OPINION:
Dear Dr. E: A couple of weeks ago, you mentioned John Wesley as an example of leadership. With that as context, how do you respond to evangelical leaders like David French and Russell Moore, telling us that if we are to “love our neighbor,” we are obligated to vote for the policies of Kamala Harris over those of Donald Trump? After all, doesn’t Mr. Wesley’s call for “Perfect Love” obligate us to do what Mr. French and Mr. Moore suggest in serving our neighbors who are different from us in nationality, race, gender, and sexual identity? — A WESLEYAN FRIEND FROM FISHERS, INDIANA.
Dear Wesleyan Friend: Because of my longstanding tenure as a president of a Wesleyan university, I’ve had several people ask me a similar question over the years. More directly, many have suggested that Wesley’s priority of “perfect love” implies political accommodation and a “middle way;” one of more tolerance and inclusion rather than exclusion and hard truths. Here’s a summary of the response I have offered to such questions.
First, it is true Mr. Wesley elevated love as evidence of God’s grace in our lives. Loving God and loving our neighbor, however, demands that we hate sin, for sin always compromises our neighbor, and sin always defies our God. John Wesley taught repeatedly that the obedient “methodical” path of Christianity eschews disobedience at every turn. There is no place in Mr. Wesley’s teaching to have a “conversation” about sin. Christian love demands we lead people to confess sin, not sit around and discuss it, tolerate it, or affirm it.
Second, Mr. Wesley was very clear about what he called “singularity,” i.e., the exclusive, non-negotiable claims of Christ and the Church. In fact, he made it so clear he said “singularity” was the difference between heaven and hell: “You must be singular or be damned. The way to hell has nothing singular in it. The way to heaven has singularity written all over it. You must be singular or be damned.”
Third, it’s a fact that Mr. Wesley did say, “In the essentials unity … in all else charity,” but in doing so, he clearly made biblical “essentials” the top priority. In calling for “charity,” he never intended to diminish the First Things. In fact, Mr. Wesley repeatedly preached that anyone who denied “the essentials” was guilty of being “almost Christian.”
Fourth, Mr. Wesley’s message elevated the dignity of what it means to be human. If he were with us today, he would be the first to say our inclinations do not and must not define us. He would condemn the dumbing down of a man and a woman to nothing but the sum of what they are inclined to do. He would shout that our identity is found in Christ, not our proclivities and passions. Wesleyan holiness means we rise above our appetites rather than capitulate to our every desire and instinct. John Wesley would cry out from today’s pulpit as he did from his own: “You are the imago Dei, not the imago dog! Now, by God’s grace, act like it!”
SEE ALSO: Ask Dr. E: What can leaders do to distinguish their organizations from the competition?
Church leaders today, like Russell Moore and David French, would do well to learn from John Wesley. He ran into the storm and not away from it, and he did so with the confidence that if he won, great, that was God’s grace, but if he lost, the battle was the Lord’s, and he was willing to go down fighting. He preached that compromise would be the Church’s demise, and if our salt “loses its savor,” we will inevitably be “thrown out and trampled underfoot” by a culture laughing at our irrelevance.
Bottom line: Mr. Wesley boldly confronted the leaders of his Church and the leaders of his country and demanded they preserve culture, not take part in its rot. Mr. Wesley would have this message for us today: “May God help us if we have really come to the point where we believe our salvation comes from negotiating a compromise with a world that hates our Lord and His Gospel.” He would stand in the contemporary town square, as he did in his own, and shout: “There is no ’middle way’ with Christ. He is the only way!”
It is a sad chapter in the Church’s story to have evangelical leaders like David French and Russell Moore now arguing that “loving our neighbor” is somehow synonymous with compromising with the world’s way rather than courageously following the Way of Christ.
If you are seeking guidance in today’s changing world, Higher Ground is there for you. Everett Piper, a Ph.D. and a former university president and radio host, takes your questions in his weekly ’Ask Dr. E’ column. If you have moral or ethical questions for which you’d like an answer, please email askeverett@washingtontimes.com and he may include it in a future column.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.