The most concise manner of describing how Wesley understood what Perfection is could be expressed in the phrase “perfect love.” In his first published writing, “The Circumcision of the Heart,” he says that the command to love God with all the heart, soul, mind and strength, “is not only the ‘first and great’ command, but all the commandments in one.” (32) It is the great love that God pours into the heart that creates the thorough-going change in the person. This love is the source from which all obedience flows, “for his obedience is in proportion to his love.” (48) Love is an expulsive power that drives out from the heart all that is unrighteous. (187) “Love has purified the heart from envy, malice, wrath and every unkind temper.” (47) Love is also a constraining force. Love governs the entire soul, all thoughts, words and actions, to the extent that the individual no longer commits willful sin. (114) One perfected in love “cannot utter an unkind word of anyone; for love keeps the door of his lips.” (49) Indeed, love is the fulfillment of the entire law of God. (181)

    Wesley also explicates what Perfection is not. First, Perfection is not absolute perfection, for he believed there was no such perfection on earth (56), indeed, only God himself possesses that quality. Perfection is not an infallibility or freedom from weakness. Repeatedly, Wesley attributes the continuance of such infirmity, irregularity, slowness, ignorance, mistakes and weakness to the body: “From such infirmities as these none, perfectly freed till their spirits return to God” (55); “the corruptible body more or less presses down the soul” (80); “mistakes…I believe to be a natural consequence of the soul’s dwelling in flesh and blood” (115); “infirmities necessarily flow from the corruptible state of the body” (118-9); “None is infallible, while he remains in the body” (246). Likewise, Christian Perfection is not “sinless perfection,” in the sense of the complete elimination of voluntary and involuntary transgressions of God’s perfect standards. (119-20) Although Wesley did not call these involuntary transgressions sins, per se, he explicitly chose not to use the term “sinless perfection.”  Furthermore, Perfection does not exclude a gradual work of sanctification either before or after the instant it occurs. (248) Perfection is not the answer for the “backsliden” or “carnal” Christian. Rather it is something that is given to those who ardently pursue it through much prayer and fasting (137) and by the gradual mortification of pride, anger, etc. (199) Life after one experience perfection is also marked by a continual growth in grace.

    Third, Wesley asserts that perfection is indeed possible “in this life”. His line of reasoning is generally along three lines (although it is not limited to these). The first is to argue from the nature of commands and promises. He reasons that God does not command something that one cannot fulfill. Neither does He make promises that he does not intend to fulfill. Neither are we to pray for what we will never attain. Since the Scripture commands perfection, promises perfection and calls us to pray for perfection, it is then therefore attainable “in this life.” (98-101; 155-159) His second line of reasoning focuses on his interpretation of 1 John. He takes the passages quite literally in understanding that the one born of God does not sin. (58) It is from this book that Wesley gets the term “perfect love.” (247) He takes 1 John 4:17 as evidence that people will be perfected in love and will be like Him in this world, before going to the judgment. The third line of reasoning is the testimonies of individuals who had experienced perfect love.

    What Wesley’s account shows is that far from his views becoming more intense over time, it seems that they actually became more qualified. At one time Wesley wrote that a perfect Christian would never desire relief from pain, have wandering thoughts in prayer, have fear or doubt or be troubled by temptation. All of these ideas he qualified in Plain Account (69-70). He also at one time taught that a perfected individual could not “fall from it,” but later evidence necessitated revision of that belief. (207)

 

    With limited space to comment, there are few issues that are problematic with Wesley’s Plain Account. These criticisms largely relate to the fact that Wesley was a person of his time, but the criticisms nevertheless stand. The first is that, as can be expected, Wesley had little appreciation for either Old Testament or New Testament eschatology. Much discussion in the text focuses on death and the separation of the soul from the body. Leaving aside discussion of neo-platonic influences, the telos of an individual was seen in detaching from the body. For this reason there is much conversation about what is possible with or without a body, which is ultimately needless and distracting, since humans will eternally have bodies in the resurrection. This under-appreciation of biblical eschatology results in Wesley interpreting certain passages in a manner that today seems baffling. For example, in chapter twenty-three he asks, “was the ‘glory that followed the sufferings of Christ’ (1 Peter 1:11) an external glory, or an internal, viz., the glory of holiness?” (154) This seems like it is intended as a rhetorical question in his favor but in facts seems patently the opposite. Christ’s glory here is external – it is his resurrection glory. Right after that Wesley asks “are the promises of God respecting holiness to be fulfilled in this life, or only in the next?” (155) I imagine here, that he is thinking of Ezekiel 36, Luke 1 and the like. Again, to this question I would answer emphatically: only finally in the age to come. Most of these promises are in context to eschatological restoration and fulfillment, so in a very real sense they will not be fulfilled until God makes all things new. They are in fact only partially fulfilled in the present. Later he asks if we are to pray for God’s perfect will to be done on earth as it is in heaven.  Again he seems to understand this as meaning “before we go to heaven” when actually the Scripture is referring to the Kingdom of God, a definitive eschatological reality, which is both present and still to come.

    The deficient eschatology in Wesley’s thinking contributes to, but is far from the only cause, of two other problems: individualism and disparagement of the body. Above, numerous passages were cited where Wesley attributes the problems even after perfection to the body, i.e., the body “presses down on” or “clogs” the soul. If there is an “already/not yet” in Wesley, it seems to be along a body-soul dualism. The soul is perfect and eradicated of the effects of the fall, but the body remains unaffected in its corruption. Because he does not envision an eschatological restoration, he sees no redemptive potential for the body. It is only to be ultimately disposed of so the saints can achieve perfection without the bodily weakness, limitations, slowness, ignorance and mistakes.

    The lack of eschatology contributes to an individualizing and spiritualizing tendency in his exegesis. A couple of the passages were addressed above. Since Wesley does not see them eschatologically, the only alternative for him is to understand them to be about present personal holiness. Aside from direct eschatological issues, a cornerstone of his argument seems to rest on an individualistic interpretation of 1 John where the central issue is not personal holiness, but schism. The sin (and lack thereof) John speaks is of is primarily related to the schismatics. In speaking of love reaching its telos, it seems as though John does not have in mind an individual telos, but a corporate telos. The love of God only reaches its goal when the community loves one another, when love flows outward toward each other. Hence the telos of love is not necessarily a quantitative or qualitative experience of individuals, but love’s goal of communal inter-relationship. This is epitomized in 1 John 4:20, “Those who say, “I love God,” and hate their brothers or sisters, are liars; for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen.” In order for love to work its full course it cannot just be “love for God,” it must come to its goal in the love of community. It seems impossible to speak of an individual possessing perfect love using these texts. John says, “No one has ever seen God, if we love one another, God lives among us, and is love is perfected among us” (1 John 3.12). Here, ‘loving one another’ stands in parallel with seeing God. In 1 John 3:2, seeing God was the ground for the hope that they would be like Him. John opens his letter speaking of those who had the privilege of seeing, hearing, touching and handling [1 John 1.1ff.]. At the final revelation of Jesus (2.28), we will be like him because we will see him as he is. For now, the love within the community is the Johannine version of the present experience of what anachronistically can be called the beatific vision. The love reaches its goal when the community loves one another and in such God’s presence and God’s Spirit are known and experienced in the midst of the community.

    John Wesley has given the church a compelling account of what truly cannot be derided. Indeed who could speak against perfect love? Who would not desire such as an ultimate goal? Wesley gives ample and inspiring discussion of what he means and does not mean by Christian Perfection. Nevertheless, there are certain issues in his thought that remain problematic in a contemporary context. These issues must be addressed in order for Wesley’s thought to be expressed and appropriated by a new generation.

 

    

 

Citations are from:

John Wesley, A Plain Account of Christian Perfection (Fenwick, MI: Alethea-in-Heart, 2005).