 |
|
The Radical Wesley
and Patterns for Church Renewal - Howard A. Snyder
|
The Radical Wesley
and Patterns for Church Renewal. By Howard A. Snyder. Eugene, Or.:
Wipf and Stock, 1996. vi + 189 pp
Book Critique by Tharwat Maher Nagib Adly
Nagib, PhD, Regent University, VA
The Radical Wesley and Patterns for Church
Renewal, a book by Howard A. Snyder, is an insightful book
that presents John Wesley’s ecclesiastical understanding and practices as a
proposed pattern for church renewal. The book studies the Wesleyan
ecclesiastical structure and examines the usefulness of this model in terms of
the contemporary ecclesiastical context. In his previous works The Problem
of Wineskins[1] and The
Community of the King,[2]
Snyder presented a balanced reassessment of the mission and structure of
today’s church. In The Problem of Wineskins, he presented the Wesleyan
model as “a lesson from history” of church renewal.[3] In The Radical Wesley,
Snyder continues exploring the Wesleyan ecclesiastical model in greater depth.[4] The
Problem of Wineskins, The Community of the King, The Radical
Wesley, alongside Snyder’s The Divided Flame: Wesleyans and the
Charismatic Renewal[5]
offer an integrated inspiring proposal of church renewal.
The
Radical Wesley consists of three sections, which include
twelve chapters, in addition to an introduction and a short conclusion. The
first section illustrates the early influences that formed Wesley’s ecclesiology.
His parents’ influence, the idea of the religious societies that already
existed in the Church of England, the Moravian impact, and biblical beliefs as
well as his personal experience were the most significant factors that shaped
Wesley's ecclesiology. The second section examines Wesley’s understanding of
the church and traces the major developments in his ecclesiastical thought.
Wesley’s ecclesiastical developments resulted from his practical experience and
growing biblical understanding. Theology and practices in the Wesleyan
tradition are inseparable. Snyder also proficiently explains how Wesley
formulated a balanced approach towards church tradition, and how he
distinguished between the biblical and traditional aspects in his ecclesiastical
thought. In addition, this section emphasizes the Wesleyan understanding of
church order as a functional structure that conveys God’s grace rather than an
institutional structure that is controlled by strict instructions. The third
section of the book discusses the renewal of the church today in the light of
Wesley’s ecclesiology. It examines the distinction between the institutional
perspective of the church and the charismatic one, and suggests a mediating
model, inspired from Wesley, that combines elements of both the institutional
and charismatic model. At the end of this section, Snyder offers a biblical
critique of some aspects of Wesley’s ecclesiastical perspective.
The
book shows the significance of the Wesleyan ecclesiastical structure and its
centrality to the understanding of the history of church renewal movements.
Snyder illustrates that the secrets of Wesley’s radicalism lay in his
ecclesiastical structure which was built on “forming little bands of
God-seekers who joined together in an earnest quest to be Jesus’ disciples.”[6]
Wesley was dependent on these small entities to be the main vehicle of church
renewal. The Wesleyan ecclesiastical structure of societies, classes, and
bands, represented a new wineskin for the Holy Spirit’s new wine. Snyder
suggests that Wesley saw these small entities as ecclesiolae in ecclesia
or “little churches within the church.” Snyder explains that Wesley’s
ecclesiology is a synthesis of “old and new”, “dogma and experience”,
and “tradition and innovation.” Actually, the uniqueness of Wesley's
ecclesiology, as presented by Snyder, could be seen, not in replacing the old
components (because Wesley in fact did not want to replace the old components),
but in Wesley's selectivity in adopting the old components, and his proficiency
in combining the old and new components. The institutional ecclesiastical model
did not represent a problem to Wesley, while its dryness did. So, Wesley
realized the need for church renewal, and founded the Methodist system of
various kinds of small groups, itinerant preachers, simple preaching houses,
and love feasts to be the basic tools of this renewal. Snyder asserts that
these “emerging patterns composed, above all, a system of
discipline-in-community.”[7] The
analytical reading of Snyder’s book shows that discipleship was the core of the
Wesleyan structure, and living in a community of discipline, koinonia,
was its distinctive character. In the Wesleyan ecclesiastical system, one
cannot be that member who attends the church meetings and lives for himself.
Snyder sees that because of this radicalism of the Wesleyan model it could be
linked to the radical reformed movements, such as the Anabaptist. Snyder does
not intend to prove any historical connection between Wesley and the
Anabaptist, but rather he shows significant parallels in their ecclesiastical
beliefs. He illustrates that Protestant radicalism focuses on both belief and
life, and emphasizes the “Christian discipleship—not in isolation but in
community.”[8] Life
is the only true measure of real faith, and discipline is a distinctive
characteristic of this real life. Snyder concludes that this radical
perspective is identical to Wesley's beliefs. “Wesley was a radical Christian
precisely because radical Christianity is not a system of doctrine but the
experience of the body of Christ as a community of discipleship.”[9]
In
The Radical Wesley, Snyder’s historical lens accurately spotted, as
mentioned before, the historical influences that shaped Wesley's ecclesiology.
Snyder cleverly selected specific events from Wesley’s journey that strongly
formed his ecclesiastical beliefs. For instance, he professionally presented a
detailed account of the paternal and maternal influences that perhaps attracted
Wesley, early in his life, to the idea of religious societies. Also, he
analyzed the Moravian influence, showed their contribution to Wesley’s
ecclesiastical structure, and explained both Wesley’s appreciation and
criticism of the Moravian ecclesiology. Through these examples and others, it
could be noted that Snyder’s historical methodology in this book combines both
primary and secondary sources reading them through an accurate analytical
perspective. In addition, Snyder’s discussion of the ecclesiastical patterns
and the tension between the institutional and charismatic models gives a strong
proof of his practical ecclesiastical and missiological experience. For
instance, his emphasis in chapter six on the Wesleyan understanding of the
essence of the church ministry as functional rather than institutional offers a
very important insight that can bridge the gap between the church as a living
entity and as an institutional entity. The functional perspective, with its
emphasis on the gifts of the Spirit, can revive the institutional roles, per
se, by giving them a living identity. This is derived from ministering to the
members of the church instead of having mere rigid roles with no purpose or
function in the church.
When
it comes to the theological issues, one cannot deny Snyder’s insightful
remarks, but one cannot also ignore the lack of attempts to engage other
academic resources in the discussion, even if this omission does not permeate
Snyder’s entire text. For instance, in chapter seven, Snyder mentioned that
Wesley’s “view of Christ’s Second Coming was postmillennial”.[10]
Affirming such controversial claim requires at least an explanatory footnote
that shows the other scholarly points of view.[11] Also, Snyder’s discussion
of infant baptism, in chapter eight, and his statement that Wesley “felt that
children baptized in infancy were at that time born again”[12] directly contradicts, not
only with other scholarly secondary sources, but also with pieces of primary
evidence that prove the contrary, such as Wesley’s explanation in his Sermon
on the New Birth that, “baptism is not the new birth, they are not one and
same thing.”[13]
Therefore, Snyder’s claim about baptism needs, at least, a deeper connection
with other academic resources.[14]
Contrary
to previous observations, there are many examples of Snyder’s insightful theological
remarks. For instance, in chapter four, Snyder emphasized the Wesleyan view of
the “evangelical synergism” between God's grace and human responsibility.
Wesley was convinced that salvation is “wholly by grace alone,” but also that
“God graciously enabled men and women to cooperate with the Holy Spirit in the
great work of salvation, of restoring the image of God.”[15] It is significant that
Snyder linked some of Wesley’s theological convictions to the teaching of the
fourth-century Eastern Fathers. Also, in chapter eleven, Snyder presents a
precise illustration of Wesley's thoughts on Divine sovereignty and human
freedom. He explains the Wesleyan understanding of human will in its
relationship to the image of God in the human, and proficiently illuminates
Wesley’s understanding of original sin in its relationship to the doctrine of
prevenient grace. Snyder accurately noted that Wesley’s understanding of
prevenient grace refutes the claim that “total depravity” and
“double-predestination” are inseparable, because prevenient grace enables the
corrupted human to use his free will, even partially, to accept or refuse the
Gospel.
Concerning
Snyder’s final suggestion of a mediating model that combines the institutional
and charismatic structures in an appropriate framework, I
do not think that this model could be a suitable realistic model that helps the
church to attain the required renewal nowadays. Snyder describes this model as
a charismatic movement, which expresses itself in small charismatic entities that
exist inside the traditional institutional church. He gives Wesley’s ecclesiolae
in ecclesia as an example of this model and asserts the fact that early
Methodism was a charismatic church inside the institutional church. In spite of
Snyder’s right historical description of early Methodism, it is clear that the
existence of this model does not necessarily equate with its success. The
failure of this model could be clearly seen in the Methodists’ separation and
their departure from the Church of England. Snyder mentioned this proof of
failure, but he did not discuss it in detail. It seems that Snyder tends to
attribute this separation solely to the historical context. He depends on the
fact that Wesley never left or got expelled from the Church of England to give
a probable proof against the idea of the failure of this model. Snyder’s
comment on this point does not seem to be sufficient to convince the reader of
the success of this model. On the other hand, the Methodists’ separation from
the Church of England remains as a strong proof of failure. Actually, it is
undeniable that Snyder’s model seeks to revitalize the church without bringing
division, but at the same time it is noticeable that this model tends toward
the institutional perspective more than the charismatic. It
places, perhaps
unintentionally, the institutional model as a dominant party, and thus it does
not guarantee genuine renewal. It is undeniable that Wesley brought a
significant renewal and unprecedented change to the church in general. He is
really the father of the contemporary renewal movements, and his ecclesiology
is one of the authentic roots of church renewal, but specifically his success
in renewing the Church of England is still a controversial issue. There is no
doubt that Methodism, per se, succeeded in renewing the universal church and
implanting the renewal genes in the contemporary ecclesiology, but the question
about the success of the Methodists in renewing the Church of England precisely
will remain as a great challenge to Snyder's model.
[1] See Snyder, Howard A. The
Problem of Wine Skins: Church Structure in a Technological Age. Downers
Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1975.
[2] See Snyder, Howard A. The
Community of the King. Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1977.
[3] Snyder, The Problem of Wine
Skins, 169–177.
[4] Howard A. Snyder, The Radical
Wesley and Patterns for Church Renewal (Eugene, Or.: Wipf and Stock, 1996),
і.
[5] See Snyder, Howard
A., and Daniel V. Runyon. The Divided Flame: Wesleyans and Charismatic
Renewal. Grand Rapids, Mich.: F. Asbury Press, 1986.
[6] Snyder, The Radical Wesley,
2.
[7] Ibid., 53.
[8] Ibid., 113.
[9] Ibid., 165.
[10] Ibid., 87.
[11] For further discussion on this
topic, see, for instance, Brown, Kenneth D. “John Wesley: Post or
Premillennialist?” Methodist History 28 (1989): 33--41, and Newport,
Kenneth G C. “Methodists and the Millennium: Eschatological Expectations and
the Interpretation of Biblical Prophecy in Early British Methodism.” Bulletin
of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 78, (1996): 103--122.
[12] Snyder, The Radical Wesley,
104.
[13] John Wesley, “Sermon on the New
Birth,” in The Works of the Rev. John Wesley, 3rd Edition, ed. Thomas
Jackson, 14 vols., CD-ROM edition (Albany, Or.: Ages Software, 1997), 6: 90.
[14] For further discussion on Wesley’s
understanding of infant baptism, see Randy L. Maddox, Responsible Grace:
John Wesley’s Practical Theology (Nashville, Tennessee: Kingswood Books,
1994), 222–225, Theodore Runyon, The New Creation: John Wesley’s Theology
Today (Nashville: Abingdon Press,
1998), 140–145, and Robert G. Tuttle, Sanctity
Without Starch (Lexington, K.Y.: Bristol Books, 1992), 53–63.
[15] Snyder, The Radical Wesley,
47.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 |
| Spirit Cure: A History of Pentecostal Healing - Joseph W. Williams |
Spirit
Cure: A History of Pentecostal Healing. By Joseph W.
Williams. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. Pp. xi + 222. $55.00, ISBN
978-0-19-976567-6.
Book Critique by Tharwat Maher Nagib Adly Nagib, PhD, Regent University, VA
Joseph W. William, Assistant Professor of
Religion at Rutgers University, offers through his first published book Spirit
Cure: A History of Pentecostal Healing a perspective on the development of
healing belief and practices among the Pentecostal and Charismatic
circles over the course of the twentieth century. Williams argues that the Pentecostal
approach to healing has changed over the years – from a strong denunciation of
the medical profession and a sharp refusal of any “non-divine” practices that
could detract the uniqueness of the direct divine intervention, to a broad
acceptance and spiritualization of natural healing methods and psychology that
might also be accompanied by scientific medicine. Williams also contends that
the early Pentecostal healing practices strongly reflected metaphysical beliefs.
