From the Editor
What is it that makes us human beings created in the image of God? This question has seemed to be swirling around the church as a foundational question beneath the widespread news of Artifcial Intelligence (AI), and it is a question which seems to generate a lot of fear. But it is also a question which often emerges as we consider the complex question of human culture, and the variations we fnd in the feld of Anthropology (albeit not with the religious element). Both subjects were addressed in 2024 at Asbury Theological Seminary in the Advanced Research Programs Interdisciplinary Colloquiums. The frst was held on Friday, March 15, 2024, and the papers were around the subject of AI (Artifcial Intelligence) and Higher Education. The second was held Friday, October 11, 2024, and operated under the theme of Theology, Bible, and Human Cultures in a Changing World. While they both seem like very separate themes, there is a commonality in both wondering what is essential to being human, and how does a Christian worldview see God as being involved in what makes us truly human.
The frst three papers in this issue of The Asbury Journal come out of the discussion on AI. Chris Kiesling, Asbury’s Professor of Christian Discipleship and Human Development leads with his keynote address, as he seeks to untangle the positive and negative aspects of AI and how they might impact the educational work we do. In addition, he shows how some in the feld of AI seek to turn humans into gods. Aaron Lewis presented a student paper which took a philosophical approach to the question of AI, building on Aristotle’s classic views on virtue along with the theology of Aquinas, and wondering if AI usurps human decisions by replacing rational, ethical action in the decision-making process with mechanical replacements which ultimately undermine human virtue. Thomas Hampton presented another student paper in the colloquium, looking at the contributions of Alfred North Whitehead and Catherine Malabou to the development of AI. Whitehead’s top-down view of causality connected to God and Malabou’s view of plasticity, both provide profound ways of exploring human thought processes in an age of AI.
The next two papers come from the second colloquium. Shishou Chen explores the symbols used in the book of Revelation and how these symbols emerged from multiple cultural and religious sources as a way for John to critique his cultural world. Chen further elaborates on how a similar use of cultural symbols could permit Chinese Christians to build on ancient Chinese concepts of Tian or Heaven, as they seek to understand Christianity from a Chinese cultural viewpoint. Sophia H. Y. Huang takes a similar approach in exploring the socio-cultural dynamics of the resident immigrants referred to in 1 Peter. She argues that they were not necessarily the poor marginalized people we often imagine, but they did often try to avoid civic responsibilities which included religious observances in honor of Roman rulers or deities. She explores how this might reframe our reading of 1 Peter.
While human beings need to be understood as separate from any machine technology we build, and we also need to be understood within our cultural and social frameworks, it is equally important to understand the religious dimension which sets us apart as being made in the image of God. Two long-time theological scholars present articles on holiness, which may well be the concept that best connects human beings to God, whose image we are called to represent. Don Thorsen argues the importance of holiness as a concept which binds the Church together in its community witness. It is that concept which connects how we view the nature of God in line with how we live our own individual lives, and how that in turn binds us for how we reach out in the love of God to a hurting world seeking justice. Laurence W. Wood, one of my long-term predecessors as editor of The Asbury Journal, presents an historical view of holiness as it developed in the life and theology of John Wesley, and ultimately emerged as a guiding principle for H.C. Morrison, the founder of the Seminary, and E. Stanley Jones, for whom the School of Mission and Ministry is named. This historical and theological reminder helps us see that as human beings made in the image of God, we are called to live out the characteristics of God through the power of the Holy Spirit within us.
The fnal two articles, as well as the From the Archives essay, examine this holiness in action, lived out in history. Robert Danielson explores the life of a little known African American woman tied to a radical branch of the Holiness Movement. She exhibits much of the type of spirituality which would infuence white holiness groups in terms of worship, and which would emerge in early Pentecostalism as well. Nicholas Railton
explores Methodist views of Jewish people and the state of Israel over time, from the founders of Methodism through modern critiques taken from the news of today. Whether the reader agrees with Railton’s conclusions or not, it is certainly time for the Church to engage modern issues like these through an historical and theological lens which seeks to bring holiness and the love of God to the current concerns of humanity. Finally, in the From the Archives essay, I bring to light a little-known story of the history of Asbury Theological Seminary, and how the issue of holiness played out on the basketball court. As Asbury students desired to form an intercollegiate basketball team, traditional holiness leaders were in opposition seeking to defne how Christians should interact with the wider culture around them.
Back to the question, what makes human beings in the image of God? Romans 1:20-23 (ISV) provides a bit of a hint,
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible attributes- his eternal power and divine nature- have been understood and observed by what he made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorifed him as God nor gave thanks to him. Instead, their thoughts turned to worthless things, and their senseless hearts were darkened. Though claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images that looked like mortal human beings, birds, four-footed animals, and reptiles.
Science may invent machines which are more intelligent than human beings. Machines which can run faster, last longer, learn and process more information, machines which look, speak, and respond like human beings. These machines may take away our agency and even our creative impulses, but will they ever be capable of love- true love which emerges from an intimate relationship with the Lord of the Universe? Will they be capable of true worship or expressing genuine thanks to the God who created the world around us? Sure, they can be programmed to go through the motions and say the right thing at the right time, but human beings were made in the image of God to be a holy people, a people set apart from the rest of creation to glorify God and give God thanks. The vast diversity of cultures found in humanity display many lenses through which this worship and thanksgiving can be given, but in each case, it comes from the heart, and not because we have been programmed to give it. Our humanity comes from God, is to be shaped by the holy character of God and is too be returned in the acts of worship and thanksgiving. If this is our understanding
of being human beings created in the image of God, then no machine can ever replace us. Human beings as pointed out in Romans become focused on making human beings into God. Whether old fashioned idols or modern technology, people seek to replace God but can never be creators at the same level as God. Romans reminds us that this attitude is foolishness and only serves to make us forget all of the wonderful things God has made, including human beings. As Psalm 8:3-5 (ISV) states,
When I look at the heavens, the work of your fngers, the moon and the stars that you establishedwhat is man that you take notice of him, or the son of man that you pay attention to him? You made him a little less than divine, but you crowned him with glory and honor.
It is this relationship with Almighty God which defnes our humanity, and no robot or simulation will ever be able to call themselves a child of God.
Robert Danielson Ph.D
The Asbury Journal 80/2: 306-325
© 2025 Asbury Theological Seminary
DOI: 10.7252/Journal.02.2025F.02
Chris A. Kiesling AI and Higher Education
Abstract: This article originated as the keynote address for the 2023-2024 Advanced Research Programs Interdisciplinary Colloquium on “AI (Artifcial Intelligence) and Higher Education” held on Friday, March 15, 2024. At the time, new advances in artifcial intelligence (AI) were just beginning to become prevalent in mainstream media, catching the attention of academic communities. The aim in the address was frst to introduce concepts that would help our community navigate the landscape of artifcial intelligence. Second, this paper sought to provide some sense of how vast the impact of artifcial intelligence might be, focusing especially on how it might impact higher education. Third, was a desire to awaken the attendees to some of the particularly theological issues and challenges that AI is likely to present. With advancements in AI now coming so quickly, there was both a fair amount of speculation and the probability that by the time this article reaches print, much of what was novel at the time of presentation may have already become common knowledge. Much has been retained here for the sake of those who may still be seeking the objectives stated above.
Keywords: artifcial intelligence, higher education, theology, technology, seminary education
Chris A. Kiesling is Professor of Christian Discipleship and Human Development at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky. He is the co-author of Spiritual Formation in Emerging Adulthood: A Practical Theology for College and Young Adult Ministry with David P. Setran.
In January of 2024 a Barna study focused on How US Christians Felt About AI and the Church. When introducing the fndings in an online post, David Kinnamam named four categories that pose an intriguing way to distinguish among various feelings toward artifcial intelligence.1 If you had to choose one answer to the following question, which would most characterize you: When it comes to engaging Artifcial Intelligence, I feel: Compelled? Curious? Concerned? Or confused?
If you chose “compelled,” an interesting follow-up might be to inquire about your age range, as Barna reported that older generations selfscored as more “concerned” (or skeptical) than “curious” about artifcial intelligence. This was in contrast with Gen Z and Millennials who selfreported being more “curious” and “compelled” than “concerned.” If you chose “curious,” it might be interesting to note a Christianity Today article that pondered the following question with input from experts – “Would you be more inclined to ask a question about God to CHATGPT or to Google?”2 It’s a question that in my own small, convenience sampling also yields differences between the generations with equally different rationales. If you chose “confused,” you are certainly not alone. If AI by itself is hard to comprehend it becomes more complex with the tsunami of new applications and accompanying terminology that inundate us daily. Perhaps we can take heart that only fve or so years ago most of us were asking “what’s a Zoom meeting?” wondering if we could ever master the technology. If you chose “concerned” it would be noteworthy to ask if the worry is over a future, dystopian existential threat or whether the concern is more with the possible daily effects that may infuence us in our use of AI. Another interesting question to ponder is this - if you have ever found yourself concerned with the prospect of a self-driving car, would you feel safer with a self-driving plane?
In the early season of a new technology, it is not surprising to fnd a wide range of responses varying in our degrees of receptivity and/or resistance. Yet, we should also note that whether aware of it or not, most all of us are already immersed in using some form of artifcial intelligence. If you have used google maps, sent an e-payment, used an auto correct feature on your phone or laptop, given a directive to Siri, texted with a chatbot, or been asked for a facial recognition login or entrance, you have already been engaging with artifcial intelligence. For the sake of stretching the imagination, let me offer a thought experiment that projects into the future, (perhaps less than a decade from now) - a harvesting of what
artifcial intelligence pundits are projecting may be possible. Imagine that you taught at a university that had suffcient time and money to make a wholesale investment into optimizing the use of artifcial intelligence in the enterprise of teaching and learning.
Hypothetically, consider that every student after being admitted into your university was granted a personal robot that would accompany them throughout their matriculation at your university or seminary. For the sake of raising the stakes, let’s suppose that in the case of misplaced identity your students chose to nickname the robot after the Greek word for the Holy Spirit and named this bot, “Cletus.” Cletus would be programmed to serve as the student’s academic advisor – suggesting the particular courses the student should take, when they would be available, and providing access to all the material resources and directives needed for each particular course. Cletus would also serve as the student’s fnancial advisor calculating how much money they had to spend each semester and providing notifcation when there was an excess of withdrawals. Cletus would also serve as a mentor, being programmed to coach the student on how to study and it would generate questions to test the student’s comprehension over what they were assigned to read. Your student could ask the bot to take on the persona of a historical fgure and create an imaginary dialogue, or debate with the student; or if you wanted the student to gain a feel for what it might have been like to visit the ancient tabernacle, Cletus might design a virtual tour using 3D imaging, complete with a hologram priest to guide your visit. We could imagine Cletus serving as life coach, reminding the student to take their medications, get adequate rest and exercise, and monitor their diet as it would become a sort of Fitbit on steroids. If you harbored animals at home, Cletus could be trained to look after your pet iguana, and if we really wanted to push the envelope, we might even dare to consider that Cletus could serve as a junior Spiritual Director (though most of us for good reason might object and insist on human touch for all things spiritual).3
Imagine as well that you as a faculty member also had a robot that could serve as your personalized administrative assistant. Let’s name her Sophia (the actual name given to one of the world’s most sophisticated robots at the time of this writing.)4 Sophia could accompany you to meetings and summarize the main conversation points. She could absorb the notes you use to teach class and from them generate frst drafts of books. Sophia could create and monitor your own professional development plan; cowrite with you research articles; and though you may have never shown any
signs of an anxiety attack or a seizure, it could alert you to early warning signs if something like reading an article on artifcial intelligence in The Asbury Journal signaled overwhelming systemic distress.5
Assume fnally that the university permits the use of facial recognition software so that Sophia could record any moments in class when any particular student showed signs of fatigue and distraction. Sophia could then clip the video recording of the portion of the class that the student checked out of and transmit it to Cletus. Cletus could then take into account that student’s learning style preference, the history of where they have struggled to grasp concepts in that unit of material and customize a learning assignment designed to bring that student at their own pace to a profcient level of mastery. Further, if you as the student preferred, you could have Cletus translate the assignment into your native language; or you could hear it presented in your professor’s voice, unless of course you as the professor decided (and the law permitted) that the student had instead programmed Cletus to communicate all assignments in the voice of James Earl Jones, or say, Taylor Smith. Finally, Cletus could track your progress in such a manner that you could graduate, not when you completed all your classes, but as soon as you demonstrated mastery of all required competencies. (Note: This imaginative exercise came to mind after listening to a TED Talk from Sal Khan at the KHAN academy. They were not yet using autonomous robots, but they were generating simulations via laptop. In one assignment related to a unit on The Great Gatsby, students were asked to exchange text messages with a personifcation of Gatsby himself. So realistic did this feel that one student ended their exchanges by apologizing to Mr. Gatsby for taking up so much of his time.)6 Now let me come back from the imaginative and hypothetical and chronicle changes that may already be encroaching on the lives of faculty and students.
The Evolving Role of the Professor
Faculty who have experimented with artifcial intelligence to test how well it could a) generate learning objectives, b) suggest teaching methodologies or c) generate resources for a topic, may have noticed a shift beginning to occur in the role of the professor illustrated by the following progression:
The leftmost column represents the historical role of the faculty. Certainly, there was more to the professorate than determining the content of a class, but this particular aspect of the role was largely under the domain of the
professor. Enrolling in an educational institution was the best way to gain access to this knowledge and the delivery of the content usually occurred in a geo-physical setting. With the onset of online learning and multipledelivery systems, many schools begin to hire an instructional designer. Typically, the professor still provided the content for the course and set many of the parameters, but the way the course was designed and content delivered was augmented by the assistance of an instructional designer. With artifcial intelligence, both the content of a course and the course design may be augmented by technology as ChatGPT is solicited to generate learning outcomes, locate best resources, suggest learning exercises, and help with evaluating a student’s work.7 In a recent Christianity Today article, Nicholas Carr noted that when machinery becomes involved in creating content – when the network performs the “editorial function of choosing which pieces of content which people will see … you have to start to wonder about the motivations of the people in the companies operating the networks, because suddenly they’re in positions of enormous power over everyone who is going onto these systems to socialize, to fnd information, to be entertained, to read, or to worship.”8
What Changes for the Student?
The following attempts to chronicle in broad strokes some of the possibilities regarding the ways artifcial intelligence is projected to alter the learning experience for the student.
• Personalization – Presentations that are adjusted according to the unique needs of the learner.
• Real-time feedback – Rather than waiting on grading, a bot can generate immediate feedback to most student input.
• Dynamic adjustment – Artifcial intelligence can assess level of diffculty and automatically adjust tasks/questions based on a learners ongoing performance.
• Data-driven insights – Software is already available for collecting data on learner’s interactions utilizing this to inform the learning path;
hence, continuous data collection and analysis can dynamically inform and guide next steps in a learning process.
• Increased engagement and motivation – Illustrations within the same presentation can be customized to appeal to an athlete, a science Geek, or a business minded student.
• Effciency in learning – Material that a student has already mastered can be omitted from readings or assignments.
• Scalability – the same instructor can cater to a large number of students simultaneously while still maintaining personalized learning experience.9
How Might it Affect Work in the Academy?
Playing off these advances, we can begin to speculate on how artifcial intelligence may change the nature of work in the academy for those who teach and administrate programs. In our discussion of these probabilities at the colloquium, it became apparent that none of what follows are value neutral advances; each is worthy of ample discernment to determine if these contribute to the spiritual formation and virtue of students and professors.
The acceleration of research workfow
Most in the academy have spent hours exercising care and seeking to develop expertise in fnding the best “key words” to rummage through data banks, reading abstracts, and marking relevant articles to procure a robust literature. Then comes the tedious process of copying and storing the articles as themes are identifed from collated articles until organizing concepts begin to emerge. With the availability of natural language processing, interfacing with a search engine becomes increasingly conversational, and machines become increasingly adept at discerning and extending what is being searched for. Furthermore, artifcial intelligence can search vastly more information and generate almost instantaneously what used to require months via a cumbersome literature review. AI applications can be engineered to suggest ways one might go deeper in a particular area of investigation or identify other luminaries in the feld. Other apps might
be calibrated to the particular requirements for a professional journal and create an evaluative mechanism to determine “publication readiness.”10
Already mentioned is the capacity for artifcial intelligence to generate syllabi, lesson plans, sample tests, and rubrics. Taking this a step further, multi-modal data banks are now being developed that integrate text with images with sounds and with audio.11 Hence, the generation of all these materials for teaching could incorporate music, sound effects, and video. With such capability, papers and tests may soon become obsolete as the best proxies for determining competence, giving way to simulation of real life situations.12 For example, I asked ChatGPT to generate simulation ideas for a class on missions. Included among the feedback was a disaster relief simulation, management of a refugee camp, business market analysis for a non-proft, and a spacewalk. (No doubt confating information on the “mission to space” with the kind of missiological implications I was aiming for…but hey, who wouldn’t want to be the frst chaplain on Mars for the Space Force?) With capacity to scan vast archives of knowledge and identify connections between felds of inquiry, artifcial intelligence will no doubt encourage areas of interdisciplinarity and global collaboration. Virtual laboratories will permeate many felds advancing knowledge and skill building in exciting ventures.
The academic workfow for students is similarly increasing, augmented by artifcial intelligence that can move randomized thoughts and unformed outlines into written drafts. Those who labor with proper grammatical construction or English translation can fnd software that auto-completes sentences. Enhanced voice recognition software now can provide summaries of class conversations or generate study notes (fashcards). Chat bots can serve as a reading assistant, asks questions to test one’s comprehension or create a task that helps a student think more critically about a given body of knowledge. Much to the delight of many, software can now generate citations prompted with the simplest of source identifcation.13
Ethical Issues and Other Concerns
Where some are enticed by the possibilities of artifcial intelligence, others are more precautionary, citing hazards or projecting possible deleterious outcomes. The following are some of the known challenges that frst accompanied the prevalent use of AI.14
Plagiarism - the most prominent concern of educators, regulating what is and what is not original thought will almost inevitably become increasingly nuanced and more diffcult to detect. State educational systems are experimenting with creating codes of conduct and/or categorizing graduated levels of prohibition (red, yellow, green). With the need for ongoing modifcation of regulations, educators are likely to lobby for at least a minimal level of scrutiny such as students self-disclosing how AI is being used.
Copyright infringement – At the time when this article was being written, courts were still deliberating on a class action lawsuit regarding whether large databases infringed on the rights of authors and artists via incorporating their work without permission into their vast storage of information.15
Hallucinations and false reporting – Many of those wary of AI will recount an experience where a search generated false information suggesting a book that did not exist, citing a historical artifact, fnding a reference that was fabricated, or providing misinformation about a particular topic. Some examples that made interesting news stories included a headline that Elon Musk had been in a Telsa car crash (made possible by the algorithm linking key words/concepts together), or a more comprehensive search of legal briefs that allegedly generated legal precedents later judged to be incorrect from between 69-88% of the time (in the use of early large language models ChatGPT 3.5 and Llama 2).16 Critics of AI will now cite such examples as precautionary tales urging the limited and discriminate use of AI. Proponents of AI will hasten to add that algorithms themselves can be created to check and self-correct such falsehoods, eventuating in increasingly accurate and helpful outcomes.
Bias – One particularly interesting area of bias relates to the use of facial recognition software and what it might be used to detect. If employed for the purpose of discerning negative emotions or the tendency toward a particular disposition, how likely is it that more negative emotions get associated with a particular race?17 Given the possibility for such bias, what might be the implication if this kind of artifcial intelligent was utilized in the criminal justice system to detect guilt or to indicate proclivities toward criminal behavior? What if banks or insurance companies employed it
to determine who qualifes for a loan or insurance? What if it was used to assist in diagnosis within a hospital to help triage who gets priority for medical care?
Deepfakes – Most of what has been discussed so far are unintentional outcomes of AI indicating gaps in the internal workings of algorithms. (One of the more elaborate examples was a case in which ChatGPT allegedly invented a sexual harassment scandal AND made up a Washington Post article to help substantiate the claim.)18 But there are also intentional and nefarious uses of AI that also have to be taken into consideration such as nudifcation technology. These types of cases have led to various attempts to regulate AI. For example, the FCC has endeavored to fne companies who use AI sounds in political ads.19
Privacy Concerns – Brian Johnson, a cybersecurity expert, was asked on a Breakpoint podcast, “how can you protect yourself in an AI world?” The question emerges in part because any user assessing Open AI themselves become a source of data. Johnson’s judgment was that ultimately a person can’t fully protect themselves. The bigger issue for him however is a question of identity (protecting what is “mine”) and developing methods like opt out features or utilizing a separate account when assessing AI.20
Governance challenges – In November of 2023, Bletchley reported that 28 countries signed a declaration creating a collective commitment to manage the potential risk of frontier AI.21 Ian Bremmer and others have predicted however that the pace at which AI is developing will outpace our capacity to regulate it.22
Power Grid – In early 2024 it required about $40 million/month to process inquiries on Open AI. At that time it was estimated that this represented about 1% of all energy consumption, but that in some locales it could consume as much as 20% of the power gird.23 As AI rapidly expands requiring large infrastructure and the necessity of more nuclear power points, the speculation is that companies will seek contracts with governments to ensure they can run their AI platforms. Note the spectacle shortly after Trump’s election of several tycoons pledging $500 billion dollars to aid in building America’s infrastructure for AI to keep us competitive with other superpowers.24
Inequity Divide – It is estimated that 2.6 billion people (approximately one third of the world’s population) was without access to internet as late as last year. This divide between those who have access and those who don’t will no doubt increase with AI.25 Furthermore, even if most of the world could gain access, it is highly unlikely that most of what they would fnd would exist with their needs or interests in mind.
Defning Artifcial Intelligence
Perhaps it is helpful at this point to take a deeper dive into explaining the emergence of artifcial intelligence, offer more nuanced descriptions between what is currently emerging, and what remains speculative but is the subject of many dystopian projections. Artifcial intelligence created a tsunami of interest when several things converged:
High power computing + Algorithms and software models + Big data collectors26
To give some indication of the expansive power of this convergence, consider the following. One gigabyte of data has been estimated to equate with about 178 million words that can be stored from books, articles, and conversations. One Terabyte is the equivalent of about a trillion bytes of data. The frst version of ChatGPT was estimated as using about 45 terabytes of data.27 Or to say it more simply a terabyte of data is about 175 billion parameters – multiply this by about 50 and you get the pilot version of Chatbot, which by the time you read this article is likely already obsolete by the models that exceed it.
The functions of ChatGPT, which most users are gaining familiarity with, searches sequences of data (primarily text based) and considers the context and relationship of words with every word surrounding it. As a huge computer system develops a comprehensive understanding of this vast data bank, it can then generate the capacity to predict the next word creating what is to humans a coherent thought. The method by which a computer is acting on this data is called an algorithm, and how an algorithm functions is determine by its creator.
However, with the convergence of power computing, algorithms, and big data collection, additional sources of information are being stored and fused together in what can be delivered to the user. For example, text,
image, sound, audio, and code can all be combined in what some call “data lakehouses”28 where algorithmic operations generate multimodal capabilities in how computers perform. In one illustration, a user took a picture of an exotic meal she hoped she could cook for anticipated guests and wondered how AI could help. Consider what might ensue as a computational system receives an image of a luxury meal, receives a verbal instruction, searches recipes to best determine what goes into such a meal, generates a grocery list and formulates a vocalized instructional guide on how to prepare such a meal.29 Note in this illustration how a computer system is able to perform multiple task that normally require human capacities – visual perception, speech recognition, some form of decision-making, and translating input to textual output. This helps us bridge to various kinds of intelligence that are relevant in discussion of artifcial intelligence today. Seriating various defnitions provides a helpful comparison:
Variations of Intelligence:
• Human Intelligence –Ability to “learn, reason and solve problems across a wide range of domains…”30
• Artifcial Intelligence – Programming a machine to accomplish (a) task(s) that involve(s) interaction with its environment, like simulating behavior or thoughts.
• Generative Artifcial Intelligence – Intelligence exhibited by a machine system that generates new audio, image, or text from previously imputed data.
• Machine Learning - Algorithmic operations that enable machines to operate on general procedures for solving a whole class of problems – e.g. a decision tree. By automating an analytical model via reinforcement learning (e.g. right decisions are retained, wrong decisions are corrected), a computer improves performance based on receiving more data. This enables the possibility of fnding hidden insights or patterns that were not pre-programmed, hence “unsupervised learning.”
• Deep Learning/Neural Networks – A subset of machine learning31 that uses layered algorithms inspired by and mimicking biological networks of neurons in the human brain. Hence, artifcial neural networks are programmed to perform complex operations including allowing the system to derive its own algorithm and evaluate its own conclusions.
• Artifcial generative intelligence – Hypothetical future development whereby machines could perform any human intellectual and conceivably supersede humans as they become sentient (see the subsequent article for a deeper dive into comparative intelligences).
In the last several decades, the capacity of machines to imitate human intelligence was gaged by the Turing Test.32 In its original conceptualization questions would be asked to both a person and a machine without knowing which answers came from which. These could include open-ended questions, opinions about climate change, emotional questions about something you long for, or hypothetical questions like “if you were a museum curator what artifacts would you set on display?” Whenever a person could no longer distinguish between which answers came from a human and which answers came from a machine – the machine was regarded as having passed the Turing Test. One simple use of the Turing Test are CAPTCHAs that intend to present a task that is relatively easy for humans but impossible for bots, like identifying wavy, distorted letters to gain access to a website or from a matrix of nine images which ones contain a motorcycle.33
Most pundits or artifcial intelligence would note that a signifcant gap remains between human intelligence and robotic intelligence, but many also see this relationship asymptotically. With deep learning and more complex neural networks, might we think about computers having emerging capacities much like human functions?34 Is it legitimate for us to now talk about robots possessing recall or memory – i.e. scanning through any recorded conversation or document and pulling from it a desired artifact. Having the capability of decision trees operating at hyper speed to train a system to continually improve its output, might we also talk about a computer as “learning” and/or gaining imagination? With facial recognition, software and haptics that can allow sensibility to touch and temperature, how closely can a robot mimic human emotion. Before trying to answer this
question, google “Ameca” and see how the world’s most sophisticated robot functions have stunned people with its anthropomorphic capabilities.35
Further, since there are ways that computers can already supersede humans in some areas of intelligence - for example beating a master chess player, performing quicker and more accurate mathematical computations, recalling more memory from massive data sets, recognizing patterns, etc. –robots will soon outperform humans on many tasks potentially displacing them in the workforce. By some estimates, as high as 70% of our everyday work tasks will be automated as early as 2026.36 The World Economic Forum in their 2025 future jobs report estimate a structural transformation of the workforce affecting 22% of workers, yet hopefully creating more new job roles than are eliminated.37 Recognizing the comprehensive impact such a huge displacement of workers may have globally, the Wall Street Journal reported Pope Leo intentionally chose his papal name in large part because of his desire to address artifcial intelligence as a signature issue of his papacy. Historically, Leo was noted for his protection of factory workers in light of industrial barons who were regarded as threatening their dignity and labor rights. Hence, AI is being regarded by the new Pope as a primary social justice issue of the day. Allegedly, tech leaders have been active in conversations with the Vatican, recognizing a need to sway moral opinion in favor of the technological advances they hope to promote.38
There are other ways that artifcial intelligence is emerging and taking on human characteristics that will be important to follow in the years to come. Here are a few things to peruse, though by the time this article is published many of these may already be common or ousted by even newer technologies.
Disappearing Technology
Imran Chaudhri offered a TED talk on what he termed “disappearing tech.”39 Chaudhri frst traces the evolution of computer systems, once housed in large building spaces, becoming small enough to embed in laptops. As the power of computing increases, the size of the devices that house decreases. Hence, we now have iPhones and even smart watches with ten times the computing power that it took to launch the frst rocket to the moon. Recent years have seen the availability of artifcial intelligence in the form of virtual reality headsets created with transparent screens so gamers would not be as deprived of social interaction while playing. Chaudrhi presents the harbinger of “invisible tech,” that is mostly
invisible to others, coming in the form of a decorative pin one might affx to clothing. Invisible tech would not require one to resign themselves to an offce space, tapping on a mouse or swiping on an app. This form of screenless AI intends to interact with the world in the same way humans interact with the world – hearing all that we hear, seeing all that we see, and providing a multi-modal interface with our immediate context. Screenless, seamless, and sensing, one could be riding a bicycle while simultaneously summoning AI to sort through emails, prioritize them and offer a response even using your voice in its dictation.
From an Attention to a Relational Economy
Brian Johnson in a Breakpoint podcast extrapolates from the way smartphones are used in an “attention economy” to the way chatbots and robots may be used in a “relational economy.”40 The attention economy suggests an ecosystem where companies proft by capturing and monetizing our focus. People’s attention is regarded as a scarce and highly desirable resource that companies and organizations compete over to capture and maintain. Steve Jobs was masterful in the creation of the smartphone designing it with psychological mechanisms that capture and maintain our attention – e.g. touch screens, notifcations, illuminating displays, pop-up menus, etc. - all of which provide small dopamine reinforcements that keep us glued to our screens. Initially, we are enamored with the ease of access and immense world of information it opens to us. Yet, a decade later we seem to be awakening not only to its benefts but also to the mental health challenges and opportunity costs lost via our inundation in a digital world.
Artifcial intelligence however will operate increasingly in a relational economy. In relationship economics, benefts accrue when value is created by personalizing a response and fostering the quality of a relationship and loyalty that follows. Since AI can tailor a response to user behavior; provide 24/7 availability via virtual assistants; segment a customer base for more targeted marketing; use voice analytics to gauge customer satisfaction, and increasingly simulate personal interaction, its use is inevitably exponential. AI in a relational economy will move beyond seeking to capture attention to stimulating companionship and outsourcing intimacy. Empathy, advice and affection can be offered on demand though relational automation. It is a daunting question to ponder how many daily relational exchanges between people could be replaced by interacting with a robot. Following the pandemic, we have already become increasingly
deeply invested in education, therapy, medical visits, banking, dating, and even worship occurring in digital spaces. Yet, most of these exchanges are under our control, requiring little vulnerability – frictionless relationships that do not require us to develop the skills of mutuality. What might be the cost socially, emotionally, and psychologically as more people interactions are displaced by robots? What happens when we imbue artifcial intelligence with our trust and come to rely on it for more of our functioning and wellbeing? Speaking what now seems prophetically at the World Summit AI in 2022, Ian McGilchrist cautioned, “As machines gradually displace people, what happens to human fourishing?... what makes life worth living can only be called resonance: the encounter with other living beings, the natural world, …. with the cosmos at large, or with God. If we are not to become ever more diminished as human beings, we need to remain in control of machines, not come under their control…”41
Neurotechnology
Neuralink is a neurotechnology company co-founded by Elon Musk that is seeking to help people with paralysis gain capacities via their thoughts directing prosthetics. Beginning in 2024 clinical trials have begun with “brain computer interfaces” (BCI) that are surgically implanted into a person’s cerebral cortex.42 Fine threads with electrodes record and transmit brain signals that wirelessly connect to external devices, enabling those otherwise paralyzed to speak or move prosthetic limbs. Nueralink envisons that BCI’s could eventually restore cognitive, motor, sensory, and visual function as well as contribute to the remediation of neurological disorders. The capability of triggering movement with a thought through this process is remarkable, the possibilities literally “mind-boggling.” If a BCI can stimulate or turn off or control the speed of neurotransmission, what uses might there be to infuence depression or anxiety? But ethical questions emerge that are equally concerning: Given this process - is the bot actually reading a person’s thoughts? If it is reading a person’s thoughts and has the capacity to function autonomously– is it gaining consciousness? If such implants are extended, what possibilities are there for hybridizing humanity with machines? What then does it mean to be human?
