Wesley Report

Wesley and Righteousness: Study Bible Sparks Discussion

Here's what makes study Bibles so much fun. Sooner or later you come across notes that you either don't agree with or that you wish were worded a little differently. And when you get a bunch of Wesley scholars together with Bible scholars and pastors to do one Bible project, you're going to get a variety of opinions. For that matter, if you read enough of John Wesley's writings you occasionally find tension.

Jason Woolever, a United Methodist elder, has posed a question on Facebook about the Wesleyan Core Term note on page 828 of the Wesley Study Bible. Here's the part of the note in question:

[Christ's] righteous death alone is the ground on which we are pardoned and accepted by God. He has paid the penalty for our sins. But Wesley insisted (against many of his contemporaries) that Christ's righteousness does not remove the need for ours. It is not imputed (or credited) to us, like somebody else's money transferred to our account. We need to change, for we are called to become holy. Christ's righteousness can, however, be imparted to us. By the work of the Holy Spirit we can become like Christ, loving God and neighbor.

Jason points out that this note seems to contradict Wesley's own words in his sermon The Lord Our Righteousness:

But when is it imputed? When they believe. In that very hour the righteousness of Christ is theirs. It is imputed to every one that believes, as soon as he believes: Faith and the righteousness of Christ are inseparable.

Asbury Seminary's Dr. Bill Arnold writes on Facebook:

Well, I cannot speak for the entire editorial committee, and I suppose I can fall back on the excuse that I only worked on the biblical studies notes and only half of the OT at that! But you’re right that there is a problem here. As you point out, Wesley himself and most of his descendants teach that the righteousness of Christ is, in fact, imputed to the believer. So instead of “not one but the other,” I think we should speak of “both and.” Wesleyans believe in both imputation and impartation of righteousness, the forensic and the participatory, the work that God does for us and the work that God does in us.

So what's the deal? Did the WSB get it wrong? Or was Wesley of two minds on this subject? (Or maybe he changed his mind somewhere along the way?) Sometimes we forget that Wesley's writings cover many decades- and people's views do evolve over time. Let's explore this a little. First, let's look at a couple of words in the original note. What's the difference between impute and impart? The Random House dictionary defines impute this way: to attribute (righteousness, guilt, etc.) to a person or persons vicariously; ascribe as derived from another. (Plain English: Vicarious means substituted... acting or serving in the place of someone or something else. Ascribe means to attribute to something.) Impart is defined as granting a share of, passing on or transmitting. So unless I'm mistaken, impute has to do with our position in Christ, impart with the characteristics we develop as we become like Christ. So we have imputed righteousness even before we start acting righteous. One is the basis for justification, the other, sanctification. I think Dr. Arnold hits the nail on the head with his both/and argument. 

But the WSB study note seems to reject the former and accept the latter. Perhaps it's because Wesley distanced himself from the doctrine when he thought it was being abused. In 1762, Wesley wrote in Thoughts on the Imputed Righteousness of Christ:

We are all agreed as to the meaning, but not as to the expression, "the imputing the righteousness of Christ;" which I still say, I dare not insist upon, neither require any one to use, because I cannot find it in the Bible. If anyone can, he has better eyes than me; and I wish he would show me where it is.

Classic Wesley. :-) He continues:

I am myself the more sparing in the use of it, because it has been so frequently and so dreadfully abused; and because the Antinomians use it at this day to justify the grossest abominations. And it is great pity that those who love, who preach, and follow after, holiness, should, under the notion of honoring Christ, give any countenance to those who continually make him “the minister of sin,” and so build on his righteousness as to live in such ungodliness and unrighteousness as is scarce named even among the Heathens.

So Wesley was essentially trying to avoid the opposite extremes of works-righteousness and Antinomianism. In a response to an anti-Wesleyan pamphlet by Sir Richard Hill, John Wesley even swore off use of the phrase "imputed righteousness", but not the doctrine:

Therefore I will use it no more. (I mean, the phrase imputed righteousness; that phrase, the imputed righteousness of Christ, I never did use.) I will endeavor to use only such phrases as are strictly scriptural. And I will advise all my brethren, all who are in connection with me throughout the three kingdoms, to lay aside that ambiguous, unscriptural phrase, (the imputed righteousness of Christ,) which is so liable to be misinterpreted, and speak in all instances, this in particular, as the oracles of God.

Controversial then, controversial now. From some of the research I did tonight I'm concluding that Wesley had a lot to say on the topic, and no matter what he said or wrote, he seemed to catch hell from someone. But it seems clear that he believed in imputed righteousness. So from what I've read, I think the note from the Wesley Study Bible unnecessarily pits imputed righteousness against imparted righteousness. The note, if I'm not mistaken, was written by British Methodist Brian Beck, formerly Principal of Wesley House, Cambridge and also a retired minister. I'm going to try to contact him and ask him to offer us a little more insight.

Note: This article has been edited for clarity.

Which Doctrines Should United Methodists Teach?

Katie Shockley, a Perkins student and special contributor to the UM Reporter gives her thoughts on how United Methodists should approach teaching doctrine. Shockley mentions Scripture, creeds, the Articles of Religion, John Wesley's sermons, and even the Book of Resolutions and Social Creeds. She thinks our churches need to be teaching certain doctrines, but she's a little vague about what those doctrines are. I've thought about this a lot recently, and I'd like to offer some ideas: