In an earlier blog I proposed that, on the basis of Wesley’s theology, it would be possible for a conservative evangelical church leader, who believes that all sexual relationships between people of the same sex are condemned by God, to hold up an openly gay pastor in a committed relationship as a model of holiness. Further, it would it be possible for that gay pastor who believes that the full inclusion of openly LGBTQ people in the life of the church is required by the biblical demand for justice to do the same. I asserted that both could be part of the same denomination, be deeply committed to being in relationships of mutual care and responsibility with each other, to delight in each other’s presence in the denomination and share together in its common mission.
For many this might seem to be an absolutely absurd proposal. Surely central to the debate is that conservatives hold that sexual relationships between members of the same sex are sinful; hence a person living in such a relationship is living a life of habitual sin. Surely it is contradictory to view someone you believe to living in habitual sin to be a model of holiness. A similar argument could be made from a progressive perspective.
Wesley wrestled with this problem, in relation to Roman Catholics and others, who he saw as having lives characterized by habitual violations of God’s moral law. His response is not only insightful but is deeply rooted in the core of his theology, such that I am convinced that a major barrier to finding a way forward in the debate on LGBTQ inclusion is that our theology of sin is not deeply Wesleyan.
"... I am convinced that a major barrier to finding a way forward in the debate on LGBTQ inclusion is that our theology of sin is not deeply Wesleyan."
The foundations of Wesley’s approach lie in his understanding of human fallibility and responsibility. His views can be summarized as follows:
- Human beings are embodied creatures – hence all our knowledge comes through our bodies and is influenced by our bodies. It is thus shaped by the myriad features of embodied life, e.g. family, education, social status, life experience, psychological condition, culture. etc.
- As embodied creatures we are finite and hence our knowledge is limited and subject to ignorance.
- We are fallen creatures; as fallen creatures our knowledge is not only limited but subject to ignorance, mistakes, confusion and error.
- All human knowledge including our interpretation of scripture and morality is shaped by our being fallen, finite, embodied creatures and is thus subject to limits, confusion, errors and mistakes.
- Mistaken and erroneous opinions with regard to moral law will lead to mistaken and erroneous practices.
- Regeneration and sanctification do not change this basic human condition of being fallen, finite, embodied creatures and hence do not change the characteristics of human knowledge. Wesley proposed that sanctification can lead to greater error because love for others inclines us to believe their opinions and to affirm their integrity when this might not be justified.
- Human beings are responsible before God for the way we live and we will have to account to God for their practices.
- Human beings are required by God to act according to moral law – yet their knowledge of this law is finite, mistaken, and confused.
- God is just and will not require the impossible from human beings.
On the basis of this understanding Wesley develops his theology of sin. He makes two important proposals.
First, he distinguishes between “sin properly so called” and “sin improperly so called.” Sin “properly so called” is the conscious violation of the known will of God. It is for such actions that we are accountable before God. Hence when we are mistaken in our understanding of moral law and then in good conscience act in accordance to what we are convinced is moral law in Wesley’s understanding, we are not sinning. Wesley proposed that such actions be described as “sin improperly so-called.” These are actions that from a "God’s eye" perspective are contrary to moral law, but from human perspective the action is in accordance with their deeply and sincerely held understanding of the moral law in question. Actions and behavior patterns in accordance with such an understanding of moral law are not sins in the sense of a conscious violation of the law of God. However, because such acts violate God's moral law, they are covered by the atoning work of Christ.
Second, Wesley argued that the core of God's moral law was love for God and our fellow humans. The details of moral law are then the explication of what love requires in particular contexts and relationships. Wesley proposed that God required of the pre-Fall Adam perfect obedience to all the requirements of God's moral law. After the Fall, as a result of the limitations on human knowledge, this was no longer possible for Adam or any other human being.
Putting aside Wesley’s speculation about a pre-Fall Adam, what is important is that he argued that what God now requires of human beings is that we act according to the law of love. God does not require perfect obedience to all the requirements of God's moral law. The law of love means that we are required to act out of genuine love for our God and our fellow human beings even when our understanding of what that means is subject to ignorance, limits, confusion, mistakes and errors. This does not mean we can do what we like, for conformity to the law of love requires us to pay attention not only to our motives, but also to the scriptural exposition of God’s moral law, and the empirically determined consequences of our actions. Actions that we claim to be motivated by love, but that have clearly detrimental effects on the physical, psychological and spiritual well-being of others, are to be rejected.
A person who has been transformed by the grace of God so that they love God and their neighbors would in Wesley’s understanding follow the law of love and avoid committing sin “properly so called.” Such persons are holy, however they will have mistaken understandings of God's moral law and act according to these mistaken views. It is thus possible for people with very different understandings of what moral law requires can still recognize each other as siblings in Christ, as people transformed by the Spirit, and as “going on to perfection.” Given what Wesley says about the importance of mutual love for each other amongst Christians, to separate from each other because of seemingly divergent views is, I would argue from a Wesleyan perspective, contrary to the law of love that God requires us to obey.
This has major implications for how we approach the discussion on LGBTQ inclusion in The United Methodist Church. A Wesleyan theology of sin recognizes that faithful Christians may come to different understandings about the morality of covenanted monogamous relationships between people of the same sex, but be genuinely seeking to act out of love and to act with regard to the positive and negative consequences of their view. (Recognizing that the interpretation of these consequences is subject to fallibility and error). This means that such people are in Wesley’s definition not sinning (properly so called) when they are genuinely acting according to their consciences. Hence, even when, for example, conservative evangelicals regard all same-sex sexual relationships as inherently contrary to God's moral law, they could affirm that pastors who affirm such relationships in the context of covenanted monogamous relationships may be acting out of love when they marry same-sex couples. They are not sinning but are rather acting in conformity to the law of love. This is not to deny that ultimately either the conservative or the affirming positive position is according to God's moral law. It is rather to affirm that it is possible for sanctified Christians to come to different interpretations of the moral law. When this is the case, then differences over the affirmation of sexual relationships between people of the same sex in a covenanted monogamous relationship cannot be a barrier to mutual participation in the same church, to the ordination of openly gay and lesbian clergy, nor the affirmation and acceptance of their ministry. Quite simply this is no ground for separation.
My interpretation of Wesley obviously opens up the question of whether this means that anything goes – that we cannot make any moral judgments or restrictions. I will return to this in another blog post. For the present I will merely state that I do not think that this is the case. Within Wesley’s theology there is a clear basis for making moral judgments and for churches to insist on them as criteria for ordination and even full membership of the church. This is most clearly seen in Wesley’s General Rules and in his opposition to slavery.
Dr. David N. Field serves as Academic Coordinator of the Methodist e-Academy and as a research associate of the Research Institute of Religion and Theology at the University of South Africa. He is a member of the Commission on a Way Forward. This post is republished with the author's permission from his blog, Grace in the Fractures.