He sees that understanding these early Pentecostal metaphysical tendencies is
crucial to discerning the reasons behind the shift that occurred in Pentecostal
healing practices over the twentieth century. Williams also sees that this
shift in Pentecostal healing practices played a central role in engaging the
Pentecostals with modern American culture, and stimulated the dramatic
transition of Pentecostals from a despised minority to a major effective group
in the socio-cultural context of American Evangelicalism.
The book consists of a well-articulated introduction,
five chapters, and a conclusion. Williams begins the introduction with an
insightful historical background that shows how Calvinism tended to teach
believers to patiently endure the suffering of sickness as an act of submission
to God, and how people, especially radical evangelists during the 1800s,
started to reject this God who refuses to intervene in their suffering and only
asks them for self-denial and endurance. Williams highlights how the historical
and theological roots of the 19th century divine healing movement could be
traced to the Wesleyan/Holiness emphasis on sanctification and life of
Christian perfection, and how Wesley’s writings also emphasized the importance
of following the “lows of health” implanted in nature by God. The first
Pentecostals saw healing in the atonement and their healing practices focused
on faith and prayer. The introduction also shows that by the second half of the
20th century, the distance separating Pentecostal healing from other healing
practices employed by other streams started to diminish due to a significant
change in the Pentecostal healing per se. The author describes this change by
saying that the “claims of direct divine interventions by no means disappeared”
at that time, and the reason was that “the strident denunciations of the
medical profession characteristic of early Pentecostalism increasingly gave way
to an unabashed embrace of healing methods condemned by previous Pentecostals,
as the faithful commingled divine healing with the use of medicine, natural
substances, and… forms of psychotherapy.”[1]
At this point, Oral Roberts appears, through his understanding of divine
healing as a marriage of medicine and spirituality, as a key person in
Williams’ argument.
Like other academic studies of Healing Movements,[2]
the first chapter of Spirit Cure begins with the healing revivals during
the late 19th century. It shows the centrality of faith, prayer and fasting,
and spiritual warfare in the healing process during this stage. The chapter
highlights how central figures such as John Alexander Dowie and Frank W.
Sandford emphasized a connection between Satan and illness, and how this
perspective influenced the early Pentecostals, who refused to depend on any
other means, except divine healing, strictly rejecting any other ideology such
as Christian Science, New Thought, or Psychology. The author argues that
despite this official Pentecostal rhetoric that refused any other ideologies of
healing, “a careful look at the sources reveals a much more complicated picture
regarding Pentecostal’ relationships with fellow unorthodox healers and
spiritualized forms of natural healing.”[3]
Williams quotes Charles Parham to prove a sort of similarity between Parham’s thoughts
and New Thought beliefs. He also highlights how other early Pentecostal leaders
had thorough knowledge of New Thought and Christian Science beliefs, and
compares the early Pentecostals’ denunciation of symptoms of sickness (the
Finished Work beliefs) with the New Thought adherents’ positive confessions.
This chapter also explains how G.F. Taylor’s
differentiation between practices that maintain health and those that repair
health has opened the door for accepting natural healing among Pentecostals.
Williams concludes this part by arguing that the most important junction
between the Pentecostal healing beliefs and the metaphysical beliefs is found
in the Pentecostals’ conceptions of the Holy Spirit, which “looked a lot like
unorthodox physicians’ descriptions of impersonal power.”[4]
He affirms that these early Pentecostal metaphysical tendencies remained for later
generations of Pentecostals and created an acceptance of natural substances and
the power of mind as necessary mediators that facilitate healing.
The second chapter of Spirit Cure
begins with showing the mid-century Pentecostal shift towards the appreciation
of medicine. Williams argues that among the reasons that caused this shift
were; evangelization of Pentecostalism, improvement of the social standing of
many Pentecostals after World War II, the emergence of the interdenominational
ministries such as the FGBMFI,[5]
and the high educational level of some Pentecostals. Then, the author
highlights different trends of healing that appeared among Pentecostals during
that time. Some focused on the demonic source of illness, therefore they
understood healing in terms of deliverance. Some brought the natural substances
or the power of the mind into unity with divine power. Some, such as Franklin
Hall, focused on fasting as a gateway to healing, which also, according to
Williams, stimulated the acceptance of natural healing methods. The author also
highlights the essential role of E.W. Kenyon in stressing the centrality of
positive confessions in the process of healing, and directly links Kenyon’s
teaching to the New Thought tradition.
In the third chapter, Williams highlights
how the Charismatic Renewal matured the shift toward supporting the validity of
modern medicine. Oral Roberts, Kathryn Kuhlman, Agnes Sanford, William Reed,
Francis
MacNutt, and Happy Hunters were among those who strongly influenced this shift.
Oral Roberts’ university, especially the school of medicine, and his hospital
were places where science and supernatural healing have been practiced
together. The Charismatic acceptance of the validity of physicians and medicine
influenced the AOG to provide funding for medical missionary and a formally
approved medical missions program. Chapter four highlights Agnes Sanford’s
inner healing teaching and attributes her thoughts to the New Thought teachings,
explaining the effect of her thoughts on MacNutt and other Charismatic leaders.
The Word of Faith movement was influenced by E.W. Kenyon, who was, in turn, as
mentioned before, influenced by the New Thought movement. Despite the
disagreement between Kenneth Hagin’s Word of Faith movement and the inner
healing movement, Joyce Meyer and T.D. Jakes blended the two trends in their
teaching, and with Paula White and Joel Osteen, they drenched their audience
with New Thought teachings and psychological practices. The last chapter of Spirit
Cure examined the Charismatic emphasis on diet and exercise. Williams
offers a good overview of many Pentecostal and Charismatic leaders who
emphasize the importance of healthy habits and practices. In his conclusion, the
author affirms that his argument is not to claim that the
Pentecostals/Charismatics deny the Holy Spirit’s role as the third person in
the Trinity or equate Him with nature or the power of the mind, but rather to
explain how the Pentecostal early metaphysical approach of healing helped to
bring the contemporary Pentecostal healing practices into alignment with
broader trends of healing in America.
Although it is fair to say that Spirit
Cure offers a good contribution to the studies of the American religious
history, it seems reasonable to say that some points in Williams’ argument and
observations might not easily find high acceptance in the Pentecostal
historiographical arena. A few suggestions could be provided here in order to
align such an important study with classical Pentecostal historical studies.
First, taking into consideration the distinction between the two major trends
in classical Pentecostalism in America; the Wesleyan Pentecostals and the
Finished Work Pentecostals, would sharpen Williams’ study and make it more
comprehensive. Based on the theology and practices of these two different early
Pentecostal camps, Kimberly Alexander’s Pentecostal Healing clearly
differentiates between two models of Pentecostal healing attached to these two
Pentecostal streams. It was expected in Spirit Cure that Joseph Williams
would be able to distinguish, chronologically and theologically, between these
historical streams, instead of deriving general observations that might neither
express all the streams nor always guarantee accurate conclusions. Second, Williams,
in many sections of his study, solely depends on the celebrities’ thoughts and
practices, such as Oral Roberts, to describe those “shifts” that occurred
during the history of Pentecostal healing. Such an approach, which produces
what historians call “history from above,” may not be fully expressive of the
entire historical reality. An approach that analyzes the beliefs and practices
of both the celebrities (the leaders) and the masses, who always shape any
movement, would be better for this kind of study that seeks to examine historical
shifts and changes. Third, on the one hand, in many sections of the book, the
author confirmed the Pentecostal refusal of certain traditions, such as the new
Thought tradition, on the other hand, he continued to emphasize these
traditions’ influences on Pentecostalism depending on some similarities in
their thoughts and writings. One must wonder why the author did not try to
explore the biblical and theological foundations of the Pentecostals’ beliefs
and practices of healing, as the Pentecostals themselves have explained, instead
of viewing them as imitators of the New Thought tradition, without tracing any actual
historical links that could enhance the author’s argument.
[1] Joseph W. Williams, Spirit
Cure: A History of Pentecostal Healing (New York: Oxford University Press,
2013), 7.
[2] For instance, see David Edwin
Harrell, All Things Are Possible: The Healing and Charismatic Revivals in
Modern America (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1975) and Kimberly
Ervin Alexander, Pentecostal Healing: Models in Theology and Practice
(Blandford Forum: Deo, 2006).
[3] Williams, 40.
[4] Ibid, 48.
[5] FGBMFI – The Full Gospel Business
Men’s Fellowship International.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق