Born Again

The Evangelical Theology of Conversion in John Wesley and George Whitefield

Sean McGever

• Publisher: Lexham Press
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781683593317
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christian Theology

The Christian life is a life of growth. The gospel message is simple but not simplistic. Learning the gospel and its implications is a lifelong process, but modern evangelicals are often too focused on the moment of conversion while ignoring the ongoing work of sanctification. For John Wesley and George Whitefield, justification and sanctification were inseparable.In Born Again, Sean McGever maps Wesley's and Whitefield's theologies of conversion, reclaiming the connection between justification and sanctification. This study helps evangelicals reassess their thin understanding of conversion, leading to a rich and full picture of the ongoing work new Christians face.

1

INTRODUCTION

This book examines John Wesley and George Whitefield’s theologies of conversion.1 It synthesizes their operant theologies of conversion to produce an espoused theology of conversion for each figure. This allows me to state and analyze what has not previously been articulated systematically and directly—their conversion theologies. Their theologies of conversion often set the table for contemporary evangelical discussions of conversion because Wesley and Whitefield were foundational for the evangelical revival of the eighteenth century and evangelical theology more broadly. Despite the centrality of Wesley and Whitefield for evangelicalism and of conversion as a foundational topic for evangelicalism, there is currently no sustained work articulating and comparing their theologies of conversion.

To address this gap, this study articulates what John Wesley and George Whitefield understood as the meaning of conversion, of instantaneous conversion, and of ongoing conversion. Wesley and Whitefield were not systematic theologians. Thus, I address the way conversion operates as a theological category in their works to uncover their underlying theological understanding of conversion. But to understand conversion as a theological category in Wesley and Whitefield demands attention be given to related theological themes such as baptism, regeneration, justification, sanctification, and salvation. Therefore, this study deals directly with the specific, direct discussions of instantaneous and ongoing conversion, as well as those attendant themes in Wesley and Whitefield’s theologies. Furthermore, it does not merely deal directly with the articulated theological statements about conversion which Wesley and Whitefield offered but also with the way in which conversion functions as an operant trope within their theologies.

Wesley and Whitefield’s overarching theologies of conversion are best understood in terms of inaugurated teleology with an emphasis on the telos of salvation rather than the arché of salvation. Nine synoptic espoused statements can be made from the operant theologies of conversion of John Wesley and George Whitefield.2

1.Conversion is initiated and sustained by the grace of God.

2.Conversion is the experiential correlate to salvation.

3.Conversion is a turning from self and to Christ.

4.Conversion is foreshadowed by a deep sense of sinfulness.

5.Conversion arrives by faith in an instant.

6.Conversion is instantaneous but is not always recognizable on behalf of the convert.

7.Conversion is marked by ongoing good works.

8.Baptism marks one’s entrance to the church but is not chronologically tied to conversion.

9.Assurance of salvation is available but not required for a genuine convert.3

These nine statements clarify what is meant by inaugurated teleology. While these nine statements reveal overlap regarding conversion between Wesley and Whitefield, there are also critical areas of divergence between them: election, predestination, irresistible grace, imputation, perseverance, and Christian perfection.

1. MOTIVATION

This study is not just an exercise in excavating an antiquarian theological topic. I want to provide tools for ongoing constructive systematic theology among evangelicals through the analysis of two figures who spurred the evangelical movement that currently counts about half a billion people.4

Part of the motivation of this study, therefore, is to provide clarity for the understanding of early evangelical theology as a stepping-stone toward a reappraisal of evangelical conversion theology. David Bebbington provided what has become the standard morphology of early evangelicalism, commonly called the “Bebbington Quadrilateral,” consisting of four areas: biblicism, activism, crucicentrism, and conversionism.5 Despite the broad acceptance of the Bebbington Quadrilateral, little attention has been devoted to the topic of conversionism theologically; instead, sustained studies on conversion have focused on psychological, sociological, and historical perspectives.6 The historical theology offered herein is offered in the hope of renewed reflection and response to the issues raised by evangelical theologians on the topic of conversion.

2. APPROACH

This study synchronically identifies motifs that bring together the assumptions about the theology of conversion with which Wesley and Whitefield work. Within these synchronic motifs, the arcs of historical development of the ideas are explicated. Thus, this study balances the twin aspects of historical theology: synchronically, it espouses the operant themes in Wesley and Whitefield’s theologies of conversion in a way that has not yet been done; diachronically, it attends to the historical context of Wesley and Whitefield and the literary form of their writings as they develop.

A precipitous balance between biographic and primary source details is needed because the abundant literature and vast time frame of Wesley and Whitefield’s entire careers have been considered in order to provide a robust analysis of the conversion theologies of Wesley7 and Whitefield.8 Engagement with these primary sources is a significant task.

The study has attempted to consider the entire careers of Whitefield and Wesley, who lived to be 55 and 87 years old respectively, and the diachronic discussion within the synchronic motifs seeks to speak to and address the historical complexities involved in this theological task.

As an exercise in historical theology, this study seeks to offer an account of the theologies of conversion in Wesley and Whitefield in a manner which is thoroughly historical, and attentive to the contexts (ecclesial and otherwise) in which they lived and wrote, and to the operative conditions in which their theologies were expressed.9 However, the account offered is also thoroughly theological in that it seeks, in relation to a theology of conversion, to espouse what is operant for Wesley and Whitefield in a clear and systematic way.

To do this I have drawn upon the morphology of the four voices of theology as presented by Deborah Bhatti et al.10 This morphology recognizes and categorizes theological communication as a product of its origin and form. Bhatti et al. outline the four voices as: normative theology, that is, the theology dictated by Scripture, creeds, and liturgies; formal theology, that is, the theology constructed by a theologian; espoused theology, that is, the theology embedded in a group’s statement of its beliefs; and operant theology, that is, the theology embedded in the actual practices of a group.11

The primary materials of the study are the operant theologies of conversion of Wesley and Whitefield.12 Exegeting and analyzing this operant material is this study’s primary task. It allows us to state what Wesley and Whitefield did not state explicitly about their theologies of conversion. The methodology of this study speaks through two of the four voices because Wesley and Whitefield left largely operant material on conversion and this study produces a work of espoused theology.

While this study aims to capture the theology of conversion of early evangelicalism by attending to Wesley and Whitefield, the limited scope of this study does not allow for the inclusion of other prominent voices of early evangelicalism. Early evangelicalism originated nearly simultaneously in Massachusetts with Jonathan Edwards (1734–1735), in Wales with Howell Harris and Daniel Rowland (1735), in England with George Whitefield (1735–1737) and John Wesley (1738), and in Scotland at Cambuslang (1742).13 Other individuals figured prominently in early evangelicalism, foremost among them being Charles Wesley.

John Wesley and George Whitefield have been isolated in this study on early evangelical conversion theology for two reasons. The first reason John Wesley and George Whitefield are being examined is due to their commonalities. Both Wesley and Whitefield were Church of England ministers, born in England, educated at Oxford, and committed to the basic premises of Methodism. These men, additionally, left a similar trail of documents in the same era, including a prolific abundance of published sermons, tracts, journals, and diaries. Further, both men had expansive public ministries in which they traveled extensively. The commonalities of these men provide a robust shared baseline upon which their theologies can be examined with precision due to their abundant overlap in life context, terminology, and personal interaction. The second reason these men are being examined is due to their well-known points of departure, namely, Wesley’s Arminianism and the mature Whitefield’s Calvinism. Both men remained committed to the Church of England while providing two different trajectories that pushed past the edges of the established norms of their church. For Wesley, this movement became Methodism. For Whitefield, this movement became Calvinistic Methodism early in his ministry, but also a general ecumenism in his warm embrace of any church that would embrace his teaching of the new birth.

Charles Wesley’s theology of conversion could be examined, but, while differences exist, and Charles’s dynamic use of hymnody to communicate his theology is enticing to incorporate in this project, the overlap between John and Charles’s theologies is so great that this path has not been chosen for this study.14

Were this study able to include the careful analysis and comparison of Edwards’s theology of conversion, it would certainly be stronger. Why, then, has Edwards been discarded in this study? Simply put, a proper study of Edwards would require attention to too many differences. Edwards was not a minister in the Church of England (like Wesley and Whitefield); he was a Congregationalist. Edwards was not born in England (like Wesley and Whitefield); he was from Connecticut. Edwards was not educated at Oxford (like Wesley and Whitefield); he was educated at Yale. While broadly Calvinistic like Whitefield, Edwards’s soteriology did not neatly align with general Calvinistic understandings (the mature Whitefield’s theology aligned closely with general Calvinism of his day).15 Edwards traveled infrequently and never crossed the Atlantic, unlike the almost unbelievable amount of travel by horse and crossing of the Atlantic undertaken by Wesley and Whitefield.16 While Edwards never met Wesley, Edwards did meet and hosted Whitefield in his pulpit.17 The missional ethos of Edwards was quite different from that of Wesley and Whitefield. Edwards “was a revival preacher to a people that was already intensely religious.”18 Wesley and, in particular Whitefield, were known to seek out those who were far from being intensely religious, such as the coal workers in the colliers of England. Hughes Oliphant Old nuances this claim: “Edwards may not have been too well suited to be a missionary. He was a pastor, to be sure, and he did manifest a real pastoral concern for the Indians to whom he had been sent, but he was above all a theologian who spoke to theologians.”19 In sum, of the three leading figures of early evangelicalism (John Wesley, George Whitefield, and Jonathan Edwards), Edwards has enough dissimilarity from the other two that for the limited scope of this study, only Wesley and Whitefield have been examined.20 It is hoped that the findings of this study can be utilized by Edwards scholars to further the understanding of early evangelical theologies of conversion.21

3. ARGUMENT

John Wesley once said that he did not use the word “conversion” often.22 But he actually did, and four motifs emerge which are central to his understanding of conversion. First, Wesley understood conversion to be a personal experience turning from and to one state to another in the journey toward holiness. Wesley understood conversion to be experiential in nature despite frequent attacks on Wesley in which he was labeled as an enthusiast.23 Second, for Wesley conversion is always preceded by a profound experience with personal sinfulness. This experience was described as being convinced, convicted, or awakened. Third, and most notably, for the mature Wesley the actual moment of conversion is instantaneous. The fourth area of discussion of Wesley’s theology is that conversion is always, for him, followed by continued evidence which shows an individual to be a genuine convert. Conversion is a theological concept describing experience, and Wesley expected experience to mirror reality if one was justified and regenerated: the genuine convert would have the internal witness of the...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgments
• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: John Wesley’s Conversion Theology Motifs
• Chapter 3: John Wesley’s Conversion Theology Attendant Themes
• Chapter 4: George Whitefield’s Conversion Theology Motifs
• Chapter 5: George Whitefield’s Conversion Theology Attendant Themes
• Chapter 6: John Wesley and George Whitefield’s Theologies of Conversion Compared
• Chapter 7: Conversion as Inaugurated Teleology for Wesley and Whitefield
• Bibliography
• Subject Index
• Scripture Index
• Old Testament