley's Wlderstanding of grace (pp. 88ft).

77. Cf. 1bomas Lessman, Rolle und Bedeutung des Helligen Geistes in der Theologie John
Wesleys (Stuttgart: Christliches Verlaghaus, 1987), pp. l lff. Rakestraw points to Macarius
as an important source of this equation in Wesley (MConcept of Grace," p. 102).

78. 1be most extended discussions are Blaising, MWesley's Doctrine of Original Sin,"
pp. 242ff; and Daniel I. Luby, Mlbe Perceptibility of Grace in the lbeology of John
Wesley" (Pontificia Studionun Universitas A.S. 1bomas Aquinas in Urbe Ph.D. thesis,
1984), pp. 129ff.

79. For a general reflection on the two orientations, see Congar, Holy Spirit, vol. 3, esp. pp.
xvff. For a particularly striking Orthodox reflection, stressing the communal nature of God,
see John D. Zizioulas, Being as Communion (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Press, 1985),
p. 17.

80. 1be strongest F.astern critique of the filioque has come from Vladimir Lossky (cf.
Mystical Theology, pp. 67ff). For a respome to Lossky and a survey of the current discus-
sions, see Congar, Holy Spirit, vol. 3.

81. See also his NT Note on John 15:16.

82. Cf. the argument of Donald Dayton, MPneumatological Issues in the Holiness Move-
ment," in Spirit of Truth: Ecumenical Perspectives on the Holy Spirit, ed. T. Stylianopoulos
and S. Mark Heim (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1986), pp.131 - 157, esp.
p. 139. 1be contrary argument of William Cannon (The Theology ofJohn Wesley [New
York: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1946], pp. 441-444) appears to confuse the positions of the
F.ast and West!
 John Wesley and Eastern Orthodoxy 51

83. Cf. Lycurgus Starkey, The Work of the Holy Spirit: A Study in Wesleyan Theology (New
York: Abingdon, 1962), p. 31. Contrast Thomas W. Pillow, MJohn Wesley's Doctrine of the
Trinity," The Cumberland Seminarian 24 (1986):1-10, esp. p. 7. In Starkey's favor would
be Wesley's strong denial of the attempt to define the Trinity as a matter of offices rather
than persons (Letter to Miss March, 8/3/1771 [Letters, 5:270]).

84. For further characterization of the two approaches, see Outler, Mlbe Place of Wesley in
the Christian Tradition," in The Place of Wesley in the Christian Tradition, ed. K. A. Rowe
(Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow, 1976), pp. 11-38, esp. pp. 29-30.

85. Lutheranism, with its strong emphasis on ju&ification by faith (and resulting smpicion.s
about talk of growth in holiness) bas fowxl the Eastern emphasis m05t foreign. However,
there are still possible points of contact (see: Jouko Martikainen, MMan's Salvation:
Deification or Jmtification?" Sobornost 7 .3 [ 1976): 180-192).

86. For one of the m05t developed Eastern treatments of the issue of jmtification, see
Dumitru Staniloae, Orthodaxe Dogmatik (Zfuich: Benziger Verlag, 1985), 1:233ff.

87. Cf. the graphic distinction between East and West in Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology,
p. 146.

88. Cf. especially L05sky, Mystical Theology, pp. 197-198.

89. Note particularly MSome Remarks on 'A Defeme of the Preface to the F.dinburgh
Edition of Aspasio Vindicated,'" §3 (Jackson, 10:349); and MA Farther Appeal to Men of
Reason and Religion," Pt. 1, §2.4 (BE, 11 :111).

90. Cf. the judgment of Dayton, MPnewnatological Issues," p. 251 and Outler in BE, 1:80.
For some representative examples, see Sermon 44, MOriginal Sin," §3.3 (BE, 2:184);
Sermon 48, MSelf-Denial," §1.10 (BE, 2:244-245); and Sermon 95, MOn the &lucation of
Children," §4ff (BE, 3:349ft).

91. MA Farther Appeal," Pt. l, § 1.3 (BE, 11 : 106). See also the Conference minutes for 6/25/
1744, Q. 16 (JW, p. 139). Cf. the affirmation of Wesley's essentially Eastern soteriology by
Luby, MPerceptibility of Grace," p. 143, note 194; and Outler, MWesley's Interest in F.arly
Fathers," p. 10.

92. Cf. Deschner, Wesley's Christology, p. 185; and Williams, Wesley 's Theology Today ,
p. 100.

93. NT Notes, 1 Pet 2:24. Cf. Sermon 57, MOn the Fall of Man," §2.8 (BE, 2:410).

94. See, for example, Outler, MPlace of Wesley," p. 30.

95. Cf. Allchin, Participation, p. 33; Frost, Living in Tension, pp. 38ff; and John Tyson,
Charles Wesley On Sanctification (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), pp. 57-70.
52 Maddox

96. See example, George Tavard, Justification: An Ecumenical Study (New Yodc Paulist,
1983), pp. 84ff. For a defense of Wesley (and Orthodoxy), see McCormick, -wesley's Use
of Chryso.stom," esp. p. 280.
97. For a typical example of such misunderstanding, see: Ben Drewery, -Deification," in
Christian Spirituality: &says in Honour of Gordon Rupp (London: SCM, 1975), pp. 35-62.
Two particularly helpful articulations of deification are Mawice F. Himmerich, -Deifica-
tion in John of Damascus" (Marquette University Ph.D. thesis, 1985); and Robert G.
Stephanopoulos, -The Orthodox Doctrine ofTheosis," in The New Man, ed. I. Meyendorff
and J. McLelland (New York: Agora Books, 1973), pp. 149-161.

98. See: A Monk, Orthodox Spirituality, p. 22; and Stepha.nopoulos, -Theosis," pp. 151-
152.

99. The best general analysis of Wesley's doctrine of perfection is Lindstrom, Wesley and
Sanctification.

100. Cf. Mayo, "Wesley and the Christian East," p. 34; and Ware, Orthodox Church,
p. 241. For the centrality of Jove in Wesley's understanding of sanctification, see Wynkoop,
Theology of Love.

101. Cf. Allchin, "Our Life in Christ," p. 65; and Ware, Orthodox Church, p. 240.

102. Cf. Mayo, "Wesley and the Christian East," p. 38; and Outler (JW), pp. 30-31.

103. Cf. Stephanopoulos, "Theosis," esp. pp. 150, 159; and Ware, Orthodox Church, p. 241.
The best analysis of W esley's emphasis on spiritual disciplines for growth in Christ-
likeness is Henry H. Knight, -The Presence of Christ in the Christian Life: A Contemporary
Understanding of Wesley's Means of Grace" (Emory University Ph.D. thesis, 1988).

104. Cf. Outler, "Wesley's Interest in Early Fathers," pp. 14- 15. Compare the stages of a
Monk of the Eastern Church (Orthodox Spirituality, p. 36) to those of Wesley (Sermon 40,
"Christian Perfection," §2.1 [BE, 2: 105); and Letter to William Law, 1/6/1756 [Letters
3:360)).

105. Cf. Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology, p. 176; A. Outler, -Towards a Re-appraisal of

John Wesley as a Theologian," Perkins Journal 14 (1961):5-14, esp. pp. 12-13; and Ware,
Orthodox Church, p. 240.

106. Fo r Wesley, note Sermon 42, "On Satan's Devices," §2.5 (BE, 2:150); Sermon 43,
"The Scripture Way of Salvation," §3.12 (BE, 2: 167); Letter to 'John Smith,· 6/25/1746
(BE, 26:202); and Letter to John Mason, 1/10/1774 (Letters, 6:66). Simon Tugwell,
"Evagrius and Macarius," in The Study of Spirituality, ed. C. Jones and G . Wainwright
(London: SPCK, 1986), pp. 168- 175, here pp. 173- 174.

107. E.g., D. Marselle Moore, "Development in Wesley's Thought on Sanctification and

Perfection," Wesleyan Theological Journal 20.2 (1985):29-53, esp. pp. 33-34.

108. Lossky, Mystical Theology, p. 209; and Mantzaridis, Deification, p. 87.

 John Wesley and &stern Orthodoxy 53

109. Cf. Wakefield, MLitterature du Desert," pp. 165-167.

110. Cf. Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology, p. 68; Ware, Orthodox Church, p. 239; and the
Conference Minutes for 6/25/1744, Q. 16 (JW, p. 139).

111. Cf. Mantzaridis, Deification, p. 41; and A Monk. Orthodox Spirituality, p. 37.

112. Cf. Allchin, Participation in God, p. 50; and Selleck, MBook of Common Prayer,"
pp. 282-283.

113. For an analysis of this Mdouble epiclesis" and its Eastern precedents, see A. M.
Allchin, Mlntroduction," in A Rapture of Praise: Hymns of John and Charles Wesley, ed.
H. A. Hodges and A. M. Allchin (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1966), p. 39.

114. Cf. Mantzaridis, Deification, pp, 41-46; Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology, p. 194; and
Tugwell, MMacarius," p. 173.

115. For a good summary and analysis o f the various issues, see Bernard Holland, Baptism
in Early Methodism (London: Epworth. 1970).

116. Cf. Sermon 18, MThe Marks of the New Birth," §4.2 -5 (BE, l :428-430); and Letter to
John Mason, 11/21/1776 (Letters, 6:239-240).

117. For a discussion of Wesley on confinnation, see Ole Borgen, MBaptism, Co nfirmation,
and Church Membership in the Methodist Church Before the Union of 1968," Methodist
History 21 (1989):89- 109, esp. pp. lOlff.

118. Cf. Mayo, MWesley and Christian East," p. 49.

119. Cf. Frost, MOrthodoxy and Methodism," and Rupp, MMethodists, Anglicans and
Orthodoxy," p. 24.

120. For the first option, see Rupp MMethodists, Anglican and Orthodoxy," p. 15. The
second option is widely evident in Wesley scholarship.

121. E.g., Mayo, MWesley and Christian East," p. 57.

122. Cf. Yves Congar, Diversity and Communion (London: SCM, 1984), pp. 70-76
(focussing on thejilioque).

123. &pecially Outler (e.g., JW, p. 14, and BE, 2:171). See also Bassett, Christian
Holiness, p. 108, and Dayton, MPnewnatological Issues," p. 141.