Transhumanism
This takes us to a brief exploration of transhumanism defned by several as “the intellectual and cultural movement that affrms the
possibility and desirability of fundamentally improving the human condition through applied reason, especially by developing and making widely available technologies to eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities.”43 Transhumanism envisions the upgrading of the human being through biotechnology and genetic engineering, predicting that in the not so distant future, a new species could emerge. John Lennox however, regards this as a new form of Gnosticism, seeing it as one more attempt to free humans from our bodies via technology.44 Lennox interacts with one proponent of this perspective - Yuvall Noah Harari as Harari address what he regards as three primary longings of humanity: bliss, immortality, and Divinity asking “what if we could achieve all three?”45
“Humans don’t die because God decreed it or because mortality is an essential part of some great cosmic plan. Humans always die due to some technical glitch…Every technical problem has a technical solution. We don’t need to wait for the Second Coming in order to overcome death.”
“The great project of the twenty-frst century will be in the pursuit of attaining global happiness, to get there ‘will involve re-engineering Homo Sapiens so they can enjoy everlasting pleasure.’” “Having raised humanity above the beastly level of survival struggles, we will now aim to upgrade humans into gods, turning Homo Sapiens into Homo Deus.”46
Nikolai Federov a Russian Orthodox philosopher writing in the same vein suggests that humans could intervene in their own evolution and direct it toward physical immortality and even resurrection. “This day will be divine, awesome, but not miraculous, for resurrection will be a task not of miracle but of knowledge and common labor.”47
Given our witness to the Christian faith, the stakes could hardly be higher!
End Notes:
1 Cf. a Barna report titled Hesitant and Hopeful: How Different Generations View Artifcial Intelligence, https://www.barna.com/research/ generations-ai/?utm_source=chatgpt.com, January 24, 2024.
2 “Christians Are Asking ChatGPT About God. Is This Different From Googling?” https://www.christianitytoday.com/2023/05/chatgptgoogle-bible-theology-artifcial-intelligence-truth/?utm_source=chatgpt. com.
3 Many of the ideas in this paragraph originated from watching a Ted Talk from Sal Khan posted in April 2023 titled “How AI could save (not destroy) education”. https://www.ted.com/talks/sal_khan_how_ai_could_ save_not_destroy_education.
4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6TUPW9C454.
5 Many of these ideas also originate from a product resource databank that Ithaka S+R was offering March 7, 2024, under the title “Generative AI in Higher Education: The Product Landscape”.
6 Sal Khan, ibid.
7 Much of the progression I offer here originates from a presentation titled “Reimagining Course Creation: The Adaptive Intelligent Design Model and Generative AI” given by Mike McKay and Dr. Michelle Meadows at the Feb 2024 annual conference of the International Technological Council, Las Vegas, Nevada.
8 Interview with Nicholas Carr in Christianity Today, Vol 69, 4, July/August 2025, page 25. https://www.christianitytoday.com/2025/07/ nicholas-carr-ai-doctors-internet-edgelords/.
9 Much of what appears in this seriated list was gleaned from AI in Education podcasts hosted by Dan Bowen and Ray Fleming. For example, see their Jan 25, 2024, podcast titled “The Impact of AI on Higher Education: Interviews” Also helpful was an AI Open Forum titled “Constructive Partnerships with Text-based Generative AI” hosted online by the Association of Theological Schools, March 4, 2024, as well as the presentation cited above in footnote 7 from McKay and Meadows presentation.
10 Ithaka S+R, Ibid. Much of the ideas posed here were gleaned from descriptions of available products in the Ithaka resource bank. See footnote 5 above.
11 This information came from an episode of 60 Minutes on “Artifcial Intelligence” that aired on Jan 13, 2019 – https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=aZ5EsdnpLMI. Since then, 60 Minutes has aired several more episodes focused on more recent developments in AI. The MIT Technology Review was also helpful in understanding multi-modal AI and data lakehouses - https://www.technologyreview.com/topic/artifcialintelligence/.
12 I became persuaded toward this shift in assessing students when reading The Chronicle of Higher Education’s publication titled Big Bot on Campus: The perils and potential of ChatGPT and other AI, 2023.
13 See many of the footnotes already listed to fnd examples, especially the Sal Khan Ted Talk in footnote 3.
14 Of great help in compiling this list was a TedTalk given by Gary Marcus on May 12, 2023, titled “The Urgent Risks of AI and What to Do
About Them” Specifcation of what Marcus named comes from assorted news stories heard throughout the preparation for the colloquium collated from sources like NPR, CNN, Fox News, etc. and from news magazines like Time Where it might prove helpful, I have further identifed specifc sources in the seriated list. What is most interesting to note is how infrequently these are now reported, indicating what appears to be a signifcant capacity for AI to either self-correct or be engineered with increasing accuracy.
15 https://authorsguild.org/news/ag-and-authors-fle-class-actionsuit-against-openai/.
16 Dahl, Matthew; Magesh, Varun; Suzgun, Mirac & Ho, Daniel E. Large Legal Fictions: Profling Legal Hallucinations in Large Language Models, 16 Journal of Legal Analysis 64 (2024).
17 This report is attributed to Privacy International under a case study titled “Emotionreading facial recognition displays racial bias” reported August 12, 2019. https://www.privacyinternational.org/es/advanced-search ?keywords=&f%5B0%5D=content_type_term%3AEducational&page=28.
18 https://www.foxnews.com/media/chatgpt-falsely-accusesjonathan-turley-sexual-harassment-concocts-fake-wapo-story-supportallegation.
19 https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/fcc-cracks-down-on-aipowered-robocalls.
20 Brian Johnson and Abdu Murray are interviewed by Pete Marra on Feb 27, 2024 on a podcast titled “The Promise and Perils of Artifcial Intelligence” - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kC-qUfrgbf8.
21 See the Bletchely Declaration policy paper updated Feb 13, 2025 at https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/foreign-commonwealthdevelopment-offce.
22 Bremmer, Ian. “The Top Risks of 2024, ” Time magazine, Jan 22, 2024, page 28.
23 Find these stats embedded in a full report from The MIT Technology Review titled “The Great Acceleration: CIO Perspectives on Generative AI,” July 18, 2023. https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/07/18/1076423/ the-great-acceleration-cio-perspectives-on-generative-ai/.
24 https://www.forbes.com/sites/moorinsights/2025/01/30/thestargate-project-trump-touts-500-billion-bid-for-ai-dominance/.
25 See for example that article from Schellekins, Phillip and Skilling, David, “Three Reasons Why AI May Widen Global Inequality, ” Oct 17, 2024. https://www.cgdev.org/blog/three-reasons-why-ai-maywiden-global-inequality.
(2025)
26 The previous footnote indicated a podcast that was later commented on in weekly review podcast co-authored by Timothy Padgett. Padgett interviewed Ray Kurzwell in an episode also titled “The Promise and Perils of Artifcial Intelligence,” Feb 23,2024.
27 https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/chatgpt.
28 MIT Technology Review, ibid.
29 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o5mekBoWOk.
30 This defnition and the some of the subsequent categorization began with an article titled “Human or AI?: The Nuances of Intelligence” from Amelia Haynes, research manager for Korn Ferry in 2024.
31 Mckay and Meadows, Reimagining Course Creation, ibid. See footnote 7 above as another helpful resource in creating these defnitions and categories.
32 The Turing test is mentioned in many historic looks at AI. See one example in this Ted Talk from Greg Brockman titled “The Inside Story of ChatGPT’s Astonishing Potential,” April 20, 2023.
33 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAPTCHA.
34 See further the 60 Minutes episode cited in footnote 11 above.
35 https://engineeredarts.com/robot/ameca/.
36 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Otim2mDjsYM&t=5s.
37 https://www.weforum.org/publications/the-future-of-jobsreport-2025/.
38 https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/pope-leo-ai-tech-771cca48?utm_ source=chatgpt.com.
39 https://www.ted.com/talks/imran_chaudhri_the_disappearing_ computer_and_a_world_where_you_can_take_ai_everywhere.
40 Brian Johnson and Abdu Murray are interviewed by Pete Marra on Feb 27, 2024 on a podcast titled “The Promise and Perils of Artifcial Intelligence” - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kC-qUfrgbf8.
41 For a full recording of McGilchrist’s brilliant presentation see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgbUCKWCMPA.
42 See the technology tab at https://neuralink.com/.
43 This defnition is used for example by Nick Bostrom, “A History of Transhumanist Thought,” in the Journal of Evolution and Technology, 14 (1): 1-25.
44 Lennox, John, 2084 and the AI Revolution, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2024.
45 This aspect of Harari’s ideology was reviewed by Bill Gates on May 22, 2017, on a Gates Notes page titled “What if people run out of things to do?” - https://www.gatesnotes.com/homo-deus.
46 Harari, Yuvall N., Homo Deus: A History of Tomorrow, HarperCollins, 2017.
47 This quote can be found in the Lennox book cited in footnote 44, 167.
The Asbury Journal 80/2: 326-370
© 2025 Asbury Theological Seminary
DOI: 10.7252/Journal.02.2025F.03
Aaron J. Lewis
The Giants Cry “Halt”: Incongruencies between Classical Virtue Ethics and Generative Artifcial Intelligence
Abstract:
Due to recent advancements in the feld of Artifcial Intelligence, the near future of technological growth is estimated to be one of the most transformative periods in human history. Virtue ethics is arguably the superior ethical framework for integrating advanced technologies into the life of the common person. However, the philosophy undergirding much of classical virtue ethics—as espoused by Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas— makes apparent several incongruencies between Classical Virtue Ethics and Generative Artifcial Intelligence. These incongruencies must be identifed for the sustainment of future conditions in which moral virtue can be fostered. For those who recognize the limitations of human nature and acknowledge the importance of human fourishing, this topic is of increasing concern.
Key Words: virtue ethics, artifcial intelligence, Aristotle, Aquinas, agency, human nature
Aaron J. Lewis graduated from Purdue University in 2014 with a B.S. in Engineering. Over the next six years, he worked within the domains of biomedical technology and manufacturing engineering. From 2020-2025, he attended Asbury Theological Seminary, graduating with an M.A. in Theological Studies and a Th.M. focused on Philosophy. He now studies further graduate philosophy at Western Michigan University and serves as a teaching assistant.
“You can not have the power of gods without the love, wisdom, and prudence of gods.”1
Introduction
Humanity is sailing into uncharted and futuristic waters that will require ancient truths to navigate. In these waters, our foresight into the ramifcations of ethical choice, personal moral formation, and action may be obscured by the rate of change in a world augmented by artifcial intelligence. For those concerned about human fourishing, this issue is of paramount importance. Advancements in the felds of artifcial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) have birthed new families of generalpurpose technologies. These technologies may prove more transformative than fre, the wheel, the engine, the personal computer, and the splitting of the atom. With suffcient architecture, training data, and computational power, AI and ML may one day solve humanity’s most diffcult problems with ease. On the other hand—and a heavy hand it is—AI may enable new expressions of dark desire and create irreversible consequences at both the individual and societal level. The cure for cancer and the origin of yet-tobe-named psychological disorders could be borne from the same source. For some, the future seems a utopian dream; for others, it is an existential nightmare. A new technological and ethical landscape is becoming manifest, and each person must decide their moral aim: virtue or vice.
As we approach this future, virtue ethics is arguably the most promising ethical framework for properly integrating advanced technologies into the life of the common person. Some philosophers of technology, such as Shannon Vallor, argue that, within this integration, the moral calculus of utility is untenable and the techno-social paradigm shifts are too frequent for a fully adequate deontology. As Vallor says, “Virtue ethics is ideally suited for adaptation to the open-ended and varied encounters with particular technologies that will shape the human condition in this and coming centuries.”2 Even still, more needs said on this issue—and that is the purpose of this paper. While virtue ethics offers superior guidance amidst technological change, the philosophy supporting classical virtue ethics has much to say against the specifc technology of Generative AI (GenAI). It should be noted that some approaches to virtue ethics and GenAI might attempt to show how AI can be used virtuously or positively infuence human cultural evolution.3 However, the current approach considers why we should be cautious. At a high level, AI creates two problems. One
problem is that the manner and degree in which agency is relinquished will disrupt how virtue is cultivated. The other problem pertains to how AI operates in a manner and speed that is incongruent with the principles of virtue ethics and fourishing respective of human nature. We can observe these general issues in the following, particularized arguments:
1a. GenAI often replaces human agency and means of habituation, disrupting the causes of virtue (with respect to how the technology is applied and integrated).
1b. Virtue requires a human agent to make rational and ethical measurement, progressively understood through experience, prior action, and moral knowledge about particular facts. AI may dispossess human measurement, resultant action, and growth related to relinquished tasks.
2a. Virtue is antithetical to vice. The “accessible domains of vice” are and will be inordinately amplifed by AI, likely disrupting prudential foresight and temperate balance of many users through temptation and access to vice.
2b. The current state of AI and future state of AGI create totalizing conditions in which “prudential measurement of the current state” and “teleological view of a future state” cannot be articulated due to: (1) The combination of democratized AI and the epistemic gap between userintentions and AI-production and (2) the compounding of exponential growth and operating speed of systems. (This epistemic gap is qualifed by four phenomena in the feld of AI: emergent properties, the black box problem, asymmetric direction of ft, and AI hallucinations.)
Note that throughout this paper there are two related yet philosophically distinct approaches by which the incongruencies between AI and virtue are analyzed. The frst approach recognizes the conditions in which an individual maintains agency and cultivates virtue (1a, 1b). The second
approach recognizes the way in which society breeds conditions in which virtue can or cannot be cultivated (2a, 2b). As AI is propagated across the ethical landscape, issues will appear at both individual and societal levels of analysis.
In developing an explanation for why these ostensible issues loom, a comprehensive survey of the history and kinds of virtue ethics is beyond the scope of this paper. Therefore, two giants of the Western virtue tradition have been selected to represent the whole: Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. Key aspects of the above arguments are treated in four following sections. First (I), we will briefy review relevant portions of Nicomachean Ethics. Second (II), we will address the Summa Theologica and a philosophical synthesis of the Aristotelian and Thomistic accounts of virtue. These two sections focus on the virtues of prudence (phronésis) and temperance (sôphrosune). These virtues make the most effcient and plausible case for each argument. Third (III), is a review of GenAI, highlighting general knowledge, notable breakthroughs, applications, and trajectories. Fourth (IV) we return to Aquinas and detail a theory of agency so that AI-users may be cognizant of the precise location of agency being exercised or relinquished. Section four is the largest because agency is highly nuanced, central to the cultivation of many virtues, and relevant to each particularized argument in section fve. Fifth (V), we will address the particularized arguments above. In result, this paper will demonstrate a totalizing case: those who strive to be virtuous and live in a virtuous society should be both cautious and selective when integrating and applying many technologies within the genus of GenAI.
The reader should note—and will progressively understand— three areas of supporting material. One area is Aristotle’s theory of causality (The Four Causes) and its applied relationship to his own theory of virtue, as relayed by Aquinas and others.4 The causal account of virtue aids in conceptually “giving name” to the components of virtue that are dispossessed by AI. The second area is the Aristotelian and Thomistic understanding of human agency as it relates to virtue.5 For Aristotle, an agent is anything that can act or create force (e.g. a storm, animal, or computer) but only within the bounds of its nature.6 A human agent is composed of rational deliberations of circumstance and means, moral intentions, choice, and respective actions toward a desired end.7 The defning characteristics of a human agent are both moral and rational activity. In the Middle Ages, Aquinas detailed this activity and formulated the theory of agency applied
(2025)
in section four. A fnal area of focus is the following framework, which we can call the “framework of virtue,” that represents the modalities of virtue as a concept, action, and process:
Start/ Ask-
Rational and Ethical - Action - Final/ Answer Measurement
Virtuous Habituation
This framework, on which more will be later said, visually represents the general principles of virtue cultivation seen within the classical tradition. The argumentation related to this framework is intended to be general yet robust, enabling it to stand alongside (or within) several articulations of virtue ethics.8 Last, the moral and philosophical position of this work claims that all people can achieve the classical virtues. The rise of AI will affect all, and virtue is our best universal response.
(I) A Summary of Aristotelian Virtue Theory
Throughout history, some form of virtue ethics is refected in many traditions, such as Christian and Confucian. The earliest expressions of virtue most notably come from Greek antiquity. Plato, of course, gave us four classical virtues: prudence, temperance, justice, and fortitude. While Aristotle developed a larger set of virtues that he considered human excellences, these classical virtues remained a centerpiece of Aristotle’s virtue theory. Four relevant aspects of Aristotle’s concept of a virtue are as follows. First, virtue is a type of excellence relative to a human’s nature and end (telos). Second, virtue relates to the character of an agent, either intellectually or morally. Third, virtue is determined by principle (reason, intellect) and knowledge gained through experience. Fourth, virtue has to do with a matter of choice, specifcally moral choice. This moral choice often falls between the defciency or excess of a particular intellectual or moral state of being.9 One such example is courage as the proper choice between cowardice and foolishness. Within Aristotelian thought, (most) virtues have a relative “mean” between some excess and a respective defciency. Aristotle says:
Virtue, then, is a state of character concerned with choice, lying in a mean, the mean relative to us, this being determined by a rational principle, and by that principle by which the man of practical wisdom (phronésis) would determine it … it is a mean because the vices respectively fall short of or exceed what is right in both passions and actions, while virtue both fnds and chooses that which is intermediate.10
This is Aristotle’s well-known doctrine of the mean. Many modern philosophers rightfully debate advanced articulations of the “mean,” the “rational principle,” and their respective functions. For our purposes, the reader should simply note that a virtue is a state of character defned by an agent’s reasoning, moral choices, and actions, iteratively selected by that agent from a purview of what is known by rational principle and practical wisdom (phronésis, prudence).
Virtue can be understood as an iterative process directed at fourishing (eudaimonia). This process is qualifed by selecting that which is excellent, acting upon it, and moving toward an improved state of being. Virtue cultivation is inherently different for each person because choice is relative to personal nature (e.g. a person with social anxiety may display incredible courage in a simple act of conversation). For some virtues, the mean is not found at the midpoint between excess and defciency. Courage may be closer to foolishness than cowardice and cowardice may come more easily for some people. In acquiring virtue, experiential knowledge plays a central role. Aristotle points out that, when making decisions, a mature man is more prudent and temperate than a child, even if both the man and the child aim at the same good.11 The man simply has greater experience, and therefore, greater knowledge in applying morals and reason to a given landscape of choices. Furthermore, virtue is not solely concerned with what a person is doing, but also with what they ought to do. This “doing” reinforces in the actor as a type of practical knowledge, which in turn iteratively makes the actor more virtuous or vicious in character. This iterative process and resultant growth is termed here as virtuous habituation.
The central acts of virtue—rational deliberation and moral choice—are demanding for a simple reason. “Men are good in but one way, but bad in many,” says Aristotle.12 This statement seems to be a general truth in life, whether in pleasing a parent or solving a math problem. Simply, there are many ways to do something wrong and only a select few ways to do that same thing correctly. Therefore, as the level of consequence increases
for any action, the associated deliberations and moral choice become increasingly paramount. This point will be relevant to our discussion on AI. Moving on from virtue in general, let us consider more specifc and relevant aspects of prudence.
Aristotle articulates some qualities of prudence, namely that a person is not nearsighted, but is rather considerate of holistic wellbeing, what might come about, and what is “advantageous to the virtuous life.”13 By these qualities, prudence is naturally preserved in a person by temperance (sōzousa ten phronēsin).14 Moreover, prudence is concerned with facts, but more specifcally with what ought to be done with certain facts and to what ultimate end (telos) they lead. He says:
Practical wisdom (phronésis) is concerned with the ultimate particular, which is the object not of scientifc knowledge but of perception15… Now all things which have to be done are included among particulars or ultimates; for not only must the man of [prudence] know particular facts, but understanding and judgment are also concerned with things to be done… 16
“Scientifc knowledge,” as Aristotle defnes it in this context, is best understood as what follows from frst principles and knowledge of the immediate facts. This a priori analysis determines an object’s empirical behavior as a result of rationally grasping its form or nature. Prudence, on the other hand, is something not derived in the same manner; it is the perception of the moral end, which is over and above the facts themselves.17 Aristotle’s analysis of factual knowledge and prudence seems apparent, despite heavy debate in the current era. Consider that empirical facts gathered by scientifc inquiry or computational systems say nothing of what ought to be done with those facts. Here, moral knowledge about facts is necessary. As a real-life example demonstrates, scientifc knowledge will readily determine if ebola can be hybridized with smallpox.18 Moral knowledge from a moral agent adjudicates if ebola and smallpox should be hybridized. The virtue of prudence acts as an ethical overseer by navigating the facts of a given situation and providing guidance toward fourishing. For these reasons, Aristotle considers prudence as the cardinal virtue. He says, “Prudence as well as Moral Virtue determines the complete performance of man’s proper function: Virtue ensures the rightness of the end we aim at, Prudence ensures the rightness of the means we adopt to gain that end.”19 For our later discussion, consider that AI is an unprecedented hyper-
accelerant toward some end; lesser time for iterative correction infers that prudential aim is critical. Whether AI is a prudent means in general is an issue of great debate.
Let us transition to the relevant aspects of temperance. For Aristotle, as well as Aquinas in his wake, temperance is usually concerned with pleasures related to sex, food, and drink, or those pleasures and aversions common to most creatures.20 The excesses and defciencies of the temperate mean are quite obvious, yet people are evidently more predisposed to the excesses of self-indulgence.21 While Aristotle almost exclusively focuses on the sensory aspects of temperance, there are certainly higher-order pleasures unique to humankind beyond base gluttony and lust—such as power, luxury, fame, domination, and control—to which the same model of thinking can be applied. Moreover, Aristotle notes that there are “pleasures peculiar to individuals.”22 The more peculiar a pleasure is, likely, the more pernicious it is. He states that when peculiar pleasures go wrong, they “go wrong in many ways.”23 This insight is highly relevant to the imagery (or general sensory) branch of GenAI, where “peculiar” appetites have quite literally no limitation in quantity or precision. The endless panoply of surreal, temptatious, and destructive visual content is an already welldocumented issue, feeding perversions and distorting the pleasures toward which humanity is drawn. Inarguably, some pleasures are well beyond proper reason and direct the susceptible away from fourishing. This is why temperance must be in harmony with reason. It is an aid in preserving many other virtues. On the whole, temperance is a type of balance, regulation, and control of one’s mind and body, an act of doing the right thing at the right time.24 Aristotle aptly closes Book III stating,“…the [will] in a temperate man should harmonize with reason… this is what reason directs.”25 Temperance is an essential virtue in a world with an increasing domain of “consumptive” possibilities, yet the ability to obtain temperance is confounded by the nature of what is creating those possibilities. Perhaps what has been said can be understood in an analogy: if a man who struggles to control himself is forced onto a tightrope, the result is predictable. Before moving on to Aquinas and the synthesized account of virtue, let us briefy defne the Aristotelian account of causation (The Four Causes). Aristotle frst argued that all objects have four causes for their existence. The term causes is often best understood as becauses—in other words, the reasons why something has a particular ontology.26,27 They are:
- Formal Cause: the essence of, what it is about, what it is
- Material Cause: that out of which something is made
- Final Cause: the good, telos, or end to which something is moving
- Effcient Cause: where the process of change occurs28
From the Enlightenment through the postmodern era, the formal and fnal causes have been all but gutted by the dominant views of reductionism and materialism. All who believe in moral goodness have no such luxury to abandon these causes as essence and end are primary concerns of ethical and theological thought. For this reason, Aquinas saw the value in Aristotelian causality and employed it in his formulation of virtue. A causal synthesis of Scholastic-Aristotelian virtue will prove useful in “giving name” to the potential incongruencies between AI and moral virtue. Although this causal account is not the only framework of virtue, it is a cogent point of synthesis between the Aristotelian and Thomistic accounts, offering us a unique philosophical viewpoint for the incongruencies between virtue and AI.
(II) A Summary of Thomistic Virtue Theory and a Causal Synthesis
In the Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas sought to unify the theological, philosophical, and ethical thought of the previous two millennia. Furthermore, he advanced the theological virtues: Faith, Charity, and Hope. For Aquinas, virtue ethics (which constitute over a quarter of the Summa)29 is a vital part of religious life. By further integrating natural law into the conception of virtue, Aquinas was able to develop an advanced virtue ethic, grounding virtue in the divine and common moral knowledge. If Aristotle is the trunk of the virtue tradition tree, Aquinas is surely the strongest and most fruitful branch of the Scholastic Era.
In I-II 55.4 of the Summa, Aquinas employs Aristotle’s causalmetaphysics in his formulations, giving keen insight on what constitutes virtue. Aquinas’s formulations imply that if components or causes are removed from a virtue’s constitution, the virtue cannot be obtained. Thomistic scholar Nicholas Austin structures Aquinas’s causal account of virtue in this way:
- Formal Cause: A good quality (habit)
- Material Cause: of the mind
- Final Cause: by which a person lives rightly
- Effcient Cause: which God works in us [or which is acquired by habituation]30,31
Aquinas—recognizing that many virtues are universally accessible— notes that the effcient cause of virtue may be considered without God for common virtues.32 However, this exception will not work for theological virtues as God is the object of theological virtue. Summarizing Aquinas, Nicholas Austin states that what a virtue “is about” designates whether it is a theological or classical virtue.33 This designation is known as its formal object or mode. Theological virtues are about God, while classical virtues are about the right quality and trait; one is infused while the other is acquired by habituation.34
Moreover, Aquinas employs Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean and expounds on it. He generally describes the doctrine as “rule and measure” guiding the human will:
…[concerning virtue,] evil consists in discordance from their rule or measure. Now this may happen either by their exceeding the measure or by their falling short of it; as is clearly the case in all things ruled or measured. Hence it is evident that the good of moral virtue consists in conformity with the rule of reason… Therefore it is evident that moral virtue observes the mean.35
We see once again a classical process of ethical measurement, application of reason, moral choice, and conformity to some mean. Where does this process occur? Aquinas states that the rational principle and virtuous mean are observed in the reasoning of the agent—or “the mean is observed in the act itself of reason.”36 The moral determination then binds the passions to this rational mean. In this way, temperance leads to temperate acts, and prudence leads to prudential acts. So, Aquinas provides this key addition to our thesis: if the mean is observed in the act of reasoning, then, consequently, the act of reasoning must be done by an agent in order for a respective virtue to be obtained for that agent. 37 Note that for many cognitive activities, both personal agency and cognition are being progressively relinquished to AI. In summary of what has been said, several general principles of the Aristotelian and Thomistic accounts have been established, and these principles are further elucidated within a causal account of virtue. Virtue can be broadly accounted for in this way. The formal cause of virtue is the nature of virtue in and of itself. The material cause is the human mind,
including its associated rational deliberations and moral choices. The fnal cause is the quality of character by which a person lives rightly and fourishes. The effcient cause is the process of habituation by which one becomes virtuous. In general, virtue is an act of reasoning, identifying a “mean” to which moral choice binds the passions and actions of an agent. Virtue requires both rational and ethical measurement and therefore conditions in which a human agent can apply these principles and measurements. This framework synthesizes the general principles:
Start/ Ask- Rational and Ethical - s-\ction - Final/ Answer Measurement
Virtuous Habituation
With what has been said in (I) and (II), we have much to consider in the following sections. The cardinal virtue of prudence is not applicable in domains where current circumstance and future states of affairs are fully imperceptible. Virtue in general cannot be enacted or habituated when agents relinquish reasoning, choice, and action to secondary “agents” with unknown rational and moral directives. If and when the material cause of virtue is co-opted, the effcient cause is displaced, the formal cause is distorted, and the fnal cause is unknown, virtue cannot be obtained in any traditional sense that has been established. Now we see what this analysis of virtue has to say about a world augmented by AI.
(III) Overview of Generative Artifcial Intelligence
This section will establish general knowledge of GenAI, including high-level capabilities, standard operations, and how these operations might relate to classical virtue ethics. If virtue is generally understood by the phrase “what you do is what you become,” then all parties should consider what becomes of a human and human society when much of “the doing” is relinquished to technology. It is true, humans are inherently limited; this is why the allures of GenAI are attractive. But again, humans are limited. There is only so much we can handle, only so fast we can grow, only so much pleasure we can experience, and only so far we can see. The reader, if new to the topic of AI and ML, must understand the profound and transformative
power of this new technology. While contemplating sections (III), (IV), and (V), consider AI’s formative impact both at the personal and societal level of analysis. Relating to forthcoming arguments in (IV) and (V), further consider the following terms: technological growth rate, domains of vice, emergent properties, and the incremental replacement of human agency
In 2017, a monumental advancement transpired in the sector of AI architecture. This new architecture is known as the transformer, a piece of software that enables neural networks to achieve a novel function known as “self-attention.” This function removes the need for sequential recurrence and enables fundamentally new ways to organize and access data.38 By the year 2022, a technological revolution was underway, birthing a new family of general-purpose technologies. Currently, the most commonly applied technologies within this growing family are the Large Language Model (LLM) and the Diffusion Model (DM), which deal with language and imagery data, respectively. LLMs use symbolic manipulation and word prediction to complete language-based tasks while DM’s typically produce media from language.39 More importantly, the underlying architecture of these technologies opens the door to far more than chatbots or picture generators. With new, multi-modal capabilities, GenAI systems are—in the broadest sense—systems of pattern recognition that attempt to correlate any computational input to any computational output by training on enormous sets of data, which often contain billions of inputs.
New forms of AI have far surpassed prior forms. Previous AI was often domain-specifc, such as IBM’s DeepBlue, the computer system that defeated Chess World Champion Gary Kasparov in 1997.40 As an example, this system was roughly “chess in” and “chess out.” New AI is multimodal, meaning it can process almost any formalizable input type. Text, video, voice, image, sound, code, 3-D renderings, material structures, and the like are just a fraction of possible input and output types.41 While the datasets feeding these systems are primarily of human creation— including all natural biases—systems can now additionally create new training data to compound rate of improvement.42 Combined with new methods of data correlation between domains, ML and AI have become truly general purpose.43 Consequently, many domains of techno-social life are susceptible to this powerful, ever-expanding, and general-purpose technological family. For GenAI, all digital and formalizable aspects of human life are open terrain.
To clarify the profundity of GenAI, consider several breakthroughs in recent years. If given the right architecture and training data, AI can: employ “chain of reasoning” to outperform the world’s leading STEM students,44 generate lattice structures of four million previously unknown materials,45 reconstruct thoughts of propositions and imagery from fMRI brain scans,46,47 decrypt typed messages from the sound of keystrokes,48 compose symphonies,49 accurately imitate human speech from mere seconds of audio recording,50 produce new medications and toxins,51 track movement through fuctuations of Wi-Fi signals,52 and effortlessly synthesize entire felds of research.53 GenAI is pattern recognition of the highest order. There is no practical limitation to the number of domains to which these systems can be applied. Even a cursory study of this technology will reveal AI is not another “classical tool,” but something that often co-opts creative and reasoning processes entirely (depending on the application). AI is a category unto itself, one philosophers now debate in terms of whether it is the agent in question. This new power is of such magnitude that if applied to research domains like genetics, even the understanding of “what constitutes a human being” may very soon be under assault, though this is another topic entirely.
In a world augmented by AI, the potential gains in utility and productivity are incalculable. Still, some costs are already abundantly clear. Intentional misapplication from bad actors, unforeseen capabilities, misinformation, deep fakes, cybersecurity threats, illegal pornography, copyright infringement, job displacement, market shifts, and the like are just the surface of a “cat-and-mouse game” in which feld experts and leading companies are embroiled.54 This totalizing situation will be inordinately diffcult to measure, control, and regulate. There is an apparent need for continuing discussion of prudential aim and temperate boundaries within AI advancement and application. Human fourishing depends upon it.
In combination with the above, the projected growth rate of AI systems must be understood. It is a well-established fact within sociological studies that technological advancement has and continues to follow an exponential curve. The same exponential trend exists in computational systems, known as Moore’s Law. Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI and central leader in the current AI revolution, says, “Compare how the world looked ffteen years ago, no smartphones, really. One hundred and ffty years ago, no combustion engine, no home electricity. Fifteen hundred years ago, no industrial machines, and ffteen thousand years ago, no
agriculture.”55 Now, in the matter of a few years, the world has fundamentally changed once again. In tandem with technological growth rate, AI has been empowered by breakthroughs which enable systems to rewrite their own code, recursively improve, and amplify growth to unrivaled levels.56 The hardware advancements supporting these systems are equally astounding, such as NVIDIA’s Blackwell system, which offers a fourteenhundred percent increase in computational power at twenty peta-fops per chip.57 Code now writes code and machines upgrade machines. This compounding growth is a new catalyst in the chemical reaction of human society, a catalyst that Tristan Harris of the Humane Technology Society calls the “double exponential curve.”58 The rate of change described by the double exponential curve is arguably a leading threat to society’s ability to measure future trajectories. As indicated at the beginning of this paper, our ability to prudentially foresee the ramifcations of ethical choice, personal change, and action will be swiftly obscured by the rate of change in a world augmented by artifcial intelligence. People change only so fast. Prudence, the application of wisdom, has a speed limit; we are approaching that speed limit at an exponential rate.
Continuing, there is a general complex-systems phenomenon known as emergent properties. Within the domain of AI, an emergent property is an unforeseen capability, implicitly created as more computation is poured into a system.59 Simply put, AI generates information and properties it was not trained to create or have.60 When, why, and how these properties emerge is still largely unknown as neither specifc architecture types nor any standard metric ensures clairvoyant predictions.61 Examples of emergent properties are text-to-text LLMs unintentionally producing Arabic and advanced arithmetic.62 ChatGPT acquired post-graduate-level knowledge of chemistry.63 Sora, a recent text-to-video technology, learned advanced fuid dynamics and real-world physics by observing millions of videos.64 Given that these technologies are democratized and in the hands of millions, users may yet come across previously unknown capabilities. Therefore, the combination of vicious actors, open-source AIs, and emergent properties is a unique risk to future stability.
To press the discussion further, AI Media Generators (commonly Diffusion Models) pose an obvious threat to both temperance and prudence. The newfound ability to generate surreal pictures and videos has been both outstanding and terrifying. These systems can produce masterpieces of art, generate short-story flms, recommend interior decorating, create new
company logos, or elicit the darkest imagery imaginable. Investigations have shown that if open-sourced DM systems are hacked and modifed to malicious ends, they can generate endless streams of violent and pornographic imagery that are destructive to the human psyche.65 Visual dreams and nightmares are free to all, and this is only the beta phase. Moreover, AI Media Generators can create lifelike media that fools even the most perspicacious humans, fundamentally shifting a person’s determination of what is “real.” The consequences of this shift should be self-apparent. While we cannot delve into psychology here, it is fair to assume that the dissociation of reality and our media will have adverse effects, both mentally and socially.
Our fnal consideration does not pertain to the current state of affairs but rather looks to the end goal of leading AI companies: Artifcial General Intelligence (AGI). AGI is the crown jewel after which all major players are pining. Simply put, AGI is a neural system that has equivalent or higher intelligence than that of a human with the ability to complete all generalizable tasks.66 Given that the speed of electrons in neural systems is 1.1 million times faster than the chemo-electric signals of the human brain, such a system could perform 80,000 years of intellectual labor in a single month.67 The hypothetical solution spaces these systems will evaluate will be unfathomably larger and divergent from anything humans can conceive. There is a growing epistemic gap between AI capabilities and human understanding. AGI solution spaces will reach so far into the epistemic future that they will ensure the technical and defnitive impossibility of implementing anything we currently understand as “risk management,” let alone prudence. Ironically, feld experts are aware of this concern: “We are concerned about late-stage AGI development becoming a competitive race without time for adequate safety precautions,” says OpenAI.68 Last, a future system that can by defnition complete most human tasks will have enormous impact on the formative actions in which humans partake. Note that utility, not virtue, is the explicit focus of future AGI ethics according to leading tech frm OpenAI: “We want to maximize the good and minimize the bad, and for AGI to be an amplifer of humanity.”69 An amplifer indeed…and toward what end?
In summary, this overview is intended to supply the reader with general yet suffcient understanding of AI technologies so that various incongruencies between virtue ethics—especially as understood in the context of human formation, human action, and human agency—and
artifcial intelligence can be identifed. To begin this identifcation, we now turn to subtopics of human agency and action.
(IV) Thomistic Agency and Specifc Impacts of AI:
Human agency is essential to the cultivation of many virtues, agency being that power which enables one to bring about new states of affairs through cognition and action. Naturally, certain virtues require a person to recognize where agency is defunct or displaced. Within AI applications, a loss of agency occurs precisely within any event wherein those mental processes—however they are defned—that develop, form, and habituate the character and action of a human person are surrendered to any suffciently sophisticated and self-operative technology. Perhaps the most common counterargument to the present thesis is this claim: Generative AI is a tool over which human agents maintain controlling agency. If (always) true, then AI tools can be used virtuously. This section will identify events of agential loss and address the ways in which this claim is inaccurate. The current capability of AI makes “what can be said” unexhaustive and anything that is said likely has some form of counterexample. Therefore, what is being said is not intended to establish absolutes, but to supply the reader with general knowledge that identifes the incremental loss of agency common to GenAI applications. In order to address the nuanced impact AI has upon human agency, we will frst review the philosophical relationship between human agency, action, and tools. Second, we will delineate the internal steps of a Thomistic theory of agency and observe specifc impacts. Following, we will move to the particularized arguments in section (V) and apply all that has been established.
There exists a vast panoply of human actions and tools (artifacts), and perhaps an infnite combination of the two. Therefore, imagine this multiplex relationship across two, interrelated spectrums. One spectrum ranges from basic action to complex (non-basic) action, and the second ranges from basic tools to complex tools. Examples on the frst spectrum are ‘raising your right arm’ to ‘helping solve the banking crisis.’70 Examples on the second spectrum are ‘hammers’ to ‘Artifcial Intelligence.’ Now, basic actions are the most direct and simple human action. They can be observed “where someone Φs by Ψ-ing, [and] Ψ-ing is said to be more basic than Φ-ing.”71 Complex action, therefore, is typically composed of basic actions. Tools relate to action in many ways. Complex actions may rely upon complex tools while basic actions may rely on basic tools. The raised arm
can drop the hammer, and applying AI can help solve the banking crisis. In this way, there is an observable bidirectional relationship between human agents and the tools they use. Just as tools infuence possible actions, possible actions infuence the agent.
Related to the bidirectional relationship are two terms from action theory, extended action and extended cognition. Extended action regards a general feature of human action, that is, action can be greatly extended through time and space (especially when complex). Tools may be necessary for certain extensions. Extended cognition is the modern theory of mind that argues human cognition extends into those objects used for the cognitive process.72 Simple pen and paper, for example, enable long form multiplication impossible for most minds.73 Scientist and philosopher David Chalmers says extended cognition occurs when “the human organism is linked with an external entity in a two-way interaction, creating a coupled system that can be seen as a cognitive system in its own right.”74 For our purposes, we have no need of assuming Chalmers metaphysics and will typically refer to this system as a “bidirectional relationship.” While Chalmers is concerned with identifying the ontological boundary of the mind, our purpose is (while highly related) to identify loss of agency in AI applications. Moreover, our thesis breaks with the extended cognition thesis by arguing that human cognition is not extended in some coupled systems, such as certain AI-human coupled systems.
In general, tools either (a) enable new action, or (b) make complex action more basic. Within this latter function, this compression from complex action toward basic, we encounter our broadest yet most obvious concern. What happens when AI-tools compress or fully replace those actions that defne human agency or form human character? Arguably, that particular formation is lost. In modern society, AI is likely the most versatile, applicable, and complex tool yet conceived. The general-purpose nature of artifcial systems allows them to reduce the most complex formalizable tasks into keystrokes. Our present concern then has to do with the type of action compressed. Prior to the digital age, most tools were material and something over which the human’s guiding cognition was dominant and intact. In the digital age, tools evolved into a new domain, from material to information, from utilization to process. Language based operating systems allowed humans to extend their cognitive processes in ways previously unachievable. Currently, in the age of AI, processing has developed into a type of artifcial cognition, mimicking and replacing that reasoning and
deliberation central to human cognition.75 As a result, some experts are becoming concerned by the potential impact of “artifcial cognitive systems during complex knowledge processes such as learning, sensemaking, and decision making.”76Arguably, newfound artifcial cognition has pressed “extended” cognition toward extinct cognition.
It should be apparent to most people that agency can be extended or lost in degrees. Common sense seems to show that (typically), tools used during basic action do not trump human agency, while tools used in complex actions may. Therefore, any loss of agency is highly dependent on how a tool is used. AI-capabilities give this consideration extreme potency. As an example, let us imagine a math student using an LLM in three scenarios. One, the student uses AI as a calculator for multiplication of large numbers. Two, the student prompts AI to explain “how to apply trigonometric substitution” in a general calculus problem. Three, the student prompts AI to complete his or her calculus homework. We can see a movement from basic to complex action, and a proportional compression of human cognition and agency involved in the process of formative action. So is AI a tool, an assistant, or an actor? Perhaps it is all three and more. As we move to address our theory of agency, the reader must remain cognizant of agency and application in degrees.
A last but relevant side note is that, in the current year 2025, there exists a new class of agentic AI. 77 Some readers may be curious why agentic AI is not a centerpiece of a discussion on agency. The reason for this partial exclusion is that people employing agentic systems do not maintain the illusion of a controlling agency. The total replacement of human agency is the base purpose of these systems. As one expert Enver Centin says, “[Agentic AI] refers to AI systems and models that can act autonomously to achieve goals without the need for constant human guidance.”78 An example of agentic AI is China’s new “Manus” system, which can complete most offce-language-based tasks, like fnances, job screenings, and media production. Forbes says that Manus “doesn’t just assist humans—it replaces them.”79 While agentic AI may be highly relevant to some takeaways, our conversation focuses on those systems over which users assume control.
Now, with the above established, how do common consumer models of GenAI impact the specifc steps within human cognition and action? To answer this question, we again turn to Thomas Aquinas. In Summa I-II Q.8-17, Aquinas offers a timeless account of human action across the spectrum of agency, action, and cognition. We are employing a Thomistic
account of agency for three reasons. First, this project deals in classical virtue ethics, and a Thomistic theory of agency is consistent with it. Second, Aquinas details an account of human action that remains foundational to Western philosophy and ethics. Third, and therefore, Aquinas remains a credible resource for pursuing an answer to the question we pose: Within typical GenAI applications, where are the precise locations at which GenAI displaces agency, cognition, and action?
For Aquinas, a human action is “one over which the agent has control in virtue of possessing reason (intellect) and will.”80 This type of human action (actus humanas) is distinct from accidental or involuntary acts of a person (actus hominis).81 Human action begins with mental operations, specifcally the intellectual apprehension of some object and an end toward which the will is directed. This frst act of the will is known as (1) voluntas, which translates to both will and volition.82 This act is accompanied by (2) intentio, or intention, which recognizes some end as attainable. Intention is arguably the most cogent starting point when detailing human action, but why? Recognize that a person may desire several ends at once, desire an end that is unobtainable, or desire an end not yet recognized as attainable. When a person forms an intention, this willful act defnes the end in a determinable manner that permits and then guides the process of action. In simpler terms, to have intention is to act for a reason and direct the mind toward some goal.83 For these reasons, prominent modern philosophers such as Donald Davidson and Elizabeth Anscombe hold that intentionality is the defning concept of human action.84
Following the act of intention, a person considers various means to achieve that end. This intellectual act is known as (3) consilium, or deliberation.85 Deliberation is unique within the order of action as it can be instantaneous or prolonged, private or public. After deliberation, the will obtains a (4) consensus with the intellect concerning the most desirable means to act upon. Aquinas aptly summarizes these frst steps, saying, “Now the order of action is this: First there is the apprehension of the end; then the desire of the end; then the counsel about the means; then the desire of the means.”86 These acts will culminate into (5) ludicium, or judgement. Once a person has judged the best overall means, (6) electio, or choice, can occur. Last is the intellectual act known as (7) imperium, or command, wherein the mind commands the body to act and pursue the means to the end.87 A linear summary of this mental process is as follows:
(1) Volantus → (2) Intentio → (3) Consilium → (4) Consensus → (5) Ludicium → (6) Electio → (7) Imperium or (1) Will/Volition → (2) Intention → (3) Deliberation → (4) Consensus → (5) Judgement → (6) Choice → (7) Command
So how does this process relate to the claim that Generative AI is a tool over which human agents maintain controlling agency? Going forward, we will refect upon this process and claim from two opposing standpoints, the supportive position and critical position; either AI is a means by which a human action is extended and fulflled, or AI appropriates the means of action, violating the defning qualities of human agency. If AI is a means solely, then this Thomistic process is nothing other than mental activity prior to the use of a tool. If AI appropriates agency, then it is vital that people recognize where the event of appropriation occurs. Let us further delineate the Thomistic account and observe such events.
Voluntas (1): Aquinas states, “The word voluntas sometimes designates the power of the will, sometimes its act.”88 This distinction can be understood as the capacity of human will and a specifc actualization of the will (volition), qualifed by the apprehension and desire of some end. Volition is a beguiling topic within AI systems. Public AIs depend upon human volition while other systems can “initiate” action independently of exterior directives, such as the aforementioned agentic AI. The question then becomes, does some AI have a type of volition? Surely, AI can act self-effcaciously, but does AI apprehend and desire certain ends? Some theorists argue AI can (in some computational, formal, and very qualifed sense) apprehend an end, goal, or result; this is, after all, a necessary capacity of the “reward function” in machine-reinforcement-learning.89 Reinforcement learning is a process wherein AI-outputs divergent from a user’s desires are negatively rewarded and outputs highly correlated with a user’s desires are positively rewarded. If AI could not apprehend desired ends in some qualifed sense, then this function would be unachievable. Others argue that AI “apprehends” nothing and only approximates human apprehensions by conforming symbolic information.90 Furthermore, if AI can apprehend, this apprehension is non-affective and therefore not conformed to AI’s desire (a non-existent faculty). It is human desires to
which these systems are trained. Consequently, the supportive position may argue that frst volitions, apprehensions, and desires belong to the human within GenAI applications. The critical position may broadly acknowledge the bidirectional infuence of AI upon human desire: just as AI is trained to fulfll human desires, a user’s desires are shaped by those ends made possible by AI.
Intentio (2) - The debate surrounding intentionality is perhaps the greatest divide between the supportive and critical positions on AI use. Intention is, in part, the guiding act of the will that defnes the end of an action in a singular, attainable, and determinable manner. As Aquinas says, “...intention regards the end as a terminus,” which is the point at which action is complete. 91 He further states that intention is a mental capacity that “tends” to the end, meaning intentionality guides cognition and the process of action toward some desired result.92
So how do tools couple with intentionality? Aquinas clarifes that the intention guiding an action—even action with tools—must be of the agent. He says that if “the movement of the thing moved tends to anything, [it] is due to the action of the mover.”93 In other words, intention links the causal power of the agent to the effect of the agent’s action, whether basic or complex. If this link is broken, it follows that intentionality—a defning characteristic of actus humanas—is lost. Consider how this insight relates to common tools. As a hammer has no volition, the intention guiding the use of such tools remains with the wielding agent. Therefore, any effect brought about via the hammer directly correlates to the intention of the wielding agent. Even digital tools like the calculator or word editor have an identifable, intentional link between the pressing of a button and generated symbols. In many AI applications, this type of intentionality has become highly adulterated and perhaps non-existent. To partly understand why, let us turn to relative insights from philosophers Elizabeth Anscombe and Joseph Chapa.
In Anscombe’s seminal work, Intention, she details a philosophical concept now known as “direction of ft,” which describes how thought and language operate in the world. For example, if you have the thought, “I plan to pick up that hammer,” this thought has a world-to-mind direction of ft wherein the thought is satisfed by the world changing to ft the mind’s intention (i.e. you go and pick up the hammer). If you think, “I am picking up the hammer,” this thought is merely descriptive of the world—you
picking up the hammer—thus, a mind-to-world direction of ft. Why are intentions and direction of ft relevant to artifcial intelligence?
Dr. Joseph Chapa, an ethicist and philosopher familiar with advanced AI systems, recognizes that while AI imitates human reasoning and language, AI is principally different. He says that common neural networks “are not trained on the real world. Their training data consists primarily of large repositories of digital data on the internet…”94 In consequence of this fact, AI is not informed by the world. Human intentions are about something in the real world while AI is merely directed at something in the digital world. In other words, human intentionality is informed in a fundamentally different sense than the guiding processes of AI. Chapa says that current AI has, “at best, [mind]-to-Internet” direction of ft. Any end that AI brings about will be ftted to an artifcial representation (i.e. Internetto-mind when acting and mind-to-Internet when expressing information). Like the shadows upon the wall of Plato’s cave, AI production is a shadow of true human intention. This “asymmetry,” as Chapa calls it, between the digital world and the real world highlights a new gap between human intentionality and AI-generations.95 Debatably, the effects of AI cannot be directly related to user intentionality. Chapa believes that this asymmetry is fundamentally tied to many AI phenomena, such as hallucinations and divergent results. As a relevant side note, a break in intentionality does not equate a break in causation nor responsibility. People often cause unintended ends. Philosopher Donald Davidson points out that simple actions like ‘fipping the light’ can have unintended consequences like ‘alerting the burglar.’96 Complex action presumably has greater potential for unintended results, inferring a need for caution when permitting artifcial systems to act complexly.
To further detail the divide between human intentionality and AI-production, consider the following example. Suppose you prompt a DM to “generate a picture of a cat,” and it gives you a tiger. You think, “That is somewhat correct, but not what I intended.” Next, you again identically prompt the AI, receiving a satisfactory image of a house cat. You rightly think to yourself, “Ahh, now this is what I intended.” Assuming no change to the hardware or software, what is the difference between these scenarios? Only the result has changed. Intentional action is identical and therefore the difference in result cannot be accounted for by it. Moreover, this example, while simple, shows that human intentionality is not guiding the process of action toward the fnal effect. In Thomistic terms, the power
is not linked to the act, i.e. the effect is not “tended” to by the mover. Here, human intention does not truly tend to the making of the tiger or the house cat. The system may even produce a dog and most would be oblivious as to why.
It seems very natural for people to assume agency when results are aligned with intentions. Unfortunately, alignment between intention and result does not equate human action; as will be seen, means are also relevant. As AI becomes increasingly keen at predicting human intentions, more people may assume the illusion of controlling agency. The reality is that, even if AI perfectly actualized user-intentions in every instance, at no point does user-intention truly tend to the effect. There is a fundamental difference between the prediction of user-intention and intentional human action. For these reasons, the critical position can argue that human intention—thus action, agency, and virtue—is lost to some degree.
Consilium (3) - Aquinas observes that consilium is to “counsel between several” means.97 It is the intellectual capacity of deliberating possible paths of action.98 Deliberation, or counsel, is uniquely relevant to our primary thesis for three reasons. First, the cultivation of virtue— especially intellectual virtue—is tightly bound to this faculty. Prudence, as Aristotle noted, actively determines the rightness of means deliberated. Deliberation habituates how one critically thinks, analyzes, or applies reasoning and moral knowledge. Second, and therefore, deliberation is the process that precedes and infuences how a person “achieves a virtuous mean” in any course of action; it is a critical component of human agency and often virtue. Third, the aforementioned “bidirectional relationship” fundamentally shifts the quantity and modality of means that a person may consider. The personal computer, for example, enabled entirely new domains of action and thought for human persons. Nowadays, humans are enabling entirely new domains of action for artifcial agents. Prior to the digital age, tools were a means to be deliberated about. In the age of AI, it is the tools that deliberate. The impact of this shift cannot be overstated.
Deliberation is a fundamental and formative capacity of the human creature. Within it, reasoning is habituated, creativity is cultivated, moral knowledge is applied, and consequence is considered. Some may profess that AI’s primary function is to “aid” humans in these mental processes. Truthfully, this profession can be argued for in many ways. Even Aquinas notes that deliberation is not solely a private faculty; diffcult problems
or complex actions often require outside counsel.99 Perhaps AI is like a public assistant, another subject with whom a person grows in knowledge and virtue. If true, our concern then becomes one of perspective, aim, and application. Those who defend GenAI as a “tool over which humans maintain a controlling agency” must consider the following question when applying AI: is AI a means that is deliberated, is it an aid to deliberation, or is it deliberating?
To address this question, let us return to the example of a math student using AI. GenAI may generate fnal solutions, detail the various steps leading to a solution, or recommend methodologies toward the solution (say, integration by parts). Only in the third instance does AI serve as an aid in deliberation, wherein the student is offered a means by which he or she can act. In the second instance, AI reduces deliberation to a type of instruction. In the frst instance, the student has surrendered deliberation entirely. How AI is applied clearly determines the relative impact the system has upon personal agency. It is also apparent that as deliberation is incrementally lost to AI applications, so too is personal agency.
This conclusion engenders two important considerations on the relations between action and virtue. First, Aristotle and Aquinas have established that the effcient cause of virtue is located within the formative growth of the mind, and this growth can occur through deliberation and refection.100 The consequences of displacing these mental faculties is apparent. Second, virtue necessitates that deliberation is infuenced by intentionality. Intention shapes the means deliberated, the means deliberated shape action, and action shapes character. Just consider the potential relationships between a simple hammer and some person; rightly pounded nails make a great construction worker, well chiseled rock makes the sculptor, and a mortal wound makes a killer. In our math-AI example, if the intended end of a student is “to have right answers,” then AI is an exceptional means. If the intended end is “to be a self-suffcient mathematician,” then AI may be the worst educational tool yet conceived.
In addition to these insights, AI users must consider the specifc bidirectional infuence tools have upon deliberation. A recent report from Microsoft cast light onto the detrimental effects of AI upon intellectual faculties, such as critical thinking, reasoning, and creativity. The report claims that “Knowledge Workers” (those careers applying intellectual knowledge) who frequently use AI are self-reporting large decreases in cognition displaced by AI.101 This result is patently predictable; outsourcing
critical thinking reduces the ability to critically think. Furthermore, creativity is dwindling; the variation and uniqueness of output among knowledge workers is negatively correlated to AI use. Idiosyncratic methods and novel solutions are on the decline while standardization is on the rise. Ironically, the more capable and general purpose an AI system is, the greater this effect. This general phenomenon is dubbed as “mechanized convergence.”102 As will be seen in the following paragraph on consensus, mechanized convergence must be considered within the broader context of the many virtues applied in decision making.
Before moving forward, we have one fnal consideration. There is a technical issue lurking at the bottom of advanced AI, one that directly affects deliberation but also consensus and judgment. In the last three years, AI’s processing and computational capabilities have progressed beyond the purview of all human cognition and perception. In general, GenAI outputs manifest from human inputs, but the relationship between the two—the causal link between input and output—cannot be understood or delineated by the most astute minds on the planet. Even a line-by-line dissection of the operating code does not reveal how systems act and choose particular courses of action. This issue is known as the “black box problem.”103 There is now an “inability for us to see how deep learning systems make their decisions.”104 This is a problem for several reasons. If a human cannot know what means they are acting upon, these means cannot be deliberated, consented to, or judged in a Thomistic sense. In general, if AI can command itself to actualize ends from imperceptible means, neither these means or ends can be considered true articles of actus humanas. The black box problem technically ensures a new type of epistemic gap between AI processing and human cognition. There are now several phenomena broadening this gap: AI-hallucinations, the asymmetric “direction of ft,” emergent properties, and the black box problem. In consequence of these phenomena, the critical position may strongly argue that the guiding cognition of human action is defunct within AI solutions.
Consensus (4) - Consensus is strongly correlated with deliberation; consensus is the act of the will that consents to the most desirable means. In Thomistic action theory, consent occurs when the rational appetite (will) approves of a course of action.105 In classical virtue theory, consensus occurs when the will collapses to the rational mean. In this way, consensus relates to both agency and virtue. There are two ways to view consensus within
the context of GenAI applications. One is—in keeping with the supportive position—to concede that AI is a most desirable means. The other way is—in keeping with the critical position—to acknowledge how consensus collapses toward AI-outputs. Consensus can collapse in two ways. In traditional action theory, if the faculty of consilium produces only a single means to achieve some end, then, as Thomas Williams says, “consensus will collapse into electio” and consensus is inoperative.106 Consent of a single option is to choose that option. The nature of GenAI creates a second type of collapse, one where a single means may generate multiple secondary means. Therefore, consensus may collapse more broadly to a type of choice of available options put forward by the technology. This second type of collapse is highly akin to Microsoft’s observations of “mechanized convergence.” Simply put, AI is increasingly desired while simultaneously restricting the set of means desired. The consequences of compression, convergence, and bidirectional infuence are progressively apparent.
Ludicium (5) - Judgment is the intellect’s acceptance of the will’s consent.107 Judgment can be roughly viewed as the joint approval of reason and desire.108 AI has a unique bidirectional effect upon judgment. Let us consider the supportive position of AI as a means. If a person believes AI to be an effective tool (i.e. AI accurately generates intended ends), the intellect of the user may more naturally approve of their internal desire to use AI as a means. Therefore, the intellect is subject to a type of doubleeffect, one effect (already mentioned) which degrades any yielded faculties of mind, and the other wherein the intellect is habituated to approve of the will’s desire for AI. Plausibly, the more AI is utilized and aligns with human ends, the more a person will rationally judge AI as a good means. In consequence, a type of negative feedback loop may occur wherein judgment impairs judgment as a result of the nature of the means rationally approved. In addition to this malformation, the critical position can further contend that AI often displaces judgment entirely, forcing the faculties of intention, deliberation, and consensus to collapse into a type of secondary judgment. This secondary judgment does not adjudicate the means of human action—as Thomistic agency would require—but only approves of some AI production. Simply put, judgment is reformulated and reduced to a type of endorsement.109
Electio (6) - GenAI applications affect electio (choice) in a straightforward sense. Either AI is viewed as a means chosen, or AI chooses the means. The consequences of the former have been established, and to accept the latter is to defnitively surrender human action. The choice of “do or not do” is fundamental, it is the ultimate act by which people are considered accountable for their actions. Consider that people can apprehend dark desires, have malintent, or deliberate virtuous means, but these mental operations have (arguably) no bearing on reality until they culminate into choice. For these reasons, Aquinas would argue that choice is always qualifed as moral choice. A deeper consideration within AI ethics and philosophy is then, to what degree should AI systems provide immoral means to choose from? AI has no consciously known or experientially informed way of determining moral content, and therefore, allowing AI to either offer or choose courses of action is short-sighted and risk laden. Fortunately, some Western authorities are waking up to this reality and placing legal restrictions upon how AI is applied and in what domains it may be used.110 The faculty of choice must remain a human faculty within social systems most infuenced by ethics. Last, AI that chooses and acts self-effcaciously has moved from the domain of GenAI toward the domain of agentic AI. Anyone applying agentic AI must not be disillusioned about who the agent is (or is not).
Imperium (7) - Command is the fnal act of the mind prior to the physical event of human action. Depending upon how AI is applied, imperium is either the event prior to AI-use, or it is an artifcially infuenced byproduct. The future of AI will be one of intrigue as GenAI commandeers more human action and presses forth toward the horizons of agentic AI, systems which engender their own volition, directives, and commands. Imperium, in one sense, represents the fnal dominion of a person over their actions. It is the willful actualization of some action. While the ability to bring about some end through will and intellect remains a faculty of the conscious human mind, these faculties are readily being displaced by systems that can act outside of this mental domain. Even with current AI, it is diffcult to establish how human commands generate certain results. When AI is fully autonomous, it may soon be impossible to determine how any human commands relate to the ends made manifest by artifcial systems. In summary of section (IV), it has been demonstrated that AI has several unique impacts upon the process of human action and the
defning qualities of human agency. Unlike other tools over which human agents maintain a guiding cognition, the tool of AI shatters the boundary conditions of classical action theory and Thomistic agency. Debatably, AI is a classifcation unto itself, one which supersedes prior conceptions of both tools and agency. AI compresses complex action into basic action, thus eclipsing human formation internal to those possible actions. It reforms desires, converges the means to specifc ends, and displaces much of the cognitive activity necessary to human agency and personal formation. The technical operations of AI ensure that all actus humanas converge toward actus hominis. Now, with these considerations in hand, we can observe the impacts of AI upon virtue and formation.
(V) The Incongruencies between Virtue Ethics and Generative Artifcial Intelligence
As has been demonstrated in section (III), the future of technology will likely be one of extremes. As has been further exhibited in sections (I) and (II), the offce of virtue is to regulate such extremes. Section (IV) has established the impacts of AI upon human agency and those actions central to human formation. Virtue is concerned with a state of character that is iteratively formed. As we close this work with our fnal arguments, the reader must again acknowledge the nuanced effect advanced technologies can have upon both the individual and society, as well as the private and social action that gives rise to many virtues. Let us take all that Aristotle and Aquinas have offered and address the opening arguments, identifying the deeper incongruencies between AI and the principles of virtue ethics.
1a. GenAI often replaces human agency and means of habituation, disrupting the causes of certain virtues (with respect to how the technology is applied and integrated).
This conclusion has been defended in many ways in the prior section. Still, more needs to be said on how the replacement of human action culminates into an issue for virtue ethics. It has been recognized that the very nature of GenAI is to displace the primacy of human agency guiding a multitude of intellectual, creative, and productive tasks. This displacement is not only an issue for classical agency, but more fundamentally, it is an issue for the metaphysical causes of virtue. AI replaces the material and
effcient causes of virtue (in the Thomistic-causal sense) and reasoning and virtuous habituation respective to a relinquished action (in the Aristotelian sense). At this juncture, a distinction needs to be made: a human mind may appear as the origin point (material cause) in AI processes. Most interactions with AI are initiated by a person using a prompt, for example. But mental origin does not fully represent material cause in the Thomistic sense. As Aquinas argues, the material cause of virtue is in the reasoning and mind of the agent, that is, the one doing the action. While this claim has been previously bolstered, counter arguments can be made—but they have limits. For illustration, a mother can give prudential advice to her child when the child is making choices beyond their reasoning capabilities. Many AI-users may rely upon AI for similar functions. A frst consideration is that the child has suffcient reason to trust the mother’s moral aim—with AI, this type of trust is tenuous at best. Ultimately, though, if the mother parasitizes every modicum of reasoning and moral choice on behalf of the child, the child will not grow into an individualized and fourishing human, but instead one with defcient and dependent reasoning. This is an end that is antithetical to fourishing (eudaimonia) as Aristotle would defne it. In the same measure, if AI parasitizes the guiding cognition of creative and moral processing of some person, that person will incrementally surrender their means of cultivating virtue related to those processes.
This argument raises an interesting point of contention, as working cooperatively with AI may appear like one is cultivating certain virtues at a faster rate. Sometimes, this may in fact be the case, but as section (IV) established, each person must consider the loss of agency in degrees. For example, if a student asks an LLM to fnd primary sources on a research topic by which the student then reads, deliberates, and integrates these resources into their personal knowledge (maybe using saved time to focus on writing improvement), this is altogether different than an LLM writing the research paper. The former creates a more critically informed scholar but a less capable researcher. The second creates neither. Here, habituation (or effcient cause) is the central consideration. Individuals must be cognizant of the precise location of agency being exercised or relinquished. Some basic actions can be replaced without obvious effect, while replacement of complex action will more evidently alter character. Moreover, the fnal cause (end, or telos) of a given virtue will determine how a technology is integrated into the life of a common person. Consider once again the math student using AI. There is a stark difference between accepting a generated
solution and reasoning through to some solution. The latter is embedded with the very action that makes one a mathematical virtuoso. To advance a metaphor from C.S. Lewis, the individual who accepts solutions from a computer may have the right answer, but the one who fnds solutions will learn to see the world differently.111 Virtue is not merely concerned with right answers, but more so, the nature of the person fnding those answers. Therefore, AI-users must recognize where AI compresses, displaces, and replaces those formative actions which slowly fashion a state of character.
1b. Virtue requires a human agent to make rational and ethical measurement, often progressively understood through experience, previous action, and moral knowledge about particular facts. AI may dispossess human measurement, resultant action, and growth related to relinquished tasks.
AI often breaks the “framework of virtue” (as seen in section (I) and below) by dispossessing the constituent elements of virtue cultivation: ethical measurement, most rational deliberations, mental activity internal to these measurements and deliberations, and subsequent actions. Perhaps some may continue to rebuttal; “No—a human agent can prompt an input and take an output, decide its worth, and learn from it.” While this argument might be true and particularly convincing for some, it does not represent virtue. Endorsing is not becoming. Consider the following metaphor. One does not become a great artist by staring at paintings. The next Rembrandt is not borne from observing digital paintings made in his likeness. AI can delineate the exact process by which a great painting can be crafted, but it will not stroke the paint brush. Or, perhaps one day very soon, AI will stroke the brush. But then there would be no artist. Either way, the virtue of a great artist has been lost to the world. The guiding rational and ethical determinations of a human person must remain with that person in the process of virtue cultivation. General purpose AI has an ever-increasing potential to reduce human agents from virtuous actors into amoral observers, or at best, participants of a predetermined ethic with unknown effect. In other words, if AI supplies a person with moral or intellectual direction, the respective formation is not relative to the person’s character, but to the predetermined ethical systems guiding AI outputs. Therefore, how AI shifts the “framework of virtue” can be seen in the following change:
Start/ Ask-
Rational and Ethical - Action - Final/ Answer Measurement
In the second framework, human ethical measurement and rational deliberation are reduced to a type of endorsement, and this endorsement occurs after an artifcial agent compresses and completes an action. The human agent is merely left to incur effect. In summary, true virtuous habitation requires ethical and rational activity to precede and guide action, not follow it, as is the case with many GenAI applications.
2a. Virtue is antithetical to vice. The “accessible domains of vice” are and will be amplifed by open access to AI, likely disrupting prudential foresight and temperate balance of many users through temptation and access to vice.
If vice is extensively distributed, granted open access, and advertised to a large society, it is fair to conclude that vices will amplify in relation to the nature of a vice, the common degree of temptation toward that vice, and the available access to that vice. Any cursory study of drug, alcohol, and pornography use in global societies should make this point quite clear. Still, vices enhanced by AI need not always be extreme. As has been shown, the intellectual and communicative prowess of modern AI will
likely tempt people toward more subtle vices such as laziness, excessive effciency, and poor critical thinking. Why exert oneself when an artifcial system can achieve the same end, better and faster?
A darker consideration is that the power of AI may also draw certain people toward extreme vices via individually catered access to “peculiar” temptations (as noted by Aristotle). To understand this point, let us consider conclusion 2a through an example of two hypothetical men, their vicious desires, and how AI might relate to those desires. Following, consider what such problems look like at the societal level. Imagine, one man wishes to make a pipe bomb, and the other, to see a particular naked woman. In the 1950s, both men would have limited access to their respective vice. The frst would have to struggle through years of chemistry, trial, and error. The second would have to enter into sexual relations with that particular woman. In the 2000s, access to either vice would be massively increased due to the global internet and the dark web. Yet, the personal investment to fnd knowledge on explosives or create nude imagery would fall solely on the individual’s continual efforts. Now, in the 2020s—where the whole internet is the baseline dataset used in the majority of public AIs—not only is destructive information and media available, but if the security is stripped from open-sourced AI models, they have the ability to generate step-bystep instructions in making a bomb or readily create the naked likeness of any desired person.112,113 AI companies are scrambling to extinguish situations like the “pipe bomb,” but with regards to sensory-vice, GenAI creates an unbounded market. The ontological distance between users and their vicious fantasies is now reduced to keystrokes. Extreme vices that were once inaccessible due to natural boundaries of complex action are now accessible, more basic, and of great concern. Simply put, ends that were once unattainable are now low-hanging fruit to the viciously inclined. Given the general-purpose capabilities of GenAI, it is diffcult to imagine all the possible ways vice might appear and amplify within private and public sectors of society. Perhaps AI will simply be a crutch for the lazy, yet it may also be a weapon to the mad scientist. The admixture of AI power and human inclination is alarming.
While these examples may seem extreme, they are very real. Again, such extremes are what virtue—specifcally temperance and prudence—aim to modulate. The issue at hand is not simply that the “rational principle” or “mean” has fundamentally shifted within any specifc domain, but that the modality of the vices available to a common
person have become so multifaceted and alluring for some that the ability to accurately achieve a temperate or prudential aim is highly diminished. Furthermore, vicious actors who intentionally reject a prudential “rightness of aim” now have unprecedented access to the very means by which extreme vice can be achieved. Even if the majority of AI users care for human fourishing, democratized GenAI runs a high risk of straying afoul of prudential common sense by tempting the susceptible and enabling the vicious with unprecedented power.
2b. The current state of AI and future state of AGI create totalizing conditions in which “prudential measurement of the current state” and “teleological view of a future state” cannot be articulated due to: (1) The combination of democratized AI and the epistemic gap between usercognition and AI-processing, and (2) the compounding of exponential growth and operating speed of systems. (This epistemic gap is qualifed by four phenomena in the feld of AI: emergent properties, the black box problem, asymmetric direction of ft, and AI hallucinations.)
This argument focuses on rate of change and AI phenomena more than any specifc application of AI. Remember, a general principle of the virtue of prudence—the key virtue for Aristotle and Aquinas—is perception of the moral end, or more generally, a strong consideration of “what might come about.” In juxtaposition to prudence, the exponential growth and imperceptible functions of AI are alarming for several reasons. The feld of psychology widely acknowledges that humans use a mental model of their immediate world to map a social environment and act accordingly.114 When environmental and social conditions shift too frequently, then anxiety, rashness, and a multitude of negative symptoms are likely to arise. Some may yet be virtuous amidst such conditions, but certainly not all. At the individual level of analysis, these shifts may seem unpleasant but manageable; at a societal level, the cumulative case is capricious chaos. In combination with the replacement of formative human activities, entire markets will shift, new paradigms will form, and previous social systems will be placed at risk of collapse from poor adaptation. Sometimes change is necessary, but history has shown that when law, government, institutions,
and the general public cannot prudently measure circumstances or establish a moral direction, things begin to break precipitously.
As technological power amplifes exponentially, both novel growth and unexpected consequences will increase in likelihood for our global species. Conceptually, it is diffcult to imagine a maximally good world—and this is the dream of future AI—but a person can easily imagine a maximally bad one. If there is one axiom that makes virtue ethics superior among the available ethical theories, it is the recognition of human limitation. Our collective choices must respect these limitations. We are now a globally intertwined species with planetary effect, and we are exponentially amplifying both our power and our effect. Exponential growth and natural limitation will eventually collide. Prudence is our best response in preventing the tipping points within the complex system of human society. If future AI capabilities move in keeping with current trajectories, the potential for both gains and loss will be extraordinary. This amplifcation can be conceptualized in the following graph expanding across many domains:
Exponential growth must be considered in tandem with Aristotle’s principle that, even in our best attempts to do the right thing, there are many ways to do a thing incorrectly, poorly, or ignorantly. We must be prudent and acknowledge both the potential power of this technology and the obvious limitations of human nature. This point is evident within the opening quote by Daniel Schmachtenberger, “You can’t have the power of gods without the love, wisdom, and prudence of gods.” Gods we are not, nor shall we ever be. Power and pursuit must be tempered within virtuous bounds respective to human nature
There is no immediately identifable point of where, when, and how AI might cause various system failures or what such an event would
look like, but this fact only highlights the point being made. The virtue of prudence requires that we maintain moral knowledge about particular facts; all of the facts are changing exponentially. Moreover, prudence requires some element of “perception” into moral ends and future states of affairs. We are undeniably entering terrain where this perception is defunct. Virtue ethics, in its broadest social sense, thus requires a recourse in our collective action until a “prudential measurement of the current state” and “teleological view of a future state” can be articulated.
There are two fnal points to be made. In combination with 2a, the aforementioned phenomena within AI reasoning and solution generation pose a unique threat to prudential foresight and social trajectories. The compounding effects of emergent properties, asymmetric direction of ft, AIhallucinations, and the black box problem engender a currently insoluble problem—AI output cannot be fully predicted. The more powerful and far-reaching a system is, the more concern we should have about these phenomena. Consider, most users have no means of knowing if an emergent property or unforeseen function will alter an expected outcome (i.e. people do not truly know what means they are adopting when achieving some end). If unpredicted outcomes are achieved unto the vicious person, then argument 2a is affected to an unknown degree. If unpredicted ends are granted to the virtuous, this serves as another paradigm shift in which the individual must recalibrate their measurements and deliberations. The impact of these phenomena will become more apparent with and with greater force as computational power increases exponentially and AI is integrated into more social domains. The dovetail of democratized AI and AI phenomena is like a great game where the goal, rules, and pieces all change each turn.
Lastly, the topic of AGI may seem fanciful to some, but AGI must be discussed as it is the declared aim of most major AI companies—and virtue ethics is very concerned with aim. Aristotle has said that virtue ensures the “rightness of aim” while prudence ensures the “rightness of means” we adopt to gain some end. Aquinas has said that evil resides in discordance from the virtuous rule or measure. Virtue, aim, ends, means, rightness, rule—how can any of these guiding principles apply to a system that is, frstly, considering ends beyond the epistemic access of the entire human race, and secondly, adopting means and moral directives unknown to almost every party? These principles do not apply. Discordance from the rule will appear. AGI implementation is imprudent folly, to a technical,
nᵗʰ degree. Moreover, a machine that can outperform all people in most tasks—potentially, both physically and intellectually—will undoubtedly replace many means by which people have historically found virtuous formation.115 While AGI does not necessarily negate all virtue cultivation, we must prudently consider if such a system will inhibit people’s ability (or desire) to cultivate virtue in their own lives. Even with current state AI, some estimates claim 300 million global jobs will be replaced within the next six years alone, and meanwhile, most of the arts are already under assault.116 Again, social change is necessary and will occur, but society must respect those domains in which human persons fnd growth, purpose, and ultimate fulfllment. What really becomes of us when we are patently outcompeted in vocation, science, and art? The aim of AGI is self-apparently directed at something other than eudaimonia for the masses.
AGI, if accomplished, will be a power quite literally beyond imagining. If the ability to synthesize all formalizable information is embedded into a computational (or quantum) system that exceeds the intelligence, knowledge, perceptions, and effciency of every human being in every manner, this system negates any possibility of embodying prudence within the implementation of AGI solutions. In this future state of affairs, prudence equates abstinence. In our current state, prudence equates prevention. AGI is simply beyond our limits. If human limitations are not respected, the guiding philosophy of virtue ethics will be nullifed and any “virtue” that exists will be decided by the data and rule sets supporting this hypothetical system. AGI is unmistakably a power that no human can wield and rationally claim to maintain control and dominance, yet AGI is the very power toward which all major players are racing.
In closing, this work has demonstrated that the nature and current form of GenAI is disrupting the causes of virtue and the traditionally understood process by which human agents attain virtue. We are creating totalizing conditions in which the classical virtues of prudence and temperance will be incrementally more diffcult to embody. The very act of reasoning and its related moral activities are being relinquished to a new system that surpasses human nature in almost every capacity. The actions most central to our human formation are being actively displaced and compressed. Virtue ethics requires that human fourishing be directed in accordance with human nature and all of its limitations. Both the means and the ends of this technology are incongruent with much of what Aristotle and Aquinas have taught. In a world where the modernist frameworks of
(2025)
utility and deontology reign supreme, virtue must return to the mantle if humanity is to safely sail on the future waters of Artifcial Intelligence. In many instances, virtue will declare, “Do not set sail.” In a closing metaphor, all are boarding a ship and embarking on a foggy and treacherous voyage between the Scylla of Dehumanization and the Charybdis of UnboundedVice. It is not too late to hear the voices of the intellectual and moral giants that came before us—they cry “halt.”
End Notes
1 Daniel Schmachtenberger. “AI and the Future of Life by Tristan Harris.” Wisdom 2.0 with Soren Gordhamer, November 20, 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKCLLkYRYik&ab_ channel=Wisdom2.0withSorenGordhamer.
2 Shannon Vallor. Technology and the Virtues: A Philosophical Guide to a Future Worth Wanting. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Kindle Edition, 32.
3 “Cultural evolution” is broadly understood as the interaction of human thought and achievement with language, technology, and other aspects of our environment, thus altering the direction of human life. While highly related, this topic is unfortunately beyond the scope of this paper. For further information, see the recent Templeton grant project at UC-Berkeley’s Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences entitled: “Virtuous AI?: Cultural Evolution, Artifcial Intelligence, and Virtue”: https://www.ctns. org/virtuous-ai/current-research/virtuous-ai-cultural-evolution-artifcialintelligence-and-virtue.
4 For more information on the causal framework, see Aristotle’s Metaphysics Book V 1013a and Physics Book II Ch. 3.
5 Note: Agency is a vast philosophical topic across Aristotle’s works. For our purposes the observable components in Books II & III of Nicomachean Ethics are suffcient.
6 Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. trans. David Ross. Oxford World’s Classics. Oxford: OUP Oxford, 2009, Kindle edition. II-1 1103a15-1103b.
7 Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics, III-1 1109b30-1114.
8 Note: For example, there is a theological view of virtue elevated by thinkers like Augustine, Jonathan Edwards, and SØren Kierkegaard wherein God is the primary object or mode of virtue and relationship is a necessary precondition for acquiring virtuosity. Christians may agree with this, yet it does not ultimately alter the framework nor the primary theses. As another example, MacIntyre’s socially constructed view of virtue should not drastically alter the arguments being made. Most historical articulations of virtue hold that virtue is acquired by some type of habituation, independent of each articulation having differing objects and contexts.
9 Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics, II-1 1103a-1107a.
10 Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics, II-6 1106b35-1107a5.
11 Rosalind Hursthouse and Glen Pettigrove. “Virtue Ethics.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fall 2023 Edition, edited by Edward N. Zalta and Uri Nodelman. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2023/ entries/ethics-virtue/.
12 Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics, II-6 1106b30-1106b35.
13 Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics, VI-5 1140a20-1140b30.
14 Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics, VI-5 1140b10-1140b15.
15 Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics, VI-8 1142a25-1142a30.
16 Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics, VI-11 1143a30-1143a35
17 Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics, VI-3
18 “Russia Renewing Development of Ebola-Smallpox Virus Mix, Ukraine Suggests.” UNIAN, May 27, 2018.https://www. unian.info/politics/10131959-russia-renewing-development-of-ebolasmallpox-virus-mix-ukraine-suggests.html.
19 Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics, trans. H. Rackham, VI-12.6 Available at https://www.perseus.tufts.edu
Note: For this quote, this alternate translation from H. Rackham offers terms more continuous with current terminology
20 Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics, III-10.
21 Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics, II-8 1109a
22 Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics, III-10, 1118b15-1118b25
23 Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics, III-10, 1118b15-1118b25
24 Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics, III-12.
25 Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics, III-12 1119b15.
26 Max Hocutt. “Aristotle’s Four Becauses.” Philosophy 49, no. 190 (October 1974): 385–399.
“Gregory Vlastos argues that aition should be translated ‘because’... The four aitia as ‘all the ways of stating to dia ti.’”
27 Andrea Falcon. “Aristotle on Causality.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Spring 2023 Edition, edited by Edward N. Zalta and Uri Nodelman. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2023/ entries/aristotle-causality/.
(2025)
28 Falcon, “Aristotle on Causality.”
29 Robert Pasnau. “Thomas Aquinas.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Summer 2024 Edition, edited by Edward N. Zalta and Uri Nodelman. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2024/entries/aquinas/.
30 Nicholas Austin. Aquinas on Virtue: A Causal Reading. Moral Traditions Series. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Kindle Edition, 109.
31 Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica (Complete & Unabridged). Coyote Canyon Press. Kindle Edition. I-II 55.4. Note: the causal structure employed is from Aristotle’s metaphysics. Aquinas’s language harkens to Augustine’s articulation of virtue. Aquinas distinguishes infused and acquired virtue.
32 Aquinas. Summa Theologica, I-II 55.3.
33 Austin, Aquinas on Virtue, 110.
34 Aquinas. Summa Theologica, I-II 63.4.
35 Aquinas. Summa Theologica, I-II 64.2.
36 Aquinas. Summa Theologica, I-II 64.2.
37 Note: This is true in “degrees,” as will partly be discussed below in argumentation.
38 Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. “Attention Is All You Need.” (June 2017). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1706.03762. Note: The content of work is held by many to be the singular transition point from Pre-AI to functional AI.
39 Humza Naveed et al., “A Comprehensive Overview of Large Language Models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.06435 (2023), https://arxiv. org/pdf/2307.06435.
40 History Editors. “Deep Blue Defeats Garry Kasparov in Chess Match.” History, November 16, 2009. https://www.history.com/this-day-inhistory/deep-blue-defeats-garry-kasparov-in-chess-match.
41 Leonardo Banh and Gero Strobel. “Generative Artifcial Intelligence.” Electron Markets 33, no. 63 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12525-023-00680-1.
42 Will Douglas Heaven. “Artifcial Intelligence Is Learning How to Create Itself.” MIT Technology Review, May 27, 2021. https:// www.technologyreview.com/2021/05/27/1025453/artifcial-intelligencelearning-create-itself-agi/.
43 Banh and Strobel,“Generative Artifcial Intelligence”.
44 Sam Altman. “Learning to Reason with LLM’s.” September 12, 2024. https://openai.com/index/learning-to-reason-with-llms/.
45 Amil Merchant and Ekin Dogus Cubuk. “Millions of New Materials Discovered with Deep Learning.” Google DeepMind, November 29,2023.https://deepmind.google/discover/blog/millions-of-new-materialsdiscovered-with-deep-learning/.
46 Yu Takagi and Shinji Nishimoto. “High-Resolution Image Reconstruction with Latent Diffusion Models from Human Brain Activity.”(March11,2023).https://www.biorxiv.org/ content/10.1101/2022.11.18.517004v3.
47 Jerry Tang, Amanda LeBel, Shailee Jain, et al. “Semantic Reconstruction of Continuous Language from Non-Invasive Brain Recordings.” Nat Neurosci 26 (2023): 858–866. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41593-023-01304-9.
48 N. Davis. “AI Can Identify Passwords by Sound of Keys Being Pressed, Study Suggests.” The Guardian. August 9, 2023. https://www. theguardian.com/technology/2023/aug/08/ai-could-identify-passwords-bysound-of-keys-being-pressed-study-suggests.
49 Jack Kelly, “Goldman Sachs Predicts 300 Million Jobs Will Be Lost or Degraded by Artifcial Intelligence,” Forbes, March 31, 2023. https:// www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2023/03/31/goldman-sachs-predicts-300million-jobs-will-be-lost-or-degraded-by-artifcial-intelligence/.
50 Benj Edwards. “Microsoft’s New AI Can Simulate Anyone’s Voice with 3 Seconds of Audio.” Ars Technica, January 10, 2023. https:// arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/01/microsofts-new-ai-cansimulate-anyones-voice-with-3-seconds-of-audio/.
51 Fabio Urbina, Filipe Lentzos, Cedric Invernizzi, et al. “Dual Use of Artifcial-Intelligence-Powered Drug Discovery.” Nature Machine Intelligence (2022): 189–191. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-022-004659.
52 Adam Connor-Simons and Rachel Gordon. “Artifcial Intelligence Senses People through Walls.” MIT News, June 12, 2008. https://news.mit. edu/2018/artifcial-intelligence-senses-people-through-walls-0612.
53 Sundar Pichai and Demis Hassabis. “Our Next-Generation Model: Gemini 1.5.” (February 14, 2024). https://blog.google/technology/ ai/google-gemini-next-generation-model-february-2024/.
54 U.S. Department of Homeland Security. “A Cat and Mouse Game.” November 1, 2023. https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/ cat-and-mouse-game.
55 Sam Altman, “Moore’s Law for Everything.” (March 16, 2021), https://moores.samaltman.com/.
56 H. Sawarkar. “Can Language Models Write and Change Their Own Source Code?” Medium, November 9, 2023. https://medium.com/@ hrusheekeshsawarkar/can-language-models-write-and-change-their-ownsource-code-c0efca-7ccf1e.
57 NVIDIA. “Blackwell Architecture Technical Report.” Accessed September 2024. https://resources.nvidia.com/en-us-blackwellarchitecture/blackwell-architecture-technical-brief. Note: For those unfamiliar with computational units, this is 20-quadrillion foating-point operations per second. Large scale systems often use several hundred thousands GPUs of this type.
58Tristan Harris. Center for HumaneTechnology. “The A.I. Dilemma,” (April 5, 2023), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoVJKj8lcNQ&ab_ channel=CenterforHumaneTechnology.
59 Jason Wei, Yi Tay, et al. “Emergent Abilities of Large Language Models.” (June 15, 2022). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2206.07682.
60 George Musser. “How AI Knows Things No One Told It.” Scientifc American, May 11, 2023. https://www.scientifcamerican.com/ article/how-ai-knows-things-no-one-told-it/.
61 Wei. “Emergent Abilities.”
62 Wei. “Emergent Abilities.”
63 Prachi Patel. “Hey, Chatbot, Can You Synthesize This Molecule?” Chemical & Engineering News, February 26, 2024. https://cen.acs.org/ physical-chemistry/computational-chemistry/Hey-chatbot-synthesizemolecule/102/i6.
64 OpenAI. Sora. March 2024. https://openai.com/index/videogeneration-models-as-world-simulators/.
65 Niamh Rowe. ‘It’s Destroyed Me Completely’: Kenyan Moderators Decry Toll of Training of AI Models.” The Guardian, October 12, 2023. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/aug/02/aichatbot-training-human-toll-content-moderator-meta-openai.
66 Sam Altman. “Planning for AGI and Beyond.” (February 24, 2023). https://openai.com/index/planning-for-agi-and-beyond/.
67 Sam Harris. “Can We Build AI Without Losing Control Over It?” TED, October 19, 2016. https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=8nt3edWLgIg&ab_channel=TED.
68 Altman. “Planning for AGI and Beyond.” (February 24, 2023). https://openai.com/index/planning-for-agi-and-beyond/. Note: OpenAI has changed this language in the last six months. Current statement (October 3rd, 2024) is “As our systems get closer to AGI, we are becoming increasingly cautious with the creation and deployment of our models.”
69 Altman, “Planning for AGI”.
70 For more examples, see: Davidson, Donald. “Agency.” The Journal of Philosophy 68, no. 20 (1971): 685–700.
71 “Basic Acts,” Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Routledge, accessed March 18, 2025, https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/ thematic/action/v-1/sections/basic-acts.
72 Arnau, Eric, Anna Estany, Rafael González del Solar, and Thomas Sturm. 2013. “The Extended Cognition Thesis: Its Signifcance for the Philosophy of (Cognitive) Science.” Philosophical Psychology 27 (1): 1–18. doi:10.1080/09515089.2013.836081.
73 Andy Clark and David Chalmers, “The Extended Mind,” Analysis 58, no. 1 (1998): 7–19, https://www.jstor.org/stable/332815. Note, McClelland et al. (1986) offers the original example of “pen and paper”. McClelland argues for connectionist models, wherein AI is structured to imitate human reasoning. For more, see: Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition, Volumes 1 and 2 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1986.
74 Clark and Chalmers, “The Extended Mind.” 8.
75 Vinayakh, “How Reasoning Models Are Transforming Logical AI Thinking,” Microsoft Developer Community Blog, February 4, 2025,https:// techcommunity.microsoft.com/blog/azuredevcommunityblog/howreasoning-models-are-transforming-logicalai-thinking/4373194.
76 George Siemens et al., “Human and Artifcial Cognition,” Computers and Education: Artifcial Intelligence 3 (2022): 100107, https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100107.
77 Fouad Bousetouane, “Agentic Systems: A Guide to Transforming Industries with Vertical AI Agents,” arXiv, January 1, 2025, https://arxiv.org/ abs/2501.00881.
78 Mark Purdy, “What Is Agentic AI, and How Will It Change Work?” Harvard Business Review, December 12, 2024, https://hbr. org/2024/12/what-is-agentic-ai-and-how-will-it-change-work.
79 Craig Smith, “China’s Autonomous Agent Manus Changes Everything,” Forbes, March 8, 2025, https://www.forbes.com/sites/ craigsmith/2025/03/08/chinas-autonomous-agent-manus-changeseverything/.
80 Thomas Williams, “Human Freedom and Agency,” in The Oxford Handbook of Aquinas, ed. Brian Davies and Eleonore Stump (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 199–208, https://academic.oup. com/edited-volume/28242/chapter/213334567.
(2025)
81 Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica (Complete & Unabridged). Coyote Canyon Press. Kindle Edition. I-II 1.1.
82 Williams, Thomas. “Human Freedom and Agency.” In The Oxford Handbook of Aquinas, edited by Brian Davies and Eleonore Stump, 203–220. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Note: The delineation of the order of human action is mimicked from the structure offered by Thomas Williams in his chapter of The Oxford Handbook on Aquinas. Aquinas. I-II 8.2
83 Anscombe, G. E. M. Intention. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000.
84 See Anscombe’s Intention and Davidson 1971.
85 Aquinas. I-II 14.
86 Aquinas. I-II 15.
87 Aquinas. I-II 16-17.
88 Aquinas. I-II 8.2.
89 Sanneman, Lindsay, and Julie A. Shah. “Explaining Reward Functions to Humans for Better Human-Robot Collaboration.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.04192 (2021).
90 John Searle’s famous “Chinese Room” thought experiment distinguishes the difference between symbolics and semantics and provides a robust argument against Strong-AI theories of mind.
91 Aquinas. I-II 12.2.
92 Aquinas. I-II 12.2.
93 Aquinas. I-II 12.1.
94 Dr. Joseph O. Chapa. Unpublished. This information comes from personal communication with Dr. Chapa and the quotes are excerpts from his communications. These quotes are not to be distributed or proliferated further.
95 Joseph Chapa.
96 Davidson 1971.
97 Aquinas. I-II 14.
98 Aquinas. I-II 14.2.
99 Aquinas. I-II 14.2.
100 Aquinas. I-II 55.4.
101 Lee, Hao-Ping (Hank), Advait Sarkar, Lev Tankelevitch, Ian Drosos, Sean Rintel, Richard Banks, and Nicholas Wilson. “The Impact of Generative AI on Critical Thinking: Self-Reported Reductions in Cognitive Effort and Confdence Effects From a Survey of Knowledge Workers.” Proceedings of the ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Yokohama, Japan, April 26–May 1, 2025. https://www.microsoft. com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/lee_2025_ai_critical_ thinking_survey.pdf.
102 Lee, et al. “The Impact of Generative AI on Critical Thinking.” 2.
103 Rawashdeh, Samir. “AI’s Mysterious ‘Black Box’ Problem, Explained.” University of Michigan-Dearborn News, March 6, 2023. https:// umdearborn.edu/news/ais-mysterious-black-box-problem-explained.
104 Rawashdeh. “AI’s Mysterious ‘Black Box’ Problem, Explained.”
105 Williams. “Human Freedom and Agency.” 203.
106 Williams. “Human Freedom and Agency.” 203-204.
107 Williams. “Human Freedom and Agency.” 203.
108 Aquinas. I-II 13.1.
109 Aquinas. I-II 13.3.
110 European Union, “Article 5,” Artifcial Intelligence Act, accessed March 27, 2025, https://artifcialintelligenceact.eu/article/5/.
111 C. S. Lewis. Mere Christianity (Classics). London: HarperCollins, 2012, 80.
112 Tom Kington. “ChatGPT Bot Tricked into Giving Bomb-Making Instructions, Say Developers.” The Times, December 17, 2022. https://www. thetimes.com/business-money/technology/article/chatgpt-bot-tricked-intogiving-bomb-making-instructions-say-developers-rvktrxqb5.
113 Romero Moreno. “Generative AI and Deepfakes: A Human Rights Approach to Tackling Harmful Content.” International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, March 2024. doi:10.1080/13600869.2024. 2324540.
114 Natalie A. Jones, Helen Ross, et al. “Mental Models: An Interdisciplinary Synthesis of Theory and Methods.” Ecology and Society 16, no. 1 (2011).
115 Note: This will also greatly affect the manner in which humans perceive their own self-worth as personal vocations and arts are undeniably two common modes of formation and identity.
116 Jack Kelly, “Goldman Sachs Predicts 300 Million Jobs Will Be Lost or Degraded by Artifcial Intelligence,” Forbes, March 31, 2023, https:// www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2023/03/31/goldman-sachs-predicts-300million-jobs-will-be-lost-or-degraded-by-artifcial-intelligence/.
The Asbury Journal 80/2: 371-386
© 2025 Asbury Theological Seminary
DOI: 10.7252/Journal.02.2025F.04
Thomas Hampton
Emergences: A Comparative Study of Alfred North Whitehead, Catherine Malabou, and AI Architectures
Abstract:
This paper explores the intersection of process philosophy and contemporary artifcial intelligence (AI) architectures through the work of Alfred North Whitehead and Catherine Malabou. Examining Whitehead’s concept of the universe as a progression of self-ordering complexity and Malabou’s neuroplasticity, I draw parallels between each and the mechanisms of emergent behavior in AI systems, especially the blend of bottom-up and top-down causality in producing purposeful outcomes. Through comparative analysis, I show that AI architectures in the form of convolutional neural networks, recurrent neural networks, and transformer networks, serve as microcosms for understanding broader philosophical questions of creativity, change and the potential for God’s direct involvement in directing the world toward intentional outcomes without requiring interruptions of physical processes.
Keywords: Alfred North Whitehead, Catherine Malabou, Artifcial Intelligence, Process philosophy
Thomas Hampton is a PhD student at Asbury Seminary researching how British mission hospital work changed through post-colonial transitions. He also has a PhD in Philosophy from GCAS College Dublin and works as a data scientist for Compassion International.
Introduction
This paper reviews two theorists of process and creativity: Alfred North Whitehead and Catherine Malabou, considering their work in light of recent artifcial intelligence (AI) architectures. In short, Alfred North Whitehead’s philosophy, especially as described in Process and Reality (Whitehead 1929), describes the universe as a progression where ordered complexity emerges from chaotic low-level interactions. In this view, the universe is constantly exerting a creative force through interactions of existing elements (Whitehead 1929, 21). Among the primordial chaos Whitehead suggests divine attributes drawing everything toward possibility and value (Whitehead 1929, 40; 93–94).
Writing in the present day, the philosopher Catherine Malabou theorizes that neuroplasticity provides a materialist description of how ideas change (Malabou 2005; 2008; 2010; 2019). A neuroscientifcally informed philosopher, Malabou successfully argues that ideas are formed by connecting and disconnecting parts in a network. Her critiques of Immanuel Kant and Martin Heidegger show parallels between their epistemologies and neuroplasticity, to provide a new materialist explanation for concepts usually considered immaterial – like ideas, culture, and spirit. She also has extended her theories to AI (Malabou 2019), which will be reviewed and critiqued here.
A comparison and critique of two philosophers may be vaguely interesting on its own. But the larger simultaneous purpose of this paper is to explore how God may participate in the universe’s transformation through top-down causal infuence while generally not contravening bottom-up natural processes. To demonstrate the point, recent AI architectures will be reviewed as microcosms of how bottom-up and top-down causality are combined to produce interesting purposeful outputs.
Whitehead’s Process Philosophy
Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) was a British mathematician and philosopher who made major contributions to metaphysics, logic, education, and the philosophy of science. Best known for co-authoring Principia Mathematica (Whitehead and Russell 1910), his work in philosophy formalized the concept of emergence as a simultaneous hierarchical interaction between different spatial-temporal scales (Whitehead 1929, 21).
An intuitive approach to understanding the interaction between different levels of emergence can be achieved through labeling them “bottom-up” or “top-down” perspectives. Sometimes it makes sense to describe a phenomenon from basic components working upward, while other times it is preferable to start at higher level analysis and work down. Neither invalidates the other, but the two must align to accurately describe a system’s dynamics. For example, one could ask why the water in a kettle is boiling. One valid bottom-up answer is that a burner is heating metal on the bottom of the kettle, which transfers energy to the water molecules inside. Once the molecules of water retain enough kinetic energy to escape the weak hydrogen bonds of the other water molecules, a group of them transitions into a gaseous state in a process we call boiling. But another valid top-down answer to the question “Why is the kettle boiling?” could be “Because I am making tea.” Answering the question on a chemical level is an expression of upward causality, while answering the question on the level of human drives is an expression of downward causality. There is no contradiction in the explanations. Both are valid. And for a kettle to boil, both must be true, though usually we pick only one explanation depending on context.
When conceptualizing categories and felds of inquiry, today it is commonly understood to be a vertical dimension corresponding to their spatial scale and level of abstraction. Using science as an example, we may think of subatomic physics at the bottom moving up in layers of collection through atomic physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, and reaching a peak in something like sociology, economics, or theology. There is a necessary abstraction which comes from the increases in scale.
In formal terms, Whitehead’s philosophy can be connected to this explanation through his concepts of ‘concrescence’ (Whitehead 1929, 208–15) and ‘prehension’ (Whitehead 1929, 218–80). Concrescence refers to the process by which actual entities (the basic units of reality in Whitehead’s ontology (Whitehead 1929, 18–20)) become what they are, integrating their many experiences of other entities into a unity. This process is inherently bottom-up in that it builds causal claims and complexity from simpler components (experiences and prehensions of the world). Each actual entity prehends (or takes into account) the experiences of others, leading to new emergent properties or realities. This follows the bottomup explanation of boiling water, where larger complex behaviors (boiling)
(2025)
emerge from the interactions of simpler components (water molecules and heat).
Conversely, Whitehead also describes a form of top-down causation through his concept of the “primordial nature of God,” which represents the realm of potential forms and eternal objects that could be instantiated in the world (Whitehead 1929, 31–34). This divine infuence does not directly cause events in a deterministic way but offers possibilities to actual entities as they come into being. This is somewhat analogous to the top-down explanation of making tea, where a human intention (akin to a divine lure for a particular outcome) infuences the conditions that lead to the boiling of water.
Furthermore, Whitehead’s rejection of the bifurcation of nature – the sharp distinction between subjective experience and objective reality (or of natural and supernatural) – supports a more integrated view of causality, simultaneously encompasses both bottom-up and top-down kinds of processes. He concludes a lengthy discourse of causal outcomes from probabilistic inputs: “To sum up: there are two species of process: macroscopic process and microscopic process. The macroscopic process is the transition from attained actuality to actuality in attainment; while the microscopic process is the conversion of conditions which are merely real into determinite actuality” (Whitehead 1929, 214–15). He advocates for a holistic understanding of reality centered on organisms riding waves of uncertainty and converting options to history. For Whitehead, physical processes and conscious intentions are constantly interwoven aspects of the world’s continuous change process.
Whitehead’s theory continues to be active as a base for what has come to be called “complexity studies”. In a mathematical sense, moving “up” a chain of abstraction involves a dimension reduction, (Hoel, Albantakis, and Tononi 2013; Klein and Hoel 2020; Hoel 2023) leading to something called “causal emergence,” which solves traditional reductionism versus holism dichotomies (Hoel 2017). For example, the average of the kinetic energy of particles in a system can be simplifed as the temperature. Some information is lost at macroscales, but there is also a compression of information deemed to be most relevant, and where new causal relationships may appear (Hoel, Albantakis, and Tononi 2013). Even decisions about what groupings to form out of the many possible options constitute a decision about sets of information to keep and sets of
information to eliminate. These decisions are in fact always being made, and no discontinuity between scales need be assumed.
The application for thinking about AI is that the process of emergence within AI systems gains its utility through mimicry of the complexity and unpredictability found in natural processes. In AI, information emerges from randomness through processes similar to concrescence and prehension. This emergence can be seen in other logical programming systems (Henry and Geersten 1986; Henry 1993)there have been two competing viewpoints of mathematical existence: a procedural one that understands mathematical objects to be created and a Platonic one that accepts eternal, unchanging, and primordial objects that are discovered. Typically, those who espouse a procedural understanding also must explain how mathematical structures are objective. And those who, like Alfred North Whitehead, maintain a Platonic view also must explain how these ideal objects are apprehended by the activities of reason. Whitehead’s progressive affrmation of the processive nature of actual entities, in contrast to his affrmation of the primordial nature of mathematical and other eternal objects, introduced an aspect of incoherence into his philosophy. In this study, author Oranville C. Henry reinterprets Whitehead’s philosophy by a procedural understanding of mathematics that is best expressed in the algorithmic lan guages of computer programs. The computing language chosen here is an expression of predicate logic called Prolog. A Prolog program may describe any general situation in formal language. Prolog is employed to describe, but not to represent, the nontemporal activities of the concrescence of an actual entity from its initial simple physical feelings in a conformal phase, through a supplementary phase, to its determinate consummation in a \”satisfaction.\” In this manner, one distinguishes between physical and conceptual prehensions and characterizes a variety of feelings, including simple physical feelings (hybrid and pure, but it is seen most directly in machine learning, where algorithms trained on large datasets develop unexpected strategies, insights, and causal models that were not explicitly programmed into them. The randomness inherent in the initial conditions or in the data itself can be a source of creativity in a large matrix algebra problem leading to the discovery of novel patterns or solutions. AI concresces intentional outputs from chaotic inputs.
This can be understood through the lens of neural networks – both natural and artifcial – where layers of interconnected nodes (analogous
to Whitehead’s actual entities) process input data through a series of transformations. Each node in the network prehends the output of other nodes, integrating this information to contribute to the network’s overall output. The training process of these networks involves adjusting the connectivity between nodes based on the comparison of the output and the desired outcome, a process that fts the defnition of an artifcial form of concrescence. Simple systems of logic can create complex systems of logic. Over time, the network’s structure becomes increasingly refned, enabling the emergence of sophisticated behaviors or capabilities from the collective interactions of simple, individual components. Furthermore, the role of randomness in AI, particularly in methods such as stochastic gradient descent, shows the importance of indeterminacy in the emergence of information (Amari 1993). Randomness in the selection of data points for training can lead to more robust and generalized models, demonstrating how the integration of unforeseen variations can support the development of new informational structures within the system.
One thought-provoking element of his process philosophy is the idea of a divine principle embedded within the dynamics of change (Whitehead 1929, 110–12). Whitehead’s ‘god’ is not the personal conscious deity of a Christocentric faith, but the divinity he describes is the aspect of change aspiring toward realization of greater possibility and value. Whitehead calls it “the lure for feeling”, a continuation of the creative drive and the urge within each entity to move beyond what it is into something greater (Whitehead 1929, 184–89).
Whitehead describes God as being “dipolar”. This means that God has two fundamental natures. The frst is a primordial nature, which is an eternal realm of pure potentiality encompassing all possibilities which could ever unfold in the universe. This aspect of God provides the raw material for creation, but it lacks actualization. The second is a consequent nature, where change, time, and actuality come into play. It involves God being directly infuenced by the ever-unfolding processes of the world. In this sense, God feels and responds to the experiences of entities throughout the universe, incorporating them into this aspect of the divine.
The ‘divinity’ in Whitehead’s system lies in this aspect of change being oriented towards increased value and possibility. Think of it as a cosmic compass constantly providing directionality—not in a controlling manner, but as continuous call toward richer forms of experience and
existence. The vagueness of how this works is a serious weakness of Whitehead’s system.
Contrasted with the personalized, omnipotent deity found in evangelical Christian theology, Whitehead’s conception of divinity is impersonal, process oriented, and has material constraints to power. Whitehead sees God and the world as interlinked, whereas most classical Christian theology assumes a clear creator-creation hierarchy with temporal and authoritative differences. Concepts of God as a person, transcendent, or having direct agency over matter does not align well with Whitehead’s philosophy. He does not argue against it, more seeing no need to engage attributes of divinity which cannot be directly observed in a repeatable manner.
Mapping Whitehead’s philosophy within common evangelical Christian categorizations, Whitehead’s philosophy is a category of natural theology, lacking special revelation but hypothesizing how the universe is being renewed and providing clues for how humanity can participate in that process. Speaking generally, the role of the human in co-creating the universe into a new creation is neglected in much evangelical theology, with God’s continuous action also underemphasized, and Whitehead gives helpful insights into how all this could happen through a process in which the Christian God participates in immanent material history – both in the person of Jesus, and in continuous acts of downward causality.
Malabou and Plasticity
Catherine Malabou (1959-present) is a French philosopher writing about neuroplasticity as the material basis for ideas in humans and connecting epistemology to a material substrate. In Malabou’s work, plasticity is defned two ways: “at once capable of receiving and of giving form” (Malabou 2005, 8) and in the explosive sense of “the annihilation of all form” (Malabou 2005, 9). Through analysis of Hegel she analyzes the emergence and dissolution of forms across many disciplines, closing the dualist gap of idealism, and presenting a neural correlate to consciousness. Though plasticity is a neuroscientifc term today, in The Future of Hegel Malabou connects the concept from Aristotle and the Greeks, culminating in Hegel’s dialectic, then using the dialectical lens to analyze Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Derrida. Malabou synthesizes subjectivity
and a Greek understanding of teleology in the concept of plasticity, by showing that because the future is plastic we can anticipate some of its possibilities, but it cannot be predicted in a fully determinative sense (Malabou 2005, 17). Hegel is a thinker of plasticity, and more correct than earlier mechanistic modernists, because he saw how accidents are essential to creating the future. Any categories we might see as essential today are created at least partially as the products of chance. Jacques Derrida summarizes: “At the heart of Malabou’s thought, that is of a certain non-empiricist idea of contingence or of a certain responsible empiricism with renewed radicality, we will always fnd the same commitment: the ‘becoming essential of accident’ and at once, at the same time and in the same time, the ‘becoming accidental of essence’” (Malabou 2005, xii).
Looking at Heidegger’s work, Malabou shows that his universal concepts of being contains temporal, historical, and transformative aspects, aligning his work with the concept of plasticity too. Finally, engaging with Derrida’s deconstruction of Hegel, and the irreducibility of difference, alterity, and the event, Malabou shows that concepts like trace, différance (a reference to Derrida 1978), and hospitality can also be understood as expressions of plasticity. Anywhere we might look for an absolute anchor, even to classical theism (Malabou 2005, 82–84), Malabou fnds some change over time and an expression of plasticity.
It should be clear that someone like an electrical engineer studying a computer that is powered on is not making mystical references to mentions of voltage and current – these are repeatably measurable factors that are analyzed with special tools and refect material reality, in this case the fow of electrons. Increasingly complex branches of theoretical physics also regard energy as a fundamental material for making sense of the world. There is no contradiction between matter and energy in a materialist worldview, even if these concepts are applied to non-traditional areas of study.
Malabou’s work is also interesting for the purposes of the research colloquium where this paper is presented because in some of her more recent work she connects brain processes with AI. In What Should We Do with Our Brain? Malabou opens with a modifcation of Karl Marx’s words about history to apply to the brain: “Humans make their own brain, but they do not know that they make it” (Malabou 2008, 1). In this book along with her earlier work, Malabou is skeptical about the similarities of brains and computers. In the same source she writes, “The discovery of
the plasticity of brain functioning has rendered such a comparison moot. Plasticity invalidates not the analytical or explicative value of the mechanical paradigm itself… but rather the central function habitually associated with the computer and its programs”(Malabou 2008, 35). In this publication Malabou says that computers and the brain are fundamentally different, because brains demonstrate plasticity while computer architecture does not.
In her later book, Morphing Intelligence, Malabou has taken a clear turn in her comparison of computers and brains. She now insists that through the development of “synaptic” chips, computers have been designed that can show plasticity as well (Malabou 2019, xvii), and in light of this development Malabou has shifted more to an emphasis on epigenesis. She writes later, “Unfortunately, however – or is it fortunately? – recent developments in artifcial intelligence shook me out of my nondogmatic slumber. I came to see that the conclusions I presented in What Should We Do with Our Brain? were, to put it bluntly, wrongheaded. Shortly after that book came out, it became apparent to me that it needed revising, if not a complete rewrite”(Malabou 2019, 82–83).
Malabou came to the realization that computers could demonstrate plasticity through reading an article about IBM’s neuro-synaptic chip development. She says, “In fact, this chip is not capable of ‘imitating’ synaptic functioning: it functions de facto as a synaptic connection. It is a synapse”(Malabou 2019, 83). These chips are progressing in the imitation of the brain, it does a good job both simulating a neuron and a synapse, and they are especially good at doing some things where human brains have outperformed computers, like identifying faces.
However, even with all these similarities, it is not fully correct to say that these chips are plastic in a neuroplastic sense. Yes, they can modify their connections between their virtual neurons, but to meet the strict defnition of plasticity more is needed. These chips begin as an array of nodes – she states their technical dimensions – at a scale of 28nm (already quite large at the time of this writing), 5.4 billion reticulated transistors, simulating 1 million neurons. All it does is connect and disconnect these nodes through a system of switches, albeit with immense complexity. To truly meet Malabou’s defnition of plasticity from her earlier work, the computer must have the ability to both give and receive shape. It must be able to “evolve or adapt” (Malabou 2005, 8). It must grow, but this is not something we see presently in AI architectures.
The semiconductors she cites can receive shape (to a point), but they cannot give it. Using Goeth’s metaphor of plasticity as sculpting, the architecture of these computers can be sculpted out from its fully connected state, but nothing new can be added. Among the 5.4 billion transistors, many can be turned off, reducing the paths for the fow of electricity, bypassing certain nodes. But no matter what programming or learning through trial and error the computer’s architecture processes, it cannot change to a scale of 12nm. It cannot add a transistor. It cannot simulate 2 million neurons. Its shape is fundamentally limited, not truly plastic, and this is great news because Malabou’s pre-2015 writing about plasticity contains many important insights.
What is especially profound about Malabou’s exploration of plasticity is that it brings a materialist neuroscience together with the world of ideas through a single concept. To be clear, this is not to attempt establishment of a new absolute concept, because (like every other idea) the idea of plasticity is plastic itself. Still, after Gallileo’s removal of the self from science (one of the major themes of Tononi 2012), no other philosopher or scientist has been as successful as Malabou in connecting intrinsic and extrinsic experience of the brain or bridging our modern dualisms. The continuing question remains if we can get any more precise in defning plasticity and if we can build AI architectures which match this defnition.
AI Architectures
The exploration of artifcial intelligence (AI) computational architectures presents an opportunity to investigate how bottom-up and top-down causalities can converge to produce desired outputs in a complex system. The combination of multiple causal chains may be a property of any deterministic system, but the dynamics are especially interesting in computers and AI precisely because of the complexity of intelligence. This section looks at three foundational AI architectures: Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs), and Transformer Networks, showing how these technologies routinize processes of emergent creativity and transformation shaping chaotic inputs into intentional outputs.
Convolutional Neural Networks
Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) are a foundational architecture in the feld of deep learning, primarily known for their excellence in pattern recognition tasks, such as image and video recognition. Inspired by the visual cortex of mammals, Kunihiko Fukushima wrote a paper titled “Neocognitron: A Self-organizing Neural Network Model for a Mechanism of Pattern Recognition Unaffected by Shift in Position” (Fukushima 1980), where he created a hierarchical, multilayered artifcial neural network structure to “learn without a teacher”. His model was one of the frst to use the technique of unsupervised learning. In short, it used a combination of simple and complex networked layers to segment an input (usually images) into features based on the cleanest color and line separations which could be generated through the reduction of energy gradients.
This capability to identify intricate patterns in vast datasets, being able to ‘learn’ and adapt to new, previously unseen data, thereby generating novel interpretations or solutions to complex problems was an important step in mediating an open-ended input to a constrained output. The structure of CNNs, with layers designed to learn spatial hierarchies of features automatically and adaptively from input data, mirror the formative plasticity Malabou describes in the brain. Broader philosophical connections are obvious: input data is ‘convolved’ in a process analogous to specialized lenses looking at an image or hermeneutics used to understand a text. Just as ideas and structures evolve plasticly in networks through use and disuse in Malabou’s philosophy, today’s CNNs iteratively refne their understanding of data through the process of backpropagation, optimizing internal parameters to better approximate the desired output.
Recurrent Neural Networks
Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) are unique in their ability to handle sequential data, making them particularly well suited for tasks that involve temporal dependencies, such as speech recognition, language modeling, and time series prediction. A model of a simple RNN was frst outlined in a paper by Jeffrey Elman, where many data feedback loops create a dynamic memory, which can be both context-aware and make generalizations (Elman 1990). The same year, Paul Werbos formalized the feedback loop process of backpropagation where error calculations
(2025)
are used to update model weights along connections in the RNN (Werbos 1990) . A common metaphor is that back propagation is like looking at a ripple from an error, traveling back through the chain of dependencies in the networked surface to reduce the prediction error at the place where the ripple began.
The defning feature of RNNs is their internal memory, which allows them to maintain information across inputs by creating loops within the network. Malabou’s neuroplasticity in its general form fnds an echo in RNNs’ ability to change internal representations and adapt based on input sequences. Similarly, Whitehead’s emphasis on process and continuous transformation mirrors the way RNNs treat information as unfolding events and constantly shift their internal state with each timestep. While acknowledging the difference between computational models and the nuances of human thought, RNNs provide simplifed models of both philosophical frameworks and show a way to draw order out of chaos in time-dependent data.
Transformer Networks
Limitations with RNNs necessitated the creation of transformer networks. Most importantly, RNNs process information one step at a time, making parallel computation diffcult and training slow. The paper “Attention is All You Need” from a team at Google introduced a self-attention mechanism and massively parallel options for computation (Vaswani et al. 2017) creating an AI architecture optimized to run on graphical processing units (GPUs). In summary, for any input data, the model generates a query, a key, and a value to calculate a similarity function and focus attention on especially surprising value vectors. Besides computational parallelism, an advantage of transformer networks is that attention features can directly connect distant elements in a sequence, overcoming RNNs’ diffculties with distant relationships or unclear dependency relations.
Transformer networks, most notably exemplifed by models like the one used in ChatGPT (GPT = Generative Pretrained Transformer) (Radford et al. 2018), have popularized AI use for non-specialists because to date they have most accurately reproduced common human outputs of language, pictures, music, and video. The multimodal capabilities of transformer networks are still in the early stages of exploration, but they
continue to deliver promising results for applying logic and creative operations to many different inputs and outputs.
Their distinctive ability to make disparate connections in unstructured data maps onto Whitehead’s description of the interrelatedness of the universe, concrescence moving in the direction of a guiding ideal. Transformers excel at generating intricate outputs (like complex language or even images) that align at multiple levels of causality, because their network structure contains these parallel yet hierarchical connections. While far removed from Whitehead’s divine principle guiding the changes of the universe, there are functional similarities in process to a transformer network producing a desired output. A transformer network is more a function minimizing a loss function, but its ability to produce outputs which might be confused for transcendence suggests a similarity of structure and process.
Developments in transformer networks also further support Catherine Malabou’s project that the concept of plasticity can bridge the dualisms of mind and matter. If we view creativity in human thought as partly facilitated by this fexible structure and ability to shift concepts, similar mechanisms might drive creative outputs in AI. The closer AI systems get to replicating or surpassing human capabilities, the more diffcult will be the argument that anything unique is happening in the human brain. We cannot yet map the full ‘wiring’ of the brain or an advanced neural network, but the fact that attempts to copy the brain leads to real output performance improvements is evidence for process-based similarity.
Conclusion
Whitehead’s explanation of the divine principle makes sense for a naturalist examining the world without considering the category of special revelation. But even he cannot help but include a few transcendentals to guide the system and ascribe to his impersonal god to make meaning from the system. If a personal God is taken by revelation and faith to be a top-down causal infuence in our world, acting in history especially through Jesus and/or additional causal chains, then this would explain why the universe seems biased not just toward order but toward people. If there is a top-down force guiding the universe or our thoughts in a specifc divine direction, then we will need these same biases in our AI systems.
Malabou’s closing of the dualist gap is profound because it provides a materialist account for thought on the human level. As AI
(2025)
becomes increasingly self-evident and normalized as a structure where intelligence is an emergent property, it will become clearer that functionally there is nothing inherently special about the data processing capabilities of the human brain, and that many organic and inorganic substrates can think and exercise agency.
The metaphor of the boiling kettle reminds us that multiple causal explanations may explain the same phenomena in a complex system, and all must align for an action to occur. The argument I make here is that we can similarly conceptualize divine immanence within complex systems. I believe the complete suspension of physics-as-usual is rare, but within the probabilistic world there is plenty of space for God to exert top-down causality in the bottom-up work of matter and humanity.
We cannot and should not aspire to test God’s top-down causality in our natural world, but we can use AI architectures as a laboratory to explore and learn about the impact of different causal chains in our universe. AI shows how new complex properties emerge from simple parts. CNNs show that with chaotic data at the bottom and a simple optimization function at the top, interesting objects and features can emerge. RNNs show us that order can come out of seemingly random information in a time series. And transformer networks show us that complex action in the world – especially involving generative or creative tasks – is a massively parallel process, best done with many contributors who may not have clear spatial relationships.
Works Cited
Amari, Shun-ichi
1993 “Backpropagation and Stochastic Gradient Descent Method.” Neurocomputing 5 (4): 185–196. https://doi. org/10.1016/0925-2312(93)90006-O.
Derrida, Jacques
1978 Writing and Difference. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Elman, Jeffrey L.
1990 “Finding Structure in Time.” Cognitive Science 14 (2): 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1207s15516709cog1402_1.
Fukushima, Kunihiko
1980 “Neocognitron: A Self-Organizing Neural Network Model for a Mechanism of Pattern Recognition Unaffected by Shift in Position.” Biological Cybernetics 36 (4): 193–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF00344251.
Henry, Granville C.
1993 Forms of Concrescence: Alfred North Whitehead’s Philosophy and Computer Programming Structures. Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University Press.
Henry, Granville C., and Michael Geersten
1986 “Whiteheadian Philosophy and Prolog Computer Programming – Religion Online.” Process Studies 15 (Fall): 181–191.
Hoel, Erik
2017 “When the Map Is Better Than the Territory.” Entropy 19 (5): 188. https://doi.org/10.3390/e19050188.
2023 The World Behind the World: Consciousness, Free Will, and the Limits of Science. New York, NY: Avid Reader Press.
Hoel, Erik, Larissa Albantakis, and Giulio Tononi
2013 “Quantifying Causal Emergence Shows That Macro Can Beat Micro.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110 (49): 19790–19795.https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas. 1314922110.
Klein, Brennan, and Erik Hoel
2020 “The Emergence of Informative Higher Scales in Complex Networks.” Complexity 2020 (2020): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8932526.
Malabou, Catherine
2005 The Future of Hegel: Plasticity, Temporality and Dialectic. Translated by Lisabeth During. London & New York: Routledge.
2008 What Should We Do with Our Brain? Translated by Sebastian Rand. New York, NY: Fordham University Press.
2010 Plasticity at the Dusk of Writing: Dialectic, Destruction, Deconstruction. Translated by Carolyn Shread. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
(2025)
2019 Morphing Intelligence: From IQ Measurement to Artifcial Brains. Translated by Carolyn Shread. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Radford, Alec, Karthik Narasimhan, Tim Salimans, and Ilya Sutskever
2018 “Improving Language Understanding by Generative PreTraining,” June. https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/ openai-assets/research-covers/language-unsupervised/ language_understanding_paper.pdf.
Tononi, Giulio
2012 Phi: A Voyage from the Brain to the Soul. Illustrated edition. New York, NY: Pantheon.
Vaswani, Ashish, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin
2017 “Attention Is All You Need.” In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. Vol. 30. Curran Associates, Inc. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_ fles/paper/2017/hash/3f5ee243547dee91fbd053c1c4a 845aa-Abstract.html.
Werbos, P.J.
1990 “Backpropagation through Time: What It Does and How to Do It.” Proceedings of the IEEE 78 (10): 1550–60. https://doi.org/10.1109/5.58337.
Whitehead, Alfred North
1929 Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology. Edited by David Ray Griffn and Donald W. Sherburne. Corrected Edition. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Whitehead, Alfred North, and Bertrand Russell
1910 Principia Mathematica. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
The Asbury Journal 80/2: 387-408
© 2025 Asbury Theological Seminary
DOI: 10.7252/Journal.02.2025F.05
Shishou Chen
Multiple Cultures Yet One Witness: Revelation’s Interaction with Surrounding Cultures and Its Implications for the Chinese Mission through the Concept of Tian (Heaven)
Abstract:
This paper examines how Revelation reinterprets four cultural contexts—local cultures in Asia Minor, Greco-Roman ideology, mythic traditions, and Jewish apocalypticism—to convey its core message of Jesus Christ. Analyzing the letter to Pergamum (Rev 2), the heavenly throne room (Rev 4), the dragon (Rev 12), and the New Jerusalem (Rev 21–22), it highlights how John adopts and adapts extra-biblical elements. The study also applies these insights to the ancient Chinese concept of Tian (Heaven), emphasizing the importance of cultural engagement in contemporary Christian missions while affrming that the church’s message must rest on Christ’s solid foundation.
Key Words: Revelation, image, cultures, Tian (Heaven), mission.
Shishou Chen is a PhD student in Biblical Studies and a Greek Teaching Adjunct at Asbury Theological Seminary. He previously served as a lecturer with Timothy Training International, as a pastor in a house church in China, and worked as an assistant director and information engineer. He has published Paul’s Eschatological Joy in Philippians in Its Jewish Background.
The book of Revelation is well-known for its vivid imagery, such as horsemen, the dragon, the beast, and the giant city, so much so that it has been described as a “symphony of images” (Schüssler Fiorenza 1991, 26–38). These images draw the audience’s attention “away from the verbal medium to visual objects and events” (Guffey 2019, 2), functioning not merely as an expressive description but as essential vehicles for the author’s message. However, the text seldom offers explicit explanations of these images, leaving their interpretation largely reliant on the cultural and historical backgrounds familiar to the original audience. In contrast to the so-called prophecy movement today that falsely assumes that the symbols are unlocked by current events, Osborne rightly emphasizes that “if there is any book that must be read carefully in terms of its background, it is Revelation” (Osborne 2004, 490). In addition to its many Old Testament allusions,1 Revelation’s imagery draws from diverse sources, traditions, and sociocultural contexts (Huber 2020, 95). These multifaceted cultural backgrounds provide a rich lens through which to examine how John adapts and transforms extra-biblical elements to convey his core message: “the revelation of Jesus Christ” (Ἀποκάλυψις
, Rev 1:1).2
This paper thus aims to examine how Revelation uses and reinterprets four cultural contexts—namely, the local cultures of Asia Minor, Greco-Roman ideology, mythic traditions, and Jewish apocalypticism—to communicate its witness of God and Christ and to uncover implications for the church’s mission in a culturally diverse world First, the study will identify which extra-biblical cultural elements John engages with through four specifc cases: the local cultures in the letters to the seven churches in Asia Minor (Rev 2−3), the Greco-Roman imperial cult in the heavenly throne room vision (Rev 4−5), the mythical pattern in the vision of the woman and the dragon (Rev 12), and Jewish apocalyptic traditions in the vision of the New Jerusalem (Rev 21−22). Next, this paper will analyze how John redefnes or reshapes these elements to support his theological aims of witness and exhortation. Finally, it will consider the implications of these fndings for contemporary Christian missions with a case study of the concept of Tian (Heaven) in ancient Chinese religion.
An Analysis of John’s Interaction with Surrounding Cultures in Revelation
John’s Interaction with Local Cultures: The Throne of Satan (2:13) Revelation scholarship has greatly benefted from integrating data from Roman history to “reconstruct a social and cultural context for
frst-century Asia Minor, and this trend is more than likely to continue to shape hermeneutical approaches to the book” (Thompson 2019, 474). This approach is especially relevant in the letters to the seven churches (Rev 2–3), where, alongside direct language, John employs culturally resonant imagery for key exhortations to congregations in specifc contexts—images whose meaning often requires familiarity with local cultures. As Bauckham notes, “The world created by the text is intended as an interpretation of the real world in which John and his readers lived, and so, despite its visionary form, makes frequent reference to quite specifc features of that world” (Bauckham 1999, xiii). A central question is to what extent these images directly reference local circumstances (Scobie 1993, 606), as Jeffrey Weima warns against the extremes of ignoring or uncritically accepting every proposed cultural reference (Weima 2021, 22–25).
In the letter to the church in Pergamum, the risen Lord declares, “I know where you dwell, where Satan’s throne (ὁ θρόνος τοῦ σατανᾶ) is” (2:13). But what does this rare phrase, “Satan’s throne,” signify? Interpreting this phrase has led scholars to focus on its “topographical reference”(Scobie 1993, 609–10). Koester outlines four primary interpretations: (1) The Great Altar: Pergamum’s acropolis housed an altar depicting Zeus, linked to the emperors, and other Olympian gods combating hostile giants; (2) The Temple to Augustus and Roma: Pergamum hosted Asia’s frst provincial temple dedicated to the emperor; (3) The Sanctuary of Asclepius: a prominent sanctuary devoted to Asclepius, the healing god and occasional “savior”; and (4) Pergamum’s general status as a center of polytheism and the imperial cult (Koester 2014, 286).
While Steven Friesen critiques all four interpretations in favor of a symbolic reading, suggesting that the “reference is to local hostility toward the Pergamene assembly”(Friesen 2005, 365), the articular form (ὁ θρόνος τοῦ σατανᾶ) suggests a specifc referent, whether literal or fgurative (Aune 1997, 182). Pergamum held signifcant civic and religious prominence, making the association with Satan’s throne plausible within this interpretive framework (Gallusz 2014, 205). Consequently, the identifcation of Satan’s throne as representing the presence of imperial power through the imperial cult seems most compelling (Gallusz 2014, 206). The letter’s literary context further supports this interpretation, as Pergamum is the sole church where martyrdom—specifcally the death of Antipas—is mentioned (Rev 2:13–14). Additionally, “throne” is a central term in Revelation, appearing fortysix times, most often in reference to the throne of God (Rev 4:2). In contrast,
(2025)
Satan’s throne represents a competing power, an alternative sovereignty opposing God’s dominion over creation.
This theme of satanic opposition in 2:13 links the letter to Pergamum with the broader theological message of Revelation (Gallusz 2014, 209). In 13:2, the dragon bestows power, authority, and a throne upon the beast. This intense connection between the dragon and the beast, along with the historical role of Pergamum, supports the interpretation of Satan’s throne as the temple of the imperial cult. If so, John’s choice of the phrase “the throne of Satan” serves to underscore the satanic character of the imperial cult, a deeply ingrained element of daily life in Asia Minor.
John’s Interaction with Greco-Roman Imperial Cult: Casting the Crowns (4:10)
Revelation 4–5 illustrates the complexity of Revelation’s imagery and its diverse sources. The hymnic content and worship scenes draw upon multiple backgrounds. First, traditional Old Testament themes are central. The depiction of God enthroned, surrounded by heavenly beings, borrows from Ezekiel 1 and Isaiah 6, especially in the Trisagion formula “holy, holy, holy” (Rev 4:8). These traditions also shaped later Jewish apocalyptic mysticism, prompting some scholars to explore Jewish apocalyptic literature for parallels with Revelation 4–5 (Hurtado 1985). For instance, the notion of heaven arranged in concentric circles around God’s throne appears in 1 En 71:6–8 and is expanded in 3 En 33:1–34:2 (Aune 1997, 286). However, the heavenly throne-room scene also presents notable analogies to Roman imperial court ceremonies, which would have been familiar to Revelation’s audience (Huber 2020, 99).
In this heavenly throne room, the twenty-four elders “cast their crowns before the throne” (4:10). This act of casting crowns lacks an Old Testament or Jewish precedent (Beale and McDonough 2007, 1101),3 leading some scholars to examine Greco-Roman practices for insight. For example, Aune and Koester identify instances of similar actions in Greco-Roman contexts (Aune 2014, 308). First, in Greco-Roman worship, wreaths were sometimes laid at the feet of statues of the gods. Second, Roman emperors were often presented with gold crowns by the Senate and provincial delegates on occasions such as accessions, consulships, victories, and anniversaries (Koester 2014, 365).
A question arises as to why John would employ such imagery, particularly given his opposition to the imperial cult seen in Revelation 12–13. Russell Morton argues that this usage is, in fact, John’s rhetorical strategy. By drawing striking parallels between the worship of God and that of the emperor, John emphasizes the essential truth “that allegiance belongs to God and Christ alone, and all other claims to power are blasphemous” (Morton 2001, 105). By incorporating elements of imperial cult ceremony into his vision of the heavenly throne room, John creates an implicit contrast between the Creator’s absolute sovereignty and earthly rulers’ pretensions to divinity. This juxtaposition subtly intensifes John’s critique of imperial power, exposing Roman court ceremonies as a fawed imitation of true worship in God’s realm. God’s authority is genuine, while the emperor’s claims are pretentious (Huber 2020, 99).
Thus, in the context of Greco-Roman worship, particularly the imperial cult, the elders’ act of casting crowns signifes “a ceremonial act of subjugation,” acknowledging God’s rightful dominion (Morton 2001, 105). Employing a rhetorical approach, deSilva suggests that John redirects feelings of awe and gratitude toward God and the Messiah, thereby resisting cultural impulses to direct these emotions toward Rome and its emperor (deSilva 2008, 1). Consequently, in Revelation 4–5, “John’s vision of the glory of God displayed in the activity and arrangement of the beings that inhabit God’s court offers an antidote to feelings evoked in settings of the imperial cult, a ‘counter-experience’ of awe that will expose the other as counterfeit” (deSilva 2008, 6).
John’s Interaction with Mythology: Rev 12
Revelation 12 contains symbolic elements rooted in Old Testament imagery of Yahweh’s battle against the dragon and the sea, often depicted as Leviathan or Rahab. Yet, these images are not simply borrowed from the Old Testament, nor can they be fully understood within that framework alone. To capture their full signifcance, they must be examined within the wider contexts of Ancient Near Eastern and Greco-Roman mythology, which inform and expand their meaning (Collins 1992, 704).4 Earlier scholarship, such as that by Gunkel, emphasized Babylonian mythology’s infuence on the Old Testament and Revelation (Gunkel 1895). Later scholars have shifted focus to Canaanite mythology as a more immediate context (Day 1992, 228; Collins 1976). An evident instance of Revelation’s use of mythic traditions is in the portrayal of the woman bearing a child threatened by
(2025)
the dragon (Collins 1992, 704; Huber 2020, 98). While biblical allusions to elements of this visionary narrative are present (Gen 3:1–5, 15–16; Exod 19:4; Deut 8:3), one must also acknowledge certain resonances with pagan myths, despite signifcant differences in detail (Huber 2020, 98).
The mythic structure underlying Revelation 12 is notably “international,” with parallels across ancient religions, such as the mother goddess Isis in Egypt, Baal and Leviathan in Ugaritic myth, Marduk and Tiamat in Mesopotamia, and Leto and Python in Greco-Roman tradition (Osborne 2002, 454–55). Yarbro Collins’s classic study on these parallels identifes the Leto-Apollo myth as the closest analogue (Collins 1976, 70). In this myth, Leto, pregnant by Zeus, faces the dragon Python, who seeks to kill her to prevent her child’s birth. Rescued by the north wind, she escapes to the island of Delos, where she gives birth to Apollo and Artemis. Shortly after, Apollo pursues and defeats the dragon in retribution for his mother.5 While Revelation 12 broadly follows this pattern, it also diverges signifcantly. Unique elements in Revelation—such as the child’s rapture to heaven (12:5), the woman’s fight to the wilderness (12:6), and the dragon’s pursuit of her other offspring (12:17)—highlight John’s distinct theological message about the earthly confict, the deliverance of God’s people, and God’s ultimate victory over evil (Huber 2020, 98–99).
While debate continues regarding the extent of John’s use of mythic traditions, there is a general consensus that Revelation 12 incorporates both Jewish and Greco-Roman traditions without adhering strictly to any one source (Koester 2014, 528). John appears fexible in selecting and shaping these materials. The narrative, heavily composed of Old Testament allusions, was likely crafted by a Christian author and is deeply integrated into the unfolding plot of Revelation’s later chapters. This suggests that John reworked (or alluded to) the familiar combat myth to convey his unique theological message (Pataki 2011, 260). Moreover, as Koester rightly points out, the origins of mythic background do not determine the meaning of the images used by John, who shaped them to express his theological viewpoint, sometimes different, even contradictory, points in the literary contexts (Friesen 2004, 286).
Regarding John’s purpose in incorporating mythic sources, Osborne argues that John “demythologizes” Greco-Roman myth by “historicizing” it, suggesting that the longings expressed in pagan myths fnd their true fulfllment in Jesus. This strategic approach—often described as a “redemptive analogy”—presents the gospel in a way that resonates
with non-Christian readers’ imaginations and emotions. By connecting the gospel to these mythic themes, John invites his readers to see how their deepest hopes are realized in Christ (Osborne 2002, 454). With this background in mind, readers of Revelation will recognize that John intentionally subverts the Apollo birth myth. In John’s retelling, the hero is not Apollo (a symbol of the emperor), and the dragon does not represent the chaos Rome purports to conquer. Instead, the dragon embodies Rome itself, as a force of oppression against Christ and his followers (Koester 2014, 559).
The dragon’s grotesque appearance emphasizes its evil nature, paralleling the beasts in Daniel 7–8 (Portalatín 2020, 271). Du Rand, adopting a narrative approach, views Revelation’s unity as a whole, suggesting that “the hymn in 12:10–12 can be seen as an interpretative commentary on 12:1–9,” depicting God as Conqueror through the Christ-event (Du Rand 1993, 323).
John’s Interaction with Jewish Apocalyptic Traditions: Rev 21−22
The vision of the New Jerusalem in Revelation 21–22 highlights the complexity of John’s composition, incorporating elements from multiple traditions. Du Rand, while a somewhat dated source, remains helpful in summarizing four primary approaches to interpreting this fnal vision: the History of Religions school (Zimmern), Old Testament and Jewish apocalyptic literature (Charles), the contemporary historical approach (Swete), and the functional/symbolic approach (Caird) (Du Rand 1988, 66–70).6 John’s depiction of the New Jerusalem, on one level, draws heavily from Old Testament passages such as Isa 60–62, 65:17–19, Ezek 40–48, and Exod 28:17–21.7 Yet, when contextualized alongside later Jewish texts like 1 Enoch and 4 Ezra, this vision connects to broader Jewish eschatological speculations about Jerusalem’s eschatological renewal. For example, T. Dan 5:12−13 reads (Kee 1983, 809–10, underlining added):
12 And the saints shall refresh themselves in Eden; the righteous shall rejoice in the New Jerusalem, which shall be eternally for the glorifcation of God.
13 And Jerusalem shall no longer undergo desolation, nor shall Israel be led into captivity, because the Lord will be in her midst [living among human beings].
(2025)
In general, these Jewish sources refect the belief in Jerusalem as a heavenly, preexistent city—transcendent in the present but destined to descend to earth at the end of time (Huber 2020, 97).8
One illustration of the rich tradition behind Revelation 21–22 is the description of the New Jerusalem. The vision incorporates prophetic imagery of the city’s glorifcation, as seen in passages like Jer 30:18–22, Isa 65:17–19, and Ezek 48:30–35. The Second Temple literature further develops the concept of a renewed Jerusalem. Koester summarizes three major texts on this theme: (1) Tobit describes Jerusalem as adorned with jewels and gold, gathering God’s people and drawing the nations to bask in its light (Tob 13:9, 11, 16). (2) The Dead Sea Scrolls include the Description of New Jerusalem, where an angel reveals a city measuring twenty by fourteen miles, with walls made of gold and precious stones (4Q554 2 II, 13–15). Its twelve gates are named after the sons of Israel, with streets organized in a grid and paved with white stones (5Q15 1 I, 6–7). (3) The Temple Scroll, though focused on an ideal sanctuary rather than the city itself, also envisions twelve gates named after Israel’s sons (11Q19 XXXIX, 12–13) (Koester 2014, 812–13). For instance, Similar to Revelation 21:2, which describes the New Jerusalem descending from heaven and from God (καταβαίνουσαν
), some writers portray a Jerusalem already existing in heaven, to be revealed at the end of the age. For instance, in 1 En 24–26, the tree of life is associated with a primordial Jerusalem, foreshadowing the future paradise where the redeemed will dwell. According to 2 Baruch, God preserves the heavenly Jerusalem, providing hope for the city’s future restoration (2 Bar 4:1–7; 6:9; 32:4; cf. 4 Ezra 8:52; 13:36), while 4 Ezra personifes the city as a woman (4 Ezra 10:27–28, 44–45, 53–54) (Koester 2014, 813).
At the same time, although John incorporates motifs from these sources, the portrayal of the New Jerusalem in Revelation 21–22 departs from Jewish expectations of a restored earthly city, instead envisioning a city of an entirely new order (Huber 2020, 97). First, in contrast to many Jewish texts that feature an eschatological temple at the center of a renewed Jerusalem, John observes, “I did not see a temple in it” (ναὸν οὐκ
, 21:22). This may suggest that John’s contemporaneous Jewish traditions anticipated an eschatological temple as the focal point of the New Jerusalem (Aune 2016, 1166). While some scholars view the absence of the temple as refecting an anti-temple viewpoint that appears in other sources (Rowland and Boxall 2011, 725–29), Revelation refers
to a heavenly “temple” (Rev 11:19; 15:5–8) and views the community of faith as God’s earthly temple (11:1–2). Thus, Revelation’s perspective is not fundamentally anti-temple but refects a shift: the New Jerusalem embodies the fulfllment of the temple’s purpose—God dwelling in the midst of his people—a concept aligned with the Johannine view of Jesus as the temple (Moore 2021, 421).
A second notable difference lies in the fate of the nations. Revelation’s closing scene envisions the nations walking by the city’s light, and the kings of the earth bringing their glory into it (καὶ
, 21:24). Jewish tradition offers varying perspectives on the fate of the nations. For instance, passages such as Isaiah 60 and Psalm 22 envision the nations coming to worship God. Similarly, in the Psalms of Solomon, the nations are depicted as coming from the ends of the earth to witness God’s glory and to honor a purifed Jerusalem (Pss. Sol. 17:31) (Wright 1983, 667). Conversely, other Jewish texts foresee the annihilation of the nations. In 4 Ezra 12:31−39, God will raise the Messiah whom He kept until the end of days. In contrast to the remnant of God’s people who will be saved, the nations will be set living “before his judgment seat, and when he has reproved them, then he will destroy them” (Metzger 1983, 550). In contrast, Revelation, while including a judgment upon the nations, explicitly portrays their eventual salvation and integration into the New Jerusalem. Rev 21:24–26 alludes to Isa 60:3, 5, 11: “Nations will come to your light … to you the riches of the nations will come … so that men may bring you the wealth of the nations—their kings led in triumphal procession” (Bauckham 1999, 241–42). Yet, John subtly alters the term “wealth” in Isaiah’s imagery to “glory (τὴν δόξαν).” This is because wealth indicates a military victory parade, which “customarily displayed all the spoils of the defeated people” (Oswalt 1998, 547–48). In other words, John has replaced the idea of military victory and plunder with that of conversion and worship (Osborne 2002, 763). In sum, in contrast to some Jewish apocalyptic expectations, Bauckham, in the longest section (one hundred pages!) of his classic book The Climax of Prophecy, concludes that “conversion of the nations—not only whether it will take place but also how it will take place—is at the center of the prophetic message of Revelation” (Bauckham 1999, 238).
Summary of John’s Interaction with Surrounding Cultures
The case studies above illustrate key characteristics of John’s engagement with the surrounding cultures in Revelation. First, John readily incorporates images and concepts from his cultural milieu to convey his message effectively. He interacts creatively with a broad spectrum of biblical and extra-biblical traditions, expecting his audience to recognize these cultural references without needing explicit explanations. A particularly striking example is John’s adoption and adaptation of a pagan mythic background in Revelation 12.
Second, John’s use of cultural imagery refects a purposeful direction of meaning and communication. While understanding these images in their original cultural contexts is essential for grasping his message, John’s theological purpose ultimately shapes their usage and interpretation. The surrounding cultures serve as vehicles for his message but do not determine its meaning. For instance, in Revelation 4–5, John uses cultural imagery to critique elements of the imperial cult. Here, cultural references provide a foundation for communication, yet they are constrained by the message’s intent.
This fexible use of surrounding cultural elements is a hallmark of John’s approach. For example, in Revelation 12, John does not strictly follow any single mythic tradition but introduces new elements that align with his theological focus. Although the surrounding cultures aid in expressing theological ideas, John remains unconstrained by them, adapting them with fexibility and creativity.
Third, John synthesizes elements from various cultural backgrounds around a theological core. He draws on the Old Testament, Jewish apocalyptic literature, and Greco-Roman imperial imagery, as seen in the throne scene, to construct his own message. Russell Morton highlights this blend by comparing Aune’s focus on the Greco-Roman context with Bauckham’s emphasis on Jewish traditions, suggesting that these perspectives need not be mutually exclusive but rather converge to support John’s theological aims (Morton 2001, 90). The vision of the New Jerusalem in Rev 21−22 further illustrates this complexity of John’s interaction with multiple backgrounds. The text has a core of the eschatological hope of God’s new creation that unites and controls these cultural elements. In other words, there is a theological aim for witness and exhortation. The core of the message is in God’s revelation, while the means to convey that revelation is through cultural phenomena, not vice versa (e.g., it sometimes
happens in modern preaching that biblical truth serves as a proof-text for a secular theory or ideology).
Finally, the task of identifying appropriate cultural backgrounds for specifc passages or symbols involves inherent ambiguity, with the potential risk of the Procrustean bed. The various views on the identifcation (or non-identifcation) of the throne of Satan (2:13) are a good indicator. The varying views on identifying “the throne of Satan” (2:13) underscore this interpretive challenge. This study advocates for a text-centered approach, which judiciously weighs the evidence “to determine whether it is actually relevant for interpreting the text” (Weima 2021, 25). This principle is not only interpretive but also theologically signifcant, as it reveals the nuanced relationship between general and special revelation in John’s writings.
Implications for the Contemporary Church: Interaction with the Concept of Tian (Heaven) in Ancient Chinese Religion
John’s creative engagement with surrounding cultural elements to convey the revelation of Jesus Christ (Rev 1:1) offers principles for the contemporary church in witnessing the gospel in a diverse and evolving world. While some scholars reject the presence of pagan elements in Revelation, particularly pagan mythic traditions (Rev 12), this mirrors a missional counterpart within the church that similarly resists incorporating elements from surrounding cultures. Nevertheless, the gospel itself is always expressed through cultural lenses, just as Lesslie Newbigin rightly points out, “There is no such thing as a pure gospel if by that is meant something which is not embodied in a culture” (Newbigin 1989, 89). For John, the critical question is not whether to use cultural elements but how to do so effectively to convey his theological message. Following John’s example in Revelation, I propose several ways in which the ancient Chinese concept of 天 (Tian, Heaven) can serve as a bridge for gospel witness. The concept of Tian dates back to the Shang dynasty (1600–1046 BCE). Though ancient Chinese religion was predominantly animistic, it also acknowledged a Creator god known as 上帝 (Shangdi), or the “Sovereign on High.”9 Through other gods, Shangdi was perceived as the supreme deity dominating war, weather, plagues, and the destiny of the human kingdom (Yao and Zhao 2010, 154). Shangdi received animal sacrifces, and the ceremony was usually accompanied by fortunetelling rituals, predicting the future welfare of the kingdom. However, Shangdi remained distant from ordinary people, accessible only to emperors (Wu 1982). In the Zhou
(2025)
dynasty (1046−256 BCE), Shangdi was worshiped as the universal god and was with Tian to form 昊天上帝 (Haotian Shangdi), or “The Supreme Lord of Heaven” (Corduan 2012, 420). This period saw a shift as moral conduct began to be associated with divine favor. The Zuo Commentary on the Spring and Autumn Annals captures this, stating: “Gods and spirits are not truly close to people; they rely solely on virtue.”10 Confucianism (ffth century BCE) acknowledged Haotian Shangdi as the supreme god, who is a personal god to some degree.11 By the time of the Shuo Zi Jie Wen, the earliest Chinese dictionary written in 100 CE, god was perceived as the one who brought forth all things.12 Later, the concept of Shangdi was gradually replaced by Tian (Heaven), which was the embodiment of moral principles and public opinion of the society. Such belief forms the foundation of later Chinese cultural beliefs, and reverence for Tian and veneration of ancestors is the most fundamental element of Chinese culture.
Tian (Heaven) as A Medium to Reveal Characteristics of the Biblical God
Ancient belief in Tian can help the contemporary church convey key attributes of the biblical God to Chinese audiences This approach has a historical precedent: to answer whether God exists, many missionaries in the sixteenth century focused their arguments on the assimilation between the biblical God and the concept of Shangdi and Tian Ricci was the frst to stress such assimilation, followed by others who adopted Shangdi as the offcial term to translate the Christian concept of God (Huang 2009, 79–80).
There are numerous shared attributes between Tian and the biblical God, including sovereignty, eternity, omniscience, and attributes such as love, holiness, and justice (Thong 2006, 86–103). For example, in the Bible, God is all-powerful, the Almighty (Rev 1:8). Similarly, the Classic of Poetry (诗经) writes: Vast and lofty is Heaven, capable of upholding all.13 And such power is especially manifested in the changing of dynasties. When the rulers of the Xia Dynasty became corrupt, Tian replaced them with the Shang Dynasty, which he further removed and handed the kingdom to the Zhou Dynasty.14 Another example is that God is love, which is eminent in the Bible (John 3:16). Although in general, Chinese religion, like many other world religions, is mainly a system of rewards and punishments rather than unconditional love and grace in the Bible, there is some description of Tian’s care towards the people. Classic of History (尚书) writes: Heaven blesses the people, and the ruler serves Heaven.15 The author further relates
this care of Tian to the removal of King Jie of the Xia Dynasty, who could not follow Heaven’s will and spread corruption throughout the land. Therefore, Tian supported and granted the mandate to Cheng Tang, issuing a decree to bring an end to the Xia Dynasty’s rule.16
Reshape the Concept of Tian by Introducing Biblical Elements
Reshaping the concept of Tian is essential for a fuller understanding of the biblical God In ancient Chinese religion, Shangdi/Tian is recognized as the supreme deity yet operates within a distinctly polytheistic system. This system comprises four classes of divine and spiritual beings: (1) Shangdi, the highest deity; (2) nature deities, including heavenly fgures such as the sun and moon and earthly deities, such as rivers and mountains, all under Shangdi’s control; (3) revered ancestors, often seen as semi-divine fgures tied to the royal lineage; and (4) other ancestral spirits (Küng and Ching 1989, 16–17). For instance, the Daoist text Wenzi (文子) states: He who accumulates virtue is supported by Heaven, aided by the Earth, and assisted by the spirits and deities.17 The sacrifcial and moral systems within this belief framework also refect its polytheistic nature. The Grand Minister of Ceremonies was responsible for overseeing rituals associated with the heavenly deities, spirits of the deceased, and earthly powers, thereby aiding the king in safeguarding the nation 18 Similarly, Master Mozi (墨子) asserted, “One should frst revere Heaven above, then address the spirits and deities in the middle, and lastly, love the people below.”19 In contrast, the biblical framework operates within a monotheistic worldview. The Bible acknowledges spiritual beings, such as angels, as servants of the one true God (Heb 1:14). There is only one Creator God (Deut 6:4) who brought all beings, including angels and spirits, into existence. This monotheistic framework has profound religious and moral implications that differ fundamentally from those associated with Tian; it calls for exclusive worship of God and prohibits idolatry (Rev 9:20).
Though Tian represents the highest divine will and moral authority for society, it is an abstract and distant force rather than a personal deity expressing love. The Book of Changes (周易) states: “Heaven moves vigorously; the nobleman strives unceasingly,”20 and similarly, Tao Te Ching (道德经) says: “The way of Heaven is to reduce what is excessive and to supplement what is insuffcient.”21 Such teachings refect a view of Tian as a regulating force that maintains cosmic balance rather than as an involved, personal deity. This concept is echoed in a popular Chinese
(2025)
saying: “Heaven’s way is to reward diligence” (天道酬勤), suggesting that Tian operates as a natural law within society. This impersonal view of Tian often leaves individuals with a sense of inadequacy, as if life’s forces are beyond human control. The Chinese worldview can resemble a Kafkaesque struggle, where humanity is forced to play a game that is rigged from the outset (Corduan 2012, 420). In contrast, Jesus’ invitation to “fnd rest” in Him would resonate deeply with those burdened by such a worldview (Matt 11:29–30). The biblical God becomes human, shares in the human experience (John 1:14), and desires to dwell among His people (Matt 1:23)—a plan ultimately fulflled at the end of time (Rev 21:3).
Ideological Dominance: Mandate/Son of Heaven and Christology
Engaging with any culture involves navigating meanings and addressing ideological dominance, especially where conficts arise. In Revelation 4–5 and Revelation 12, John offers examples of incorporating and critiquing rival cultural elements, such as the imperial cult and pagan myths. The key lies in directing meaning and communication; like John, the church can adopt a creative and fexible approach—redefning cultural elements to serve the gospel message.22
A useful parallel emerges between the deifed emperors and the concept of the “Mandate of Heaven” and “Son of Heaven,” titles traditionally held by emperors in ancient China, and the person of Christ in Christian theology. Western scholars have intriguingly used the phrase “Mandate of Heaven” to describe divine guidance in the natural order, interpreting it as “a commission to fnd the way of Jesus Christ as a path through the ordinary ways of human life, in collaboration with other human beings” (Keeling 1995, xv). During the late Ming period, Christian missionaries like the Jesuits used Confucian classics to convey Christian teachings, interpreting Heaven’s mandate as God’s mandate, with Heaven’s authority representing the spirituality bestowed by God and equated with the soul (Xiao 2024, 1).
In Confucius’ time, it was believed that the ruler held the Mandate of Heaven, and both Confucius and Mencius describe a legitimate ruler as one possessing this mandate, while a deposed ruler was thought to have lost it (Nuyen 2013, 113). The concept of the Son of Heaven (天子, Tianzi) became central to traditional Chinese political culture (Liu 2015, 279), bearing similarities with the deifed Roman emperors. This title, “Son of Heaven,” carries multiple layers of meaning, which I will categorize as follows: (1) Authority through the Mandate: The Son of Heaven, selected
by Tian, receives Heaven’s Mandate and rules on its behalf as the “Master of the People.”23 The Son of Heaven acts in Heaven’s stead, as Zuozhuan writes, “If one abandons the mandate of the ruler, who else can take it on? The ruler is like Heaven; can one escape from Heaven?”24 (2) Sonship: The emperor is seen as a divine communicator with the deities or even as divine himself. Heaven is the ancestor of humanity and the parent of the Son of Heaven: “The Son of Heaven treats Heaven as his parent and nourishes the people as his children.”25 (3) Priesthood: The Son of Heaven must perform the rites expected of Heaven’s representative: “How can one bear the title of Son of Heaven without performing the rites of the Son of Heaven?”26
Just as John reshapes elements of the imperial cult to reveal the true God and critique its claims (Rev 4–5), the title of Son of Heaven could be reinterpreted to witness Jesus, challenging traditional political and religious concepts in ancient Chinese thought. Unlike historical rulers, Jesus is the true “Son of Heaven,” who descended from Heaven (John 3:13) and fulflls Heaven’s mandate (John 5:19). He is the Son of God (Rev 2:18) and the High Priest (Heb 4:14)—not a deifed human, but the preexistent Word (John 1:1). His reign is universal, extending beyond China to all peoples (Rev 5:9). His victory, unlike earthly rulers, is achieved not by military force or political power, but by sacrifcial death (Rev 5:6). As John demythologizes Greco-Roman myth by historicizing it (Rev 12), suggesting that the longings expressed in the myths fnd their true fulfllment in Jesus, so too can we see the aspirations for a Son of Heaven fulflled in Jesus, the King of kings and Lord of lords (Rev 19:16).
Conclusion and Epilogue
This paper examines John’s engagement with four types of cultural elements to communicate his theological message: local cultures (Rev 2), the Greco-Roman imperial cult (Rev 4), mythic traditions (Rev 12), and Jewish apocalypticism (Rev 21). John’s approach of adopting and adapting these extra-biblical cultural elements offers valuable insights for modern missions, which this paper applies to the concept of Tian in ancient China as a bridge for witnessing God and Christ, emphasizing both continuity and discontinuity. In an ever-changing world, cultures rise and fade. The gospel and theological truths are not communicated in a vacuum or as abstract concepts; like John, who engages meaningfully with the cultures around him, each generation of faithful witnesses must creatively interact with their surrounding cultures to convey God’s truth and salvation—seeking
to conceptualize, persuade, comfort, exhort, and invite participation. Yet, while cultural engagement is crucial for effective communication with the world, the church’s message must rest not on shifting foundations— including its own cultural underpinnings—but on the unchanging rock of Christ Himself.
End Notes
1 Although there are no formal quotations Revelation, “there are more allusions and echoes to it than in any other New Testament book” (Moyise 2020, 130).
2 There is debate about whether Revelation is based on a vision experience of literary composition. Beale adopts a both-and approach that “the likelihood is that John had genuine visions and that he subsequently recorded those visions in literary form.” Although his conclusion is mainly about the use of Old Testament in Revelation, my assumption for this paper is extending this both-and approach to other cultural elements in the book (Beale 1999, 80–81). The Bible quoted in this article is from NASB.
3 In the Old Testament, there are some accounts that mention rulers take crowns from conquered kings (2 Sam 1:10; 12:30; 1 Chr 20:2).
4 However, without rejecting Revelation’s acquaintance with pagan myth, as in Rev 12, Hurtado suggests that the book’s Christology “seems mainly expressed in terms of his biblical and Jewish traditions” (Hurtado 1997, 176).
5 This plot is summarized in (Koester 2014, 555–56).
6 More recent approaches to this passage includes rhetorical analysis and discourse analysis.
7 A thorough study of the Old Testament background in Rev 21−22 with particular concern for “the function and interpretive signifcance of the presence of the Old Testament,” see (Mathewson 2003, 26).
8 As usual, some scholars explore the Greco-Roman background. Recently, Moss and Feldman studied the ways in which the New Jerusalem mimics, mirrors and adapts the excesses of elite Roman architecture and decor. It functions to democratize access to wealth in the coming epoch, which can partially explain later patristic discomfort with literalist readings of this passage (Moss and Feldman 2020, 351).
9 This has led some scholars to put forward a strong case for Shangdi being the God of original monotheism (Thong and Fu 2009).
10 《春秋左传·僖公五年》: 鬼神非人实亲，惟德是依。
11 Contrary to a misunderstanding originating among nineteenthcentury European scholars, who wanted to demystify Confucius, it is possible that Confucius understood Tian as a personal deity, not just impersonal fate. Nevertheless, he did not elaborate on his convictions concerning Tian any further, and he had little use for lower forms of religion with limited gods, which he saw as naive superstition (Corduan 2012, 436).
12 神，引出万物者也。
13 《诗经·大雅·荡之什·瞻仰》藐藐昊天，无不克固。
14 《尚书·周书·梓材》皇天既付中国民越厥疆土于先王，肆王 惟德用，和怿先后迷民，用怿先王受命。
15 《尚书·周书·泰誓中》 惟天惠民，惟辟奉天。
16 《尚书·周书·泰誓中》有夏桀，弗克若天，流毒下国天乃佑 命成汤，降黜夏命。
17 《文子·九守·道德》 积道德者，天与之，地助之，鬼神辅 之。
18 《周礼 · 春官宗伯第三 · 大宗伯》大宗伯之职，掌建邦之天 神、人鬼、地示之礼，以佐王建保邦国。
19 《墨子天志上》子墨子言曰：其事上尊天，中事鬼神，下爱 人。
20 《周易·乾卦·象传》天行健，君子以自强不息
21 《道德经》天之道，损有余而补不足。
22 Reshaping cultures in light of Christ-events also means that the church’s own culture is subject to scrutiny and transformation. Thus, the mission is not a transfer of the missionary’s “superior” culture, which, as Bosch notes, is an improper motivation for mission (Bosch 2011, 23).
23 《尚书·周书·多方》惟天不畀纯 … 乃惟成汤克以尔多方 简，代夏作民主。
24《左传 · 宣公四年》弃君之命，独谁受之？君，天也，天可逃 乎？
25《春秋繁露·郊祭》天子父母事天，而子孙蓄万民。
26 《春秋繁露·郊祭》奈何受天子之号，而无天子之礼？天子不 可不祭天也。
Works Cited
Aune, David E.
1997 Revelation 1-5. WBC. Nashville, TN: Nelson.
2014
Revelation 1-5. WBC. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
2016 Revelation 17-22. WBC. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Bauckham, Richard
1999 The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation. Edinburgh, UK: T&T Clark.
Beale, G. K.
1999 The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Beale, G. K., and Sean M. McDonough
2007 “Revelation.” In Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, 1081–1158. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
Bosch, David Jacobus
2011 Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission. 20 anniversary ed. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
Collins, A. Yarbro
1976 The Combat Myth in the Book of Revelation. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press for Harvard Theological Review.
1992 “Revelation, Book Of.” In The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Corduan, Winfried
2012 Neighboring Faiths: A Christian Introduction to World Religions. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.
Day, John
1992 “Dragon and Sea, God’s Confict With.” In The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary. New York, NY: Doubleday.
deSilva, David A.
2008 “The Strategic Arousal of Emotion in John’s Visions of Roman Imperialism: A Rhetorical-Critical Investigation of Revelation 4–22.” Neotestamentica 42 (1): 1–34.
Du Rand, J. A.
1988 “The Imagery of the Heavenly Jerusalem (Revelation 21:9-22:5).” Neotestamentica 22 (1): 65–86.
1993 “‘Now the Salvation of Our God Has Come...’ A Narrative Perspective on The Hymns in Revelation 1215.” Neotestamentica 27 (2): 313–30.
Friesen, Steven J.
2004 “Myth and Symbolic Resistance in Revelation 13.” JBL 123:281–313.
2005 “Satan’s Throne, Imperial Cults and the Social Settings of Revelation.” JSNT 27 (3): 351–73.
Gallusz, László
2014 The Throne Motif in the Book of Revelation. Library of New Testament Studies 487. London, UK: Bloomsbury T & T Clark.
Guffey, Andrew R.
2019 The Book of Revelation and the Visual Culture of Asia Minor: A Concurrence of Images. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books/Fortress Press.
Gunkel, H.
1895 Schöpfung Und Chaos in Urzeit Und Endzeit. Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Huang, Paulos
2009
Confronting Confucian Understandings of the Christian Doctrine of Salvation: A Systematic Theological Analysis of the Basic Problems in the Confucian-Christian Dialogue. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.
Huber, Konrad
2020 “Imagery in the Book of Revelation.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Book of Revelation, edited by Craig R. Koester. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Hurtado, Larry
1985 “Revelation 4–5 in the Light of Jewish Apocalyptic Analogies.” JSNT 25:105–24.
1997 “Christology.” In Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press.
Kee, H. C.
1983 “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.” In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, edited by James H. Charlesworth, 1:775–828. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday.
Keeling, Michael
1995 The Mandate of Heaven: The Divine Command and the Natural Order. Edinburgh, UK: T&T Clark.
Koester, Craig R.
2014 Revelation: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AYB. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Küng, Hans, and Julia Ching
1989 Christianity and Chinese Religions. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Liu, Zehua
2015
“Political and Intellectual Authority: The Concept of the ‘Sage-Monarch’ and Its Modern Fate.” In Ideology of Power and Power of Ideology in Early China, edited by Yuri Pines, Paul Rakita Goldin, and Martin Kern, 273–300. Sinica Leidensia 124. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.
Mathewson, David
2003 A New Heaven and a New Earth: The Meaning and Function of the Old Testament in Revelation 21.122.5 London, UK: Sheffeld Academic.
Metzger, B. M.
1983 “The Fourth Book of Ezra.” In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, edited by James H. Charlesworth, 1:517–60. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday.
Moore, Nicholas J.
2021
Morton, Russell
2001
“‘God’s Sanctuary in Heaven Was Opened’: Judgment, Salvation, and Cosmic Cultus in Revelation.” Neotestamentica 55 (2): 409–30.
“Glory to God and to the Lamb: John’s Use of Jewish and Hellenistic/ Roman Themes in Formatting His Theology in Revelation 4-5.” JSNT 83:89–109.
Moss, Candida R., and Liane M. Feldman
2020 “The New Jerusalem: Wealth, Ancient Building Projects and Revelation 21–22.” NTS 66 (3): 351–66.
Moyise, Steve
2020 “The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Book of Revelation, edited by Craig R. Koester. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Newbigin, Lesslie
1989 The Gospel in a Pluralist Society. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Nuyen, A. T.
2013 “The ‘Mandate of Heaven’: Mencius and The Divine Command Theory of Political Legitimacy.” Philosophy East and West 62 (2): 113–26.
Osborne, Grant R.
2002 Revelation. BECNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
2004 “Recent Trends in the Study of the Apocalypse.” In The Face of New Testament Studies: A Survey of Recent Research, edited by Scot McKnight and Grant R. Osborne, 473–504. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
Oswalt, John
1998 The Book of Isaiah. Chapters 40-66. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Pataki, András Dávid
2011 “A Non-Combat Myth in Revelation 12.” NTS 57 (2): 258–72.
Portalatín, Antonio
2020 “The Apocalyptic Lamb and Dragon.” Biblica 101 (2): 248–71.
Rowland, Christopher, and Ian Boxall
2011 “Tyconius and Bede on Violent Texts Inthe Apocalypse.” In Ancient Christian Interpretations of “Violent Texts” in the Apocalypse. Gottingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth
1991 Revelation: Vision of a Just World. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.
Scobie, Charles H.
1993 “Local References in the Letters to the Seven Churches.” NTS 39 (4): 606–24.
Thompson, Michael C.
2019 “The Book of Revelation.” In The State of New Testament Studies: A Survey of Recent Research. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
Thong, Chan Kei
2006 Faith of Our Fathers: God in Ancient China. Shanghai, China: Orient Publishing Center.
Thong, Chan Kei, and Charlene L. Fu
2009 Finding God in Ancient China. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Weima, Jeffrey A. D.
2021 The Sermons to the Seven Churches of Revelation: A Commentary and Guide. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
Wright, R. B.
1983 “Psalms of Solomon.” In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, edited by James H. Charlesworth, 2:639–70. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday.
Wu, Kuo-Cheng
1982 The Chinese Heritage. New York, NY: Crown Publ.
Xiao, Qinghe
2024 “The Christian Interpretations on the Nature of Heaven’s Mandate in Late Ming and Early Qing Dynasties.”
HTS Theological Studies 80 (3): 1–10.
Yao, Xinzhong, and Yanxia Zhao
2010 Chinese Religion: A Contextual Approach. London, UK: Continuum.
The Asbury Journal 80/2: 409-427
© 2025 Asbury Theological Seminary
DOI: 10.7252/Journal.02.2025F.06
Sophia H.Y. Huang
Petrine
Communities’ Social
Status and The Cause of Suffering in 1 Peter
Abstract:
Recent scholarship identifes the Petrine communities’ social status as resident aliens, and the majority of them live at a subsistence level. Examining Greco-Roman literature, historiography, and Jewish historiography, I propose that the social status of Petrine communities is more likely to be citizens and resident aliens, and they are capable of contributing to the local civic community with fnancial support. The main cause of their suffering derives from the confict between their civic obligations and withdrawal from the pagan religious practices. Their neighbors treat them as “foreigners” and are hostile to them due to their misunderstanding that the Christians take advantage of their neighbors while neglecting civic duties.
Keywords: citizenship, suffering, 1 Peter, civic obligations, Josephus
Sophia H.Y. Huang is a Ph.D. student in Biblical Studies at Asbury Theological Seminary and has published works in Theology and Mission and Holiness Church and Theology.
Introduction
Peter calls his recipients πάροικος (2:11), and it has prompted abundant scholarly discussions on the social status of Petrine communities. The lexical meaning of πάροικος is “stranger, alien, one who lives in a place that is not one’s home.”1 It is usually translated as “resident alien.” Traditional interpretation does not pay much attention to the recipients’ real social status but stresses the notion that this world is not Christians’ real home, so Christians are strangers and aliens to this world.
John Elliott counters the traditional view, suggesting that the term refers to the audience’s political, legal, and social situations.2 He states that πάροικος denotes the audience’s social status as resident aliens who did not have civil or native rights.3 David Horrell partially agrees with Elliott, stating that the communities consist of low socio-economic status people, such as slaves who lived at the subsistence level.4 Horrell states that the household code, which only addresses slaves (2:18–25), demonstrates that the majority of the community members were of low socio-economic status. Although he admits Petrine communities might have included “middling” status members, he insists that since “the majority of the empire’s inhabitants lived at or around subsistence level, such economic status must be taken into account.”5 However, Horrell’s polarization of the provincial populace hinders bringing a more precise depiction of social reality into light. His denial of considering the existence of a considerable number of middlelevel populations prevents readers from understanding the dynamically interrelated multi-level society in the early empire.
The misconception of the social situation of the original audience leads to an inaccurate evaluation of the biblical text’s relevance to contemporary Christian life. If we view the original audience of 1 Peter as a group of people who lived at a subsistence level, we, most of whom do not perceive ourselves as living at a subsistence level, tend to think that the text is somewhat irrelevant to us. Furthermore, this misconception also leads to a misunderstanding of the cause of suffering of Peter’s audience. Elliot states that the audience’s legal status, which is resident alien, made them culpable of harassment from neighboring citizens, and their social-political condition accounts for much of the sufferings that this letter concerns.6 Horrell disagrees with Elliot at this point and states that the audience’s foreignness is “something about the character of their experience rather than their literal socio-political status,”7 and their problems “stem solely from their socio-spiritual status. On the one hand, Horrell agrees that the
audience’s social situation contributes to their suffering. On the other hand, he stresses that the audience’s identity as Christians is the reason for their suffering. However, Horrell neither analyzes how the audience’s low socioeconomic status contributes to their suffering nor explains the specifc relationship between the audience’s Christian identity and their suffering. The lack of adequate analysis of social life and the polarization of the population lead contemporary readers, especially Christians in a world of Christendom, to an illusion that the text is not entirely relevant to their lives.
Karen Jobes states that 1 Peter is relevant to, especially, the Third World Christians who live in cultures not formed by the Judeo-Christian tradition.8
The biblical text is written down and transmitted to this day for all humankind. Is 1 Peter really more relevant to Third World Christians? How does the correct understanding of the social world of Peter’s audience illuminate our conception of the text and thus affect our application of the biblical text in our contemporary lives, no matter what part of the world we live in? Other scholars proposed a different view, stating that many of Peter’s audience are citizens who were supposed to fulfll their civic obligations.
Bruce W. Winter proposes that the audience is citizens, and Peter is encouraging them to contribute to the welfare of the cities as benefactors so that they would fulfll their duties in public life.9 Winter elucidates the relationship between the audience’s citizenship and their civic duties regarding Peter’s exhortation to his communities. Ben Witherington emphasizes considering the diversity of socio-economic levels of the population and states that Petrine communities could have some socially pretentious members, but simultaneously, Christians could be seen as good citizens of their cities.10
Why do these scholars consider the audience’s citizenship? How does their citizenship relate to their suffering? To answer these questions, we now turn to the social world of Asia Minor in the early Roman Empire.
Roman and Local Citizenship and Civic Obligations
Roman ruling elites frequently regarded citizens and aliens together in policy-making and social value-constructing. According to Augustus’ policy, the empire’s fscal mechanism was based on a taxation system.11 The state must encourage the provincials to cultivate the land and to sell or lend their properties so that they would be prosperous. As a result, the state treasury would “gain a permanent revenue that will suffce for its needs.”12 Prosperous citizens and resident aliens were the secure source
of state revenue, and the state policy ought to be designed to advance the economic status of the populace.
In his On Duties, Cicero discusses the appropriate actions of three different groups of people: magistrates, private citizens, and foreigners and resident aliens. The magistrates’ particular duty was to uphold its dignity and propriety, safeguard the laws, and maintain the right principles. Private citizens ought to live on equitable terms with fellow citizens and wish for those things that were honorable in a commonwealth. “As to foreigners and resident aliens, the appropriate action is to be inquisitive of a foreign commonwealth’s doings.”13 Instead of interpreting the stratifcation of the people into a political hierarchy, it is more probable to construe that Cicero was establishing a feasible social order in which each individual’s appropriate behavior would contribute to the harmonious and prosperous community, in Cicero’s words, the commonwealth.
In short, the management of citizenship was in the domain of economic, legal, and social order so that it would fortify the empire’s military and political security, which was based on economic prosperity. The mechanism of the imperial machine required a large portion of the population to live beyond the subsistence level. Both citizens and resident aliens were expected and required to behave appropriately according to the social roles and obligations that had been assigned to them. Since both citizens and resident aliens were integral parts of the social order,14 if any did not act accordingly, their behavior would be viewed as harmful to the community. As such, investigating the provincials’ social life in the context of citizenship management and civic administration provides a larger landscape for understanding the social situation of Petrine communities.
The economy of the early empire was not largely dependent on agriculture as it was in the Middle Ages. The aristocratic families handed down wealth, personal connections, political experience, social power, and political infuence, along with their property, to the next generation. These altogether constituted their aristocratic status.15 It is well-attested that good production, trade and business, building construction, and property management were salient parts of the economic engine of the empire. Particularly in Asia Minor, a wide variety of industries maneuvered provincial prosperity by exporting wine, wheat, olive oil, pickled fsh, fsh sauce, wood, wool and other textiles, and silver products.16 Numerous merchants traveled to other cities or provinces, engendering trans-local
communities and promoting interactions among the migrants and local communities.
Mobility was the essence of the Mediterranean and of the Roman Empire.17 The fow of economic activities promoted population migration. Provincial life was characterized by a subtle balance between the preservation and exchange of culture. Considering ethnic and cultural diversity in economic development throughout the far-fung empire, Rome instrumentalized local institutions in the service of state interest, resulting in the fundamental dependence on the capacity to utilize regional infrastructure.18 Rome selected some city-states from the provinces and elevated them to dominant positions over their related hinterlands to govern on Rome’s behalf.19 Therefore, the cooperative relationship between Rome and the provincials became the important aspect of the empire’s security, and the prosperity of the empire was largely dependent on the affuence of local life.20
The differences in religion, culture, and the understanding of virtue demanded the Romans to differentiate people by means of status— Roman citizens, local citizens, resident aliens, and other foreigners. This is an actualization of Cicero’s idea of political community: “A political community is not any gathering of human beings, herded together by whatever means, but a gathering of many, joined by consent to a particular normative order and shared utility.”21 Once individuals were recognized as “us,” they were required to reinforce their belongingness by participating in the community’s religious and civic practices.
On the other hand, the privileges of citizenship were not always used ideally. Augustus’ “Cyrene edicts” was a typical case that aimed to regulate Roman citizens’ behavior in the city-states. In the edict, Augustus cited the provincials’ complaint that the Romans supported one another by serving as accusers and witnesses and acted against the Greeks before juries. As a response to the provincials’ complaint, Augustus granted alien defendants the right to ask that half of the jury be Greek for the sake of the security of all allies and Roman people. The third edict required that “Greeks who have received Roman citizenship shall nevertheless continue to perform civic liturgies.”22 Its point was that Roman citizenship did not qualify a person exempted from local obligations and service.23 Citizenship was not immune to being abused as a tool for suppressing people of other groups to gain benefts for their own immorally. These behaviors disturbed the imperial order through which the empire desired to achieve provincial
prosperity and loyalty, serving the interests of the empire. With the juridical regulation, Cyrene edicts intensifed the citizens’ obligation to be the inseparable constituent of citizenship in order to reinforce provincial and imperial progress.
However, it did not stop some citizens from seeking exemption. After thorough research on imperial correspondences, Clifford Ando demonstrates that “a signifcant portion of the evidence arising from imperial correspondence concerns the desire of some to escape local duties on grounds of occupation or individual exemptions.”24 One of the cities’ battlegrounds was “to extract money and services from highly mobile regional elites, who owned properties and did business in multiple communities but sought, by declaring themselves merely resident aliens … to escape civic obligations.”25 Many people held more than one local citizenship. It was not uncommon for businesspeople to choose to be resident aliens in the cities where they conducted business while holding citizenship in another city. Georgy Kantor gives an example of a letter which was from Antonius Pius to a city in Macedonia: “The beginning of the letter seems to be concerned with the foreigners with property rights not accepting their fair share of burdens while the citizens overpay.”26 The letter indicates two matters: First, the foreigners possessed properties. Second, the citizens asserted that foreigners must fulfll their duties to reduce citizens’ burdens.
In short, the friction between the cities’ interests, which depended on populaces’ contributions, and the citizens’ practices of being exempt from civic duties continued and evolved from Augustus’ reign to the third century. Friction is not merely an issue between people and abstract political and juridical entities but an ongoing debate among the people whose benefts and interests intersect with one another. The evidence, as far as it has been examined, points to the phenomenon that some people’s desire and petition to escape from obligations accompanies other people’s discontentment and even objection.
Along with fscal obligation, religious duty was an inseparable constituent of civic obligations. It was not analogous to the modern concept that political or legal activities are separate from religion. All activities in the public sphere were under the umbrella of religion and intertwined with cultic rituals. Cicero’s speech on the political community’s religion was regarded as a normative statement: “Every [civitas] has its own religious observance.”27 Clifford Ando and Myles Lavan comment on this statement
that the term civitas has its primary meaning as “citizenship” and also designates the community of persons united by a given citizenship, as well as the space that citizen body inhabits—the city. Cicero’s dictum derived from the ancient conception that religion and place were adhered to each other by nature: “Particular cities have protective deities attached to the spaces they mutually inhabit.”28 All people who inhabit the territory of the deity must participate in the liturgies, and all activities in the territory must be undertaken in relation to rituals. One of the magistrates’ duties was to legally consecrate a space, such as an altar or temple, to be sacred. If offerings were not dedicated according to a legally approved manner, although they were tolerated, they were not regarded as sacred from a legal point of view.29
The spatial theory of religion required that resident aliens, along with citizens, should be included in religious practices because they had entered the space of the deity under whose protection the city existed. An evidential example is from an inscription from the city of Parthicolis, which commemorates Flaviana Philocratia’s benefaction in honor of her husband Iulianus. Philocratia provided distributions to citizens, resident aliens, and slaves during the festival.30 It means all these people attended the religious festival together. The regular presence of resident aliens with citizens in the public rituals is also observed in the provincial celebration of the emperor’s rule. Pliny reported to Trajan in his letter that he organized a celebration for the frst day of Trajan’s rule. The ritual was conducted in the order of rank— the offcials, the soldiers, and the provincials which included citizens, resident aliens, and, presumably, others.31
As such, religious duties were an important strand of the fabric of imperial order and provincial life. The public rituals created communities that operated within the religiopolitical framework and intensifed individuals’ loyalty to the community.32 Through the conduct of religion, citizens’ lives were delivered into the normative control of the public authorities. Participation in the cults of the citizen community was an entailment of citizenship.33 Citizens’ religious obligations are interwoven into political and legal life, leveraging the economic well-being of the community. Along with citizens, resident aliens who were accepted as inhabitants of the city were also required to fulfll religious obligations, contributing to the commonwealth of the civic community. Moreover, the citizens in Roman colonies in Asia Minor were required to fulfll their civic obligations more strictly because of the strategic value of the colony cities.34
The Implication of Jewish Communities’ Experiences
The Jewish communities lived in the very same macro environment that has been depicted above. A study on the relationship between citizenship and civil discord, especially the Stasis in Alexandria and the conficts between the Jews and the Gentiles in Asia Minor, sheds signifcant light on the understanding of how monotheistic religion impacted civil life in a pluralistic empire. It is also a crucial reference in analyzing the social status of the Petrine communities and the cause of their suffering. The reason lies not only in the fact that both the Jews and the Christians worshiped only one God, but also in the similarity that both the Jewish and Christian gatherings were viewed as associations.
According to Josephus and Philo’s reports, a multitude of Greeks in Alexandria raised complaints against the Jews in 38 CE because the Jewish community refused to set up the emperor’s statue or image in the synagogues. The Greek’s complaints evolved into riots, and they burned the synagogues and treated the Jews violently.35 When the calamity happened to the Jewish community, Philo served as an ambassador and sent a petition to emperor Gaius, defending against the Greeks’ accusation of the Jews.36 However, Gaius rejected Philo’s petition. The disturbance did not stop even after Gaius’s death. The emperor Claudius tried to sort out the mess by restoring Jewish people’s citizenship, which was annulled by an edict of the Roman prefect Flaccus in the summer of 38 CE, and reaffrming their freedom to observe their old customs, which Augustus granted.37
Some scholars used to doubt the civic status of the Alexandrian Jews. H. I. Bell suggests that the Jewish people possessed substantial power of self-government rather than citizenship that was equal to that of other Alexandrians.38 However, a recent study demonstrates that Philo and Josephus’ terminology referring to the legal status of Alexandrian Jews was “consistent with epigraphic and papyrological references to citizenship.”39 It supports John M. G. Barclay’s assertion that there is evidence for the Jews both as Roman citizens and as citizens of their cities.40 At the end of the frst century BCE, Jews from a variety of socio-economic statuses obtained citizenship in Alexandria.41 The Jews in Alexandria were becoming more numerous and prominent, and their exemption from civic religious duties— participating in the imperial cult and worshiping the local gods—was regarded as “a sign of their hostility to the customs which were treasured by these Greek cities.”42
Philo confrms that the Jews’ withdrawal from the public imperial sacrifces provoked the Greeks’ accusation of the Jews.43 The Greeks also blamed the fact that the Jews refused to worship Greek gods as they did. However, Jewish orthopraxy, which was represented by worshipping only one God, was crucial to Jewish identity.44 They did not relinquish their monotheistic religion because of civic obligation. This provoked hostility from the Greeks, as Apion stated, “if the Jews be citizens of Alexandria, why do they not worship the same gods with the Alexandrians?”45 Apion was not denying the Jews’ citizenship, but questioning their allegiance to the Alexandrian Greeks.46 The Jews were expected to demonstrate their loyalty to the city, which was appropriate to their citizenship. However, Apion and Alexandrian Greeks saw that the Jews were outside of the city’s fundamental relationship of reciprocity.47 In a religiopolitical framework, it was intolerable that the Jews held legal status as citizens while they refused to participate in the same religious practices. For the Alexandrian Greeks, Jews were supposed to be “us” due to their citizenship. However, the Jews separated themselves from imperial and local cults, neglecting civic obligations and showing disloyalty. Therefore, the Jews were perceived as “them,” not “us,” by Greek Alexandrians.
In this regard, Apion argued for the Jews’ foreignness by stressing that they came as foreigners from Syria. They should not be called both Alexandrians and, simultaneously, Ioudaioi. 48 Alexandrian Jews’ restraining from local cults conficted with their status as citizens. Some Jews who lived in Alexandria were resident aliens, but they enjoyed some privileges and were expected to bear the same burdens as other resident aliens in the city.49 The Jews’ citizenship magnifed the Greeks’ animosity against them.
The Jewish communities in Asia Minor experienced similar situations, although they did not undergo severe violence. Although it is hard to trace exactly the origin of the Jews in Asia Minor, the Jewish community had already grown to a considerable size by the frst century BCE.50 The most common frictions between the Jewish community and the cities in Asia Minor were over the right to gather and the collection of the temple tax. Particularly, sending the temple tax to Jerusalem was challenged by the cities. On the one hand, sending temple tax was of crucial importance for Diaspora Jews. Steven D. Fraade states that the temple was central to Jewish identity.51 Paying the temple tax was the symbol of being a Jew and the expression of their allegiance to Yahweh and His people. On the other hand, the cities desired to retain the money in their region to supply their
public funds. It seems that the cities did not have the right to forbid the Jews from sending the temple money; thus, they began to charge payment of liturgies on it.
According to Josephus, the Jews in Asia Minor were forced to participate in liturgies.52 The Greeks demanded that if the Jews were their kin, they should worship their gods. Bradley Ritter interprets the term “kin” as suggesting a bond. It maximizes the rhetorical effect of the discourse, which intended to persuade their fellow citizens—the Jews—that “they had more obligations than they had been willing to acknowledge.”53
Josephus saw citizenship as an important contributor to the hardship of Jewish communities in the Greek cities. As citizens, the Jews were expected to offer fnancial support for the public services of the gods. The Greeks’ demand to fulfll civic obligations on the grounds of the city’s commonwealth was irreconcilable to the Jews’ endeavor to “stay true to their traditions and their God.”54 In the religiopolitical worldview, citizen status and religious identity, along with kinship-like ties, were strongly integrated into people’s minds and daily activities. Where the Jews had received citizenship in greater number, their integration into local communities, particularly the local citizen body, was more likely to lead to confict over fscal and religious obligations.55 Additionally, resident aliens, like citizens, were commonly invited to offcial civic events and expected to fulfll some obligations. Many Jews in the Diaspora who stayed as resident aliens experienced the very same confict as Jewish citizens.
Social Status of Petrine Communities and the Cause of Suffering
Christian communities came into existence out of Jewish communities. The social, economic, and religiopolitical circumstances that Christians underwent were not exclusively unique from those that Jewish communities had experienced. Since every single Christian lived within the very same milieu, Petrine communities were not free from the discord and conficts that the Jewish communities had encountered, although specifc cases may differ, such as Christians did not have confict over sending temple tax out of the province. The difference between the Christian and the Jewish community regarding the macro environment is that the Christians did not have Augustus’ edict, which they could utilize as a legitimate shield to protect themselves, or as a political weapon to fght against their opponents. In spite of the differences, Petrine communities were of the same battleground as the Jews with regard to the irresolvable
friction between the citizen body’s expectation of civic obligations and their withdrawal from imperial and local cults.
Petrine communities are probably in the cities rather than rural villages. Peter addresses fve provinces instead of specifc cities, which may imply that Peter’s audience was scattered among the villages. However, it is more likely that the courier delivered the letter in these provinces using the roads that must have been built for the purpose of imperial rule over the provinces. The Greek-speaking provinces had a long tradition of local autonomy,56 which means that the villages were ruled by the cities to which they belonged. Therefore, it is more probable that the courier used the roads connecting the cities. This indicates that the primary audience lived in the cities, and the letter was made known to the Christians who might have lived in the villages through each city.
In these cities, Peter’s communities faced diffculties in meeting their neighbors’ expectations of fulflling obligations by participating in fscal, legal, religious, or military practices. Refraining from the pagan cults means withdrawing from civic liturgies, legal duties, and some fnancial obligations. If some of the Christians continued to enjoy the benefts of citizenship, such as receiving grain doles, without participating in the civic liturgies, they would be viewed as people who took their neighbors’ advantage but left fnancial and other burdens to their fellow citizens. Christians might be misunderstood and called “evildoers” by their neighbors. Christians have been freed from the duty of pagan liturgies in Christ. However, it does not mean that they can leave fnancial or administrative burdens to the unbelieving citizens while enjoying the benefts of their citizenship.
Christians’ refraining from pagan liturgies was to their unbelieving neighbors a sign that Christians do not share the same worldview with them, and thus, do not belong to them. Therefore, they perceive that Christians are “foreign” to them and to the world that they regard as normative. The concept of “foreignness” in 1 Peter is primarily how unbelieving neighbors see Christians. When Peter uses the term πάροικος to designate his communities, in the frst place, he refers to their real social status as resident aliens. But more probably, he refers to their reputation among the unbelieving neighbors who regarded them as of foreign origin. As the Alexandrian Jews were viewed as “people of foreign origin” despite their citizenship by the Alexandrian Greeks, Christians in Asia Minor were considered “foreigners” by their neighbors because they refused to participate in worshiping emperors and pagan gods. Christians were
(2025)
regarded as “outsiders” of the community constructed in the religiopolitical framework, not because Christians were newly immigrated people or of low socio-economic status, but rather because Christians’ citizenship and their capability to contribute to the local community magnifed their neighbors’ hatred toward them.
Peter illustrates Christians’ suffering in comparison to the experiences of the Jewish community in terms of the conficts that both communities encountered as people of only one God. At the same time, the Christology that permeates the letter and Peter’s exhortation for imitating the suffering of Christ emphasize Peter’s statement that Christians are different from the Jews. Peter also calls his audience Χριστιανός (4:16), and it is a direct indication that Peter differentiates his audience from the Jews. The term “Christian” was even used among the Romans to mark those who worship Christ. As such, Peter describes Christian identity as Christ’s follower while drawing parallels to the experiences of the Jewish community during the civic conficts, which derived from their neighbors’ demand for them to fulfll civic obligations.
Conclusion
Petrine communities’ citizenship functions as a contributor to the hostility of unbelieving neighbors. Their refusal to participate in religious duties was viewed as neglecting all civic obligations. Some members might have the status of resident aliens, but they were also required to fulfll some civic duties while enjoying limited benefts. Christians’ suffering, which was expressed as verbal abuse and harassment from their neighbors, derives from their neighbors’ misunderstanding that they are neglecting their civic duties and leaving shared burdens to other fellow citizens. Therefore, Peter’s use of πάροικος has two dimensions of connotation: In the frst place, he refers to the actual social status. But the term does not connote low socio-economic status but refers to a group of people who have civic duties as well as benefts. Secondly, and more likely, Peter refers to the phenomenon that Christians were viewed as “foreigners” by their unbelieving neighbors because they refused to participate in the imperial and local cults. In summary, the social status of Petrine communities is more likely citizens and resident aliens, and they are capable of contributing to the local civic community with fnancial or other support. However, their withdrawal from the pagan religious practices
causes their neighbors to treat them as “foreigners” regardless of their legal status. The neighbors are hostile to them due to their misunderstanding that the Christians take advantage of their neighbors while neglecting civic duties.
The social situation of Petrine communities indicates the relevance of the text to contemporary Christians, to those who live in a culture that is becoming more and more pluralized. Dr. Nijay Gupta shared in the Biblical Seminar that evangelical Christians are viewed as judgmental, divisive, and xenophobic. The narrative about Christians evolving in the nation resembles how Petrine communities’ neighbors saw Christians. Their evaluation of Christians was based on their misunderstanding due to different worldviews. Peter encourages and exhorts his communities to conduct themselves honorably, even though their neighbors view them as evildoers (2:12). His exhortation calls contemporary Christians not to conform to the culture that grieves the Holy Spirit but to endure in the unfriendly environment and stand frm in Christ.
End Notes
1 F. W. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, 2000), 779.
2 J.H. Elliott, 1 Peter (AB; New York, NY: Doubleday, 2000), 94.
3 J.H. Elliott, A Home for the Homeless: A Social-Scientifc Criticism of 1 Peter, Its Situation and Strategy (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1990), 25.
4 D.G. Horrell, Becoming Christian: Essays on 1 Peter and the Making of Christian Identity (LNTS; London, UK: T&T Clark, 2013), 130.
5 Horrell, Becoming Christian, 130.
6 Elliott, 1 Peter, 101.
7 T. B. Williams and Horrell, D. G., 1 Peter, ICC (London, UK: T&T Clark, 2023), 221.
8 K. H. Jobes, 1 Peter, BECNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005), 4. Jobes also states that “First Peter’s emphasis on Christian engagement with society makes it a relevant and thought-provoking book for all times and places.” Jobes, 1 Peter, 4. However, singling out the Third World raises a question to what degree Jobes thinks 1 Peter is less relevant to the culture that was formed by the Judeo-Christian tradition.
9 B. W. Winter, Seek the Welfare of the City: Christians as Benefactors and Citizens, First-Century Christians in the Graeco-Roman World (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994), 12–40.
10 B. Witherington, Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2007), 1:35.
11 Cassius Dio, Dio’s Roman History (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1970), 6:149.
12 Dio, Dio’s Roman History, 147–49.
13 Cicero, Off. 124-25.
14 Citizenship was not a mechanism of integration of the empire, but citizens and resident aliens were inseparable from a stable social order. Cf. A.Z. Bryen, “Citizenship and Its Alternatives: A View from the East,” in Roman and Local Citizenship in the Long Second Century CE (ed. M. Lavan and C. Ando; New York, NY: Oxford University, 2021), 43.
15 H. Cancik, “Aristocracy,” BNP 1 (2002) 1107.
16 R.A. Reese, 1 Peter, (NCBC; Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University, 2022), 6.
17 K. Verboven, “Resident Aliens and Translocal Merchant Collegia in the Roman Empire,” in Frontiers in the Roman World (ed. O. Hekster and T. Kaizer; Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2011), 335.
18 C. Ando, “Local Citizenship and Civic Participation in the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire,” in Civic Identity and Civic Participation in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (ed. C. Brélaz and E. Rose; Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2021), 41.
19 Ando, “Local Citizenship and Civic Participation,” 41–42.
20 Ando, “Local Citizenship and Civic Participation,” 42.
21 Cicero, Rep. 1.39. See also C. Ando, “Empire, Status, and the Law,” American Journal of Legal History 63 (2023): 72.
22 Ando and Lavan, Roman and Local Citizenship, 15–16.
23 C. Ando, “Romans, Aliens, and Others in Dynamic Interaction,” in Roman and Local Citizenship in the Long Second Century CE, ed. M. Lavan and C. Ando, Oxford Studies in Early Empires (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2021), 305.
24 Ando, “Romans, Aliens, and Others,” 304.
25 Ando, “Romans, Aliens, and Others,” 305.
26 G. Kantor, “Citizenships and Jurisdictions: The Greek City Perspective,” in Roman and Local Citizenship in the Long Second Century CE (ed. M. Lavan and C. Ando; New York, NY: Oxford University, 2021), 237.
27 Cicero, Flac. 69.
28 Ando and Lavan, Roman and Local Citizenship, 23.
29 J. Scheid, An Introduction to Roman Religion (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2003), 64.
30 Kantor, “Citizenships and Jurisdictions,” 237; Cf. IG Bulg IV 2265.
31 Pliny, Ep. 10.52-53.
32 Ando and Lavan, Roman and Local Citizenship, 26.
33 Ando, “Local Citizenship and Civic Participation,” 55.
34 The colonies spread throughout Asia Minor showed a diversity of types and functions in the empire. Comama, Olbasa, and Parlais may have assisted in the pacifcation of the hill tribes in the area, and Pisidia was for the protection of the communication links as well. Cities in Cappadocia functioned as an essential source of legionary recruitment. See J. C. Mann, Legionary Recruitment and Veteran Settlement During the Principate (New York, NY: Routledge, 2018), 10, 44, 60; R.J. Sweetman, “100 Years of Solitude: Colonies in the First Century of Their Foundation,” in Roman Colonies in the First Century of Their Foundation (ed. R.J. Sweetman; Oxford, UK: Oxbow Books, 2011), 6.
35 Philo, Embassy. 20.132-34.
36 Josephus, Ant. 18.8.1.
37 Josephus, Ant. 19.6.3; See also Ritter, Judeans in the Roman Empire, 80.
38 H.I. Bell, “Anti-Semitism in Alexandria,” JRS 31 (1941) 1–2.
39 Ritter, Judeans in the Roman Empire, 10.
40 J.M.G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (Edinburgh, UK: T&T Clark, 1996), 276.
41 Ritter, Judeans in the Roman Empire, 131; See also Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 70.
42 Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 273.
43 Philo, Embassy. 25.162-65; See also Ritter, Judeans in the Roman Empire, 170.
(2025)
44 M. Niehoff, Philo on Jewish Identity and Culture, (TSAJ; Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 75–110.
45 Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.6.
46 Ritter, Judeans in the Roman Empire, 175.
47 Ritter, Judeans in the Roman Empire, 177.
48 Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.38; See also Ritter, Judeans in the Roman Empire, 174.
49 Ritter, Judeans in the Roman Empire, 65.
50 Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 261.
51 S. D. Fraade, “The Temple as a Marker of Jewish Identity Before and After 70 CE: The Role of the Holy Vessels in Rabbinic Memory and Imagination,” in Jewish Identities in Antiquity, ed. L. I. Levine and D. R. Schwartz, Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 130 (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 265.
52 Josephus, Ant 16.2.3. See also Ritter, Judeans in the Roman Empire, 218
53 Ritter, Judeans in the Roman Empire, 219–20.
54 Ritter, Judeans in the Roman Empire, 228.
55 Ritter, Judeans in the Roman Empire, 2.
56 C. Brélaz, “Experiencing Roman Citizenship in the Greek East during the Second Century CE: Local Contexts for a Global Phenomenon,” in Roman and Local Citizenship in the Long Second Century CE (ed. M. Lavan and C. Ando; New York, NY: Oxford University, 2021), 256.
Works Cited
Ando, Clifford 2023 “Empire, Status, and the Law.” American Journal of Legal History 63: 66–81.
2021 “Local Citizenship and Civic Participation in the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire.” Pages 39–64 in Civic Identity and Civic Participation in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. Edited by Cédric Brélaz and Els Rose. Vol. 37 of Cultural Encounters in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols Publishers.
2021 “Romans, Aliens, and Others in Dynamic Interaction.” Pages 285–311 in Roman and Local Citizenship in the Long Second Century CE. Edited by Myles Lavan and Clifford Ando. Oxford Studies in Early Empires. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Ando, Clifford, and Myles Lavan
2021 Roman and Local Citizenship in the Long Second Century CE. Edited by Myles Lavan and Clifford Ando. Oxford Studies in Early Empires. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Barclay, John M. G.
1996 Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan. Edinburgh, UK: T&T Clark.
Bell, H. I.
1941 “Anti-Semitism in Alexandria.” The Journal of Roman Studies 31: 1–18.
Brélaz, Cédric
2021 “Experiencing Roman Citizenship in the Greek East during the Second Century CE: Local Contexts for a Global Phenomenon.” Pages 255–81 in Roman and Local Citizenship in the Long Second Century CE. Edited by Myles Lavan and Clifford Ando. Oxford Studies in Early Empires. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Bryen, Ari Z.
2021 “Citizenship and Its Alternatives: A View from the East.” Pages 41–68 in Roman and Local Citizenship in the Long Second Century CE. Edited by Myles Lavan and Clifford Ando. Oxford Studies in Early Empires. New York. NY: Oxford University Press.
Cancik, Hubert, Helmuth Schneider, Christine F. Salazar, and David E. Orton, eds.
2002 Brill’s New Pauly: Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World Antiquity. English ed. Vol. 1. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.
Cicero, Marcus Tullius
1977 Cicero X: Pro Flacco. Translated by C. Macdonald. The Loeb Classical Library 324. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
2016 On Duties. Translated by Benjamin Patrick Newton. London, UK: Cornell University Press.
2012 On the Commonwealth and On the Laws. Edited and translated by James E. G. Zetzel. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Danker, Frederick W.
2000 A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
Dio, Cassius
1970 Dio’s Roman History. Edited by G. P. Goold. Translated by Earnest Cary. Vol. VI of Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Elliott, John H.
2000 1 Peter: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible 37B. New York, NY: Doubleday.
1990 A Home for the Homeless: A Social-Scientifc Criticism of 1 Peter, Its Situation and Strategy. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.
Fraade, Steven D.
2009 “The Temple as a Marker of Jewish Identity Before and After 70 CE: The Role of the Holy Vessels in Rabbinic Memory and Imagination.” Jewish Identities in Antiquity. Edited by Lee I. Levine and Daniel R. Schwartz. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 130. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck.
Horrell, David G.
2013 Becoming Christian: Essays on 1 Peter and the Making of Christian Identity. Vol. 394 of Library of New Testament Studies. London, UK: Bloomsbury T&T Clark.
Jobes, Karen H.
2005 1 Peter. BECNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
Josephus, Flavius
1998 Against Apion. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
1998 Jewish Antiquities. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kantor, Georgy
2021 “Citizenships and Jurisdictions: The Greek City Perspective.” Pages 231–54 in Roman and Local Citizenship in the Long Second Century CE. Edited by Myles Lavan and Clifford Ando. Oxford Studies in Early Empires. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Niehoff, Maren
2001 Philo on Jewish Identity and Culture. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 86. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck.
Philo of Alexandria
2008 “On the Embassy to Gaius.” The Works of Philo Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.
Pliny, the Younger 2006 Pliny the Younger Complete Letters. Translated by P.G. Walsh. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Reese, Ruth Anne 2022 1 Peter. NCBC. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Ritter, Bradley 2015 Judeans in the Greek Cities of the Roman Empire: Rights, Citizenship and Civil Discord. Vol. 170 of Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.
Scheid, John 2003 An Introduction to Roman Religion. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Verboven, Koen 2011 “Resident Aliens and Translocal Merchant Collegia in the Roman Empire.” Pages 335–48 in Frontiers in the Roman World. Edited by Olivier Hekster and Ted Kaizer. Vol. 13 of Impact of Empire. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.
Williams, Travis B. and Horrell, David G. 2023 1 Peter. ICC. London, UK: T&T Clark.
Winter, Bruce W.
1994 Seek the Welfare of the City: Christians as Benefactors and Citizens. First-Century Christians in the GraecoRoman World. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Witherington, Ben 2007 Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians. Vol. 1. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.
The Asbury Journal 80/2: 428-441
© 2025 Asbury Theological Seminary
DOI: 10.7252/Journal.02.2025F.07
Don Thorsen
Blessed Be the Holiness Tie that Binds
Abstract:
Too many Christians—including those in the Wesleyan and Holiness traditions—incorrectly think that holiness is no longer relevant in the world today. How wrong they are! Despite caricatures that people have, biblical holiness binds Christians together in effective ministry to an increasingly challenged and hurting world, because of the wholeness it brings—physically as well as spiritually, and socially as well as individually. It is the glue that holds together so much diversity among Christians, churches, and organizations for the sake of holiness, biblically conceived and holistically applied.
Key Words: holiness, fellowship, Christian unity, community building, holistic ministry
Don Thorsen, Ph.D., is Professor of Theology in the Seminary at Azusa Pacifc University, where he has taught for thirty-seven years. Thorsen has published more than twenty books, and he has lectured and preached in more than ffteen countries. Thorsen actively participates in the Wesleyan Theological Society, Wesleyan Holiness Connection, and Aldersgate Press. Email: dthorsen@apu.edu
Many of us remember the wonderful words of the gospel hymn: “Blessed Be the Tie that Binds.” The opening stanza of the hymn says:
“Blessed be the tie that binds Our hearts in Christian love; The fellowship of kindred minds Is like to that above.”1
Much binds us together as Christians: love, fellowship, and kindred minds amongst one another. These characteristics embody the love of God, the fellowship of God, and the mind of God from which we beneft as believers in Jesus Christ as our savior and lord.
Biblical teaching about holiness also serves to bind Christians together with God as well as with one another. Intimacy with God becomes manifest through dedicated discipleship, the “fruit” of God’s Holy Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23), and growing maturity in Christlikeness. Thus, holiness binds us together with God as well as with one another in our lives, in our churches, and in our various ministries and religious institutions.
When I frst began teaching theology in the Seminary at Azusa Pacifc University more than thirty years ago, I appreciated its longstanding history of training Christians for ministry. The original name of the University was the Training School for Christian Workers, which was a common name for institutions of higher education at the turn of the 20th century. Quakers were among the noteworthy leaders of the school, but so also were Methodists, Presbyterians, and Congregationalists. What bound them together? Arguably, all of them affrmed the importance of holiness of heart and life, refective of the 19th century Holiness Movement. Holiness served as the “glue,” so to speak, that held Christians together—those who were committed to spreading biblical holiness around the world in ways that were tangible and evangelistic, socially responsible and community building.
Over time, the Wesleyan and Holiness emphases of Azusa Pacifc University continued to shape its mission. An example of that infuence can be found in the University’s Statement of Faith, which includes both theological affrmations and “Daily Living Expectations.” It is not enough to have “right beliefs” as John Wesley said; it is also important to have right actions.2 Such actions include the proclamation of the gospel as well as a working faith in God’s promises for all needs and daily life situations, and also for a lifestyle dedicated to God’s will in society. If you look at most
statements of faith published by churches and Christian universities, notice that they focus narrowly on right beliefs. However, Holiness Christians know that talk is cheap and that love for God manifests tangibly in love for one’s neighbor as for oneself. Such love includes care for others physically as well as spiritually, and socially as well as individually.
Too many Christians—including those in the Holiness tradition— incorrectly think that holiness is no longer relevant in the world today. How wrong they are! Why do they have this misconception? Do they have such a narrowly pietistic view of holiness that they think it represents spiritual navel-gazing? Have they been hurt by legalistic Christians who project their perfectionistic anxieties on to others? Do they think that holy living produces Christians who are so heavenly minded that they are of no earthly good? Have they failed to live up to their self-expectations (or to the expectations of others), leaving them spiritually frustrated? Do they feel the need to conform to a perceived majority view of Christian prosperity—fnancially, healthily, and politically—that holiness emphases do not promote?
What Is Holiness?
Keep in mind that holiness represents a principal attribute of God, if not the all-encompassing description of God’s nature (Is. 6:3; Rev. 4:8). God continuously calls people to holy living, that is, to live like Jesus Christ, through the presence and enabling grace of the Holy Spirit (Lev. 11:44; 1 Pet. 1:16). So, what does it mean to live like Jesus? Living like Jesus means that Christians ought to care for the poor as well as to proclaim the gospel (Luke 4:14-21). It means that they ought to advocate against the causes of injustice as well as to minister compassionately in aid of those unjustly treated (Matt. 5:6, 23:23; Mark 2:17; John 2:13-22).
Holiness means being separate from the world (Deut. 7:6; Lev. 20:7-8) and being like God (Lev. 19:2; 1 Pet. 2:9-12). Christians should grow in holiness (Rom. 12:1-2; 1 Thess. 5:23-24), which occurs through the sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit (2 Thess. 2:13; Rom. 15:16). Holiness has ethical implications, both for personal and social dimensions of life. Personally, holiness involves shunning practices that defle (Lev. 18:1-3; 1 Tim. 5:22) and obedience to God’s law (Lev. 20:7-8; 1 Pet. 1:22). Socially, holiness involves caring for the disadvantaged (Lev. 19:9-10; 1 Tim. 5:34), concern for truth and justice (Lev. 19:15-16; Luke 18:1-8), and loving one’s neighbor as oneself (Lev. 19:18; Mark 12:28-31). Certainly, holiness
conveys a holistic meaning that brings divine restoration and transformation both for people and for society.
Historically, Wesley cared for the poor as well as preached revival in Great Britain. For example, he advocated for prison reform and the abolition of slavery.3 During the 18th century, people cried out for help for their personal spiritual needs and also for the physical needs of society, and Wesley responded to all of their heart-cries. Similarly, Holiness denominations came into existence in the United States during the 19th century, and they sought to overturn chattel slavery, class discrimination in church policies, and intemperate alcoholism. These were social challenges at the time, and Holiness Christians ministered to those challenges along with spiritual challenges that people had. Wesley, Methodism, and the Holiness Movement succeeded not just because they preached and taught about holiness. They also embodied a holiness that wholly ministered to the daily challenges that people faced medically, institutionally, and politically as well as religiously. If Christians today want a holistic way to minister relevantly to the needs of people, then the message of holiness handed down to us from Wesley and others is as powerful as ever.
Despite caricatures that people sometimes have, holiness binds Christians together in effective ministry to an increasingly challenged and hurting world, because of the wholeness it brings—physically as well as spiritually, and socially as well as individually. I will talk about the relevance of biblical holiness today, frst, by talking about its past effectiveness. Second, I will talk about current manifestations of the Holiness tradition that holistically minister to people. Finally, I will talk about what Holiness Christians and churches need to do in the future if they want to demonstrate love to a world that is troubled, divided, and increasingly looks to anyone but God for help.
Past Holiness
Wesley was an evangelical revivalist, and yet his ministry was holistic, caring for all the daily needs of people. He did not focus narrowly on people’s spiritual wellbeing, without ministering simultaneously to their physical and social needs. Somehow Christians have come to believe that, if they care for people’s eternal wellbeing, then the rest will take care of itself, or that social sufferings do not matter, or that it is up to God and not Christians to care for more than people’s eternal life. As important as eternal
life is, Wesley did not divide people’s individual and spiritual wellbeing from their social and physical wellbeing. He created schools for the poor, orphanages for abandoned children, and short-term loans for fnancially down-and-out adults.4 Wesley succeeded in ministry, in part, because he did not bifurcate the lives of people, separating their spiritual selves from their physical selves. People are whole individuals, consisting of a heart, soul, mind, and strength as well as of a body and soul, or of a body, soul, and spirit. People responded to Wesley because he cared for them holistically, and not just for evangelistic or pietistic reasons.
What made Wesley so successful? There are many reasons, of course, as to why he succeeded in ministering and in founding Methodism, and why Wesleyanism continues to infuence people today. Many have written books and preached sermons about why he succeeded. In my opinion, Wesley succeeded largely because he listened to the needs of people. He did not just project on them teachings of scripture or Methodism, as invaluable as they are. Instead, Wesley listened to people and realized that their needs were not entirely spiritual. They had spiritual needs, of course, and Wesley ministered to them. People also had relational needs, vocational needs, fnancial needs, and social needs. In order to love his neighbor as himself, Wesley ministered to all the needs of people. He did not consider it a waste of time or a waste of Christian love to minister to their holistic needs—needs that they communicated to Wesley on a daily basis, which related to the diverse needs they had.
Methodism was a grassroots movement. That is, Wesley ministered extensively to the poorer classes, where the majority of people lived, as well as to others who were not poor. He listened to the needs of the poor— to their problems, confusions, and concerns. They needed spiritual help, yes. They also needed help in fnding jobs, earning enough money to feed and clothe their children, and to deal with health and educational needs so often beyond their fnancial means. Wesley helped in meeting these worldly needs as well as in meeting people’s otherworldly needs. Like Jesus, Wesley earned the respect of people for providing holistic help for their lives, and not just platitudes of thoughts and prayers.
The American Holiness Movement cut its teeth on social activism along with its concern for holiness of heart and life. The Wesleyan Church was abolitionist; Free Methodism opposed private pews for the wealthy; and the Salvation Army—in both Great Britain and the United States—provided exemplary advocacy for the poor, for the hungry, for single mothers, for
alcoholics, for the jobless, and for the mentally challenged. Salvationists continue to inspire people around the world with their servant leadership in ministering to the holistic needs of people, especially for the neediest people in society.
Like Wesley and Methodism, the Holiness Movement started out among the common people, rather than among the rich, powerful, and educated members of society. Often ministering on the fringes of denominational acceptability, Holiness churches appealed widely to marginalized people. It is not because they promoted a Christianity that promised happiness in the sweet by-and-by. On the contrary, Holiness churches promoted social consciousness and activism as well as preaching and discipleship that met the holistic needs of people. They compassionately ministered to the effects of impoverishment, while at the same time advocating against some of the greatest social ills of the time, for example, slavery and alcoholism.
Pentecostalism built on the ministries of Wesley and the Holiness Movement, emphasizing the person and empowerment of the Holy Spirit. Charismatic leaders such as William Seymour, Charles Mason, and Aimee Semple McPherson preached Holy Spirit baptism and the empowering of spiritual gifts. Pentecostalism became one of the most inclusive movements in church history, as evidenced by the three aforementioned leaders. Seymour and Mason were black pastors, and McPherson was a female evangelist. Pentecostals welcomed black as well as white Christians, and women as well as men in the highest levels of church leadership. Certainly, they embodied the catholic spirit (or inclusive emphasis), championed by Wesley, helping to overcome racial, ethnic, and sexual divisions within churches.5 Pentecostals continue to give leadership throughout the world in binding people together as Christians, and holiness often serves as the glue in holding together a diverse group of believers culturally, linguistically, and nationally.
Pentecostal Christians positively appealed to those people who were marginalized and neglected in society. Practicing Pentecostals were themselves often cast out of existing denominations, which resulted in the widespread establishment of new church congregations. They had no other choice. Pentecostalism spread quickly around the world, in part, because of their promotion of healing and empowerment for the spiritual gifts.6 Predominantly powerless people—inside and outside the United States—found ways to fourish by proclaiming the continuous presence and
(2025)
works of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit justifed as well as sanctifed the lives of believers, who then assisted the holistic needs of people with whom they came into contact. Pentecostals ministered on behalf of all people, empowering believers to serve regardless of their race and ethnicity and of their sex and class.
Present Holiness
Since 1867, the Christian Holiness Partnership (CHP) gathered together Christians and churches that promoted holiness. Originally known as the National Camp Meeting Association for Christian Holiness, it later became the National Holiness Association before becoming the CHP. In addition to supporting denominations, missionary agencies, publishers, and individuals, leaders of the CHP formed the Wesleyan Theological Society, which is an academic organization that fourishes today. At the end of the 20th century, however, the CHP ceased meeting annually.
At the turn of the 21st century, the most vital gathering of holiness Christians occurred in the biennial conferences sponsored by the Wesleyan Holiness Women Clergy (WHWC). Founded in 1989 by Susie Stanley, the WHWC brought together women and men in the Holiness tradition to support ministers, especially women clergy, and to promote Holiness beliefs and values.
In 2006, the Wesleyan Holiness Connection (originally known as the Wesleyan Holiness Consortium) took up the mantle of gathering holiness denominations, publishers, and related institutions. Founded initially as a study group in 2002 by Kevin Mannoia, the Wesleyan Holiness Connection (WHC) expanded in multiple ways, eventually partnering with the Wesleyan Holiness Women Clergy. In addition to holiness Christians, the WHC included United Methodist participants, who had not historically met with the Christian Holiness Partnership. Moreover, the WHC included Pentecostal denominations because of the family resemblance shared by their church traditions. What bound them together? Again, holiness served as the glue that brought kindred spirits together for the sake of cooperation in ministries as well as for shared beliefs and values.
Important Christian statements were created in order to update the message of holiness in the 21st century. Most notably they wrote “The Holiness Manifesto,” which talks about biblical holiness in contemporary terms.7 Also signifcant was “Fresh Eyes on Holiness: Living Out the Holiness Manifesto,” which provides practical applications of holiness beliefs and
values.8 In affrmation of these emphases, more than a dozen denominations joined together— evangelical and mainline, Pentecostal and historically black churches. In addition to these denominations, dozens of Christian colleges, universities, and seminaries joined for cooperation in various academic as well as church initiatives. Other Christian organizations, such as Seedbed, also collaborated with the WHC.
The Wesleyan Holiness Connection ties together regional networks of Holiness Christians and churches around the country, and indeed around the world. They hold annual conferences, for example, that promote Holiness emphases relevant to people in their respective social locations. In addition, a variety of Affnity Groups were established. For example, there is a Freedom Network, External Affairs Network, Chief Operating Offcers Network, and Presidents Network. The Affnity Groups serve to meet reallife needs of Holiness leaders, which respond to the questions and concerns of those involved.9
Perhaps most distinctively, the Wesleyan Holiness Connection comments on challenging issues confronting the world today, which Christians in general and Christian leaders in particular are often hesitant to address. For example, the WHC provides resources on the following current affairs: A Call to Full Participation - Women in the Wesleyan Holiness Tradition, A Guide for Public Engagement, Statement on DACA, After Charlottesville BIGOTRY DENOUNCED, Gracefully Engaging the LGBT Conversation, AB294J: Further Engagement on the LGBTQ Discussion, and Immigration, A High Calling.10
In addition to the aforementioned resources, the Wesleyan Holiness Connection provides a New Article Archives. Sample articles include: After Minneapolis, COVID – A Reorienting Moment, Graceful Engagement Instead of Resistance, Freedom!, You Are Wonderfully Made, Wordless Signs, and Life and Death Choices.11 These statements are invaluable, both because they are up-to-date in relationship to contemporary issues, and because they provide viewpoints commensurate with holiness beliefs and values.
No doubt, many will disagree with the views that are written. However, at least the Wesleyan Holiness Connection responds to the heartcries of people in society today. Some statements deal with personal issues, and some of them deal with societal issues. In order to be relevant to the world today, Christians must be willing to investigate and comment on all questions raised by people, and not just the ones that make you comfortable
or are clearly addressed by scripture. Sometimes Christians must leave their comfort zone in order to talk to the questions and concerns that people have that are not directly mentioned in scripture. Instead, they must look for principles that apply to the multicultural, multiracial, multilinguistic, and multinational challenges that we face today.
Future Holiness
If Holiness Christians want to minister effectively today, then they need to listen to those whom they want to serve. They need to listen to God and scripture, of course, along with other priorities emphasized by Christians throughout the centuries, especially those as found in the Wesleyan and Holiness traditions. However, the latter listening should not preclude the former listening. Wesley and his followers were effective, in large part, because they listened to the heart-cries of people. Then they ministered to all people’s needs, even if they did not seem overtly spiritual, caring for the daily physical and social needs that people have. When I think today of young people, in particular, their concerns are not about debates over baptism or the orthodox view of the atonement. On the contrary, they want to know if Christians believe that “black lives matter,” or conversely that “black lives do not matter.” (Correspondingly, do the so-called “brown lives” of Hispanics, Asians, and Native American Indians matter as much as the “blue lives” of police and “camoufaged lives” of the military?) Young people want to know if Christians believe that all people—women as well as men—are created equally in God’s image and have equal opportunity to lead others, or conversely if women are neglected or marginalized, despite patronizing assurances to the contrary. Young people want to know if Christians consider the sins of premarital sex, adulterous sex, and multiple marriages and remarriages as being comparable to LGBT sex, or conversely that only LGBT sex is condemned in churches and discriminated against legislatively. Young people want to know if Christians accept the empirical fndings of scientists, doctors, and climatologists, or conversely if they blithely reject science, medicine, and creation care for the sake of fnancial proft or ideological advantage. Young people want to know if they can talk openly and honestly about evolution and its contributions scientifcally and medically, or conversely if they have to deny its validity and affrm some version of young-earth creationism. Young people want to know if Christians impartially denounce the sins of
political leaders, or conversely if they hypocritically give a free pass to their preferred political parties and politicians.
Not just young people want to know about how Christians and churches view such issues. Old (or older) people—like me—want to know as well. If churches are unresponsive to the immediate and sometime dire needs of people, then people will become unresponsive to and unsupportive of churches. Let us consider the COVID-19 pandemic, named after the coronavirus of 2019. Many Christians considered it a hoax; they called it fearmongering by an unfettered press, ivory-tower experts, or deep-state political conspiracy. So, many of them did nothing, denying the importance of the millions of people infected and of the thousands of people dying from the pandemic. They even condemned the wearing of masks, social distancing, and eventually vaccinations as political correctness. Appeals were made to prayer and miracles, rather than also appealing to medical recommendations and national strategies for dealing with the infectious disease. However, at what cost was their scientifc and medical denial?12 In addition to the infections and deaths, did not countless people recognize the narrow-mindedness and/or mean-spiritedness of churches who refused to talk about COVID-19, much less respond to it healthily and strategically? Certainly not all Christians agree about the nature and resolution of these social issues. I would not expect it. The problem, however, is not that Christians disagree. The problem is that Christians will not even talk about them, at least, not in ways that are public, civil, and constructive. Discussions will certainly occur privately, and so why not talk about them publicly? Might some be offended? Yes. Might some be frightened? Yes. Might some church leaders’ authority be challenged? Yes, I have little doubt of it. However, is church a place where our beliefs and values should be hiding under a basket? No. I realize that I am asking a diffcult task for churches and church leaders to undertake, but to do nothing makes both Christianity and churches irrelevant. If people cannot have honest and civil conversations about real-life issues in churches, then they will simply go elsewhere. They will vote with their feet, so to speak, leaving the church in order to fnd conversation, information, and guidance elsewhere. When I was a teenager, church leaders warned us not to ask too many questions. During the 1960s, I asked questions about movies, dancing, dating, sex, abortion, drugs, Vietnam War, and nuclear annihilation (MAD = Mutually Assured Destruction). Asking questions at church, however, was neither appreciated nor encouraged. Asking questions, I was told,
was a sign of religious doubt. I was further warned that no one wanted to be a doubter! So, I took my questions elsewhere. The church was not a welcoming place to ask questions, to have serious conversations about life-and-death issues, and to learn about how I should live. Instead, I turned to non-church contexts in which to ask questions, discuss tough life issues, and learn from their beliefs and values. What a waste it was, however, when churches spurned people at crucial times in their lives, lest inconvenient or uncomfortable conversations ensue.
It is no wonder that church attendance, at least, in the United States has been decreasing for decades. Churches have increasingly made themselves irrelevant to the real-life questions and concerns that people have. Evangelically oriented Christians have for decades pointed fngers accusingly at the decline of attendance in mainline churches. However, they have simultaneously perpetuated the myth that evangelical churches have not been on the decline. According to the Pew Research Forum, however, evangelical church attendance has been on the decline since 1994, despite triumphalist claims to the contrary by evangelical pastors and pundits.13 Moreover, national polls increasingly suggest that more adults claim to be religiously unaffliated (the so-called “nones,” who claim no church affliation) than those who claim to be evangelical.14 Denial of the facts, moreover, does not change the reality of overall church decline among all churches in the United States, including evangelical church attendance.
If we want people today to see the church as relevant and as a desirable place to go to learn up-to-date information, discuss openly lifeand-death issues, and make wise decisions about daily concerns, then we must be in dialogue with people as much as we are in dialogue with scripture and church traditions. How can we love our neighbor if we are not as willing to listen to them, as we want them to listen to us? If we know that our personal needs are physical and social as well as spiritual and individual, then how can we—without being hypocritical—minister holistically to others without considering such issues? How can we meet their wide-ranging needs, if we only want to talk about individual spiritual needs?
The website of the Wesleyan Holiness Connection represents an example of responding empathetically as well as biblically to contemporary issues for which people—young and old—are concerned. There may not be as many issues addressed as is necessary, and the statements may need regular updating. However, the position statements make a whole-hearted
attempt at being relevant, responsible, and restorative. It is not easy, of course, to raise such volatile issues, and church leaders know this as well as anyone. Churches cannot ignore such issues, nonetheless, if they want to love their neighbors as themselves. If churches and the Christians who lead and attend them cannot deal with all the challenges that people face in life, then how do they expect to fulfll the whole gospel of Jesus Christ?
Final Thoughts
In the Gospel of Mark, we read the story about blind Bartimaeus who cried out for help when he heard that Jesus was near him. In response to Bartimaeus’s heart-cry, Jesus asked him, “What do you want me to do for you?” (Mark 10:51). Jesus did not presume to know what Bartimaeus wanted, nor was he put off when Bartimaeus asked for medical and physical help rather than eternal and spiritual help. What did Jesus do in response? Jesus healed him, and thereafter the Gospel says that Bartimaeus “followed him” (Mark 10:52). By responding to Bartimaeus’s immediate needs, Jesus set the stage for meeting all the needs that Bartimaeus had.
Are we more concerned about proclaiming and discipling than about listening and healing? I am a big fan of proclaiming and discipling, but I am also a big fan of listening and healing. Frankly, churches need to do more of the latter if they want to minister empathetically and effectively to a world that is slowly losing confdence in churches, Christians, and also God.
I think that, historically speaking, Wesley and Methodist, Holiness, and Pentecostal churches have been effective in listening and ministering to the holistic needs of people, which continue to make their traditions of Christianity relevant today. We have not always been perfect, however, even while manifesting good listening skills and in trying to provide for all that people need. Of course, we still need to proclaim the gospel message of Jesus Christ to them. However, I do not think that the gospel message only has to do with spiritual matters. It also has to do with physical, medical, economic, political, and justice matters. The gospel message, as found in scripture, is far more holistic and far more healing of the hurts of people— spiritually and physically, individually and socially.
Holiness can be a tie that binds together kindred hearts and souls and minds and strengths in demonstrating love to others as well as to God and to ourselves. It is the glue that holds together so much diversity among Christians, churches, and organizations for the sake of holiness, biblically
(2025)
conceived and holistically applied. Holiness Christians can again take leadership in promoting empathetic listening that meets the immediate needs and questions that people have. We may not be perfect in our interactions with them, but God’s Spirit graciously aids us in loving others in ways that produce abundant life, both for now as well as for eternity.
End Notes:
1 John Fawcett, “Blest Be the Tie that Binds,” 1782, Hymnary.org, website, accessed November 6, 2024, https://hymnary.org/text/blest_be_ the_tie_that_binds.
2 John Wesley believed that love for neighbor “continually incites us to do good, as we have time and opportunity; to do good, in every possible kind, and in every possible degree, to all men”; see “The Law Established through Faith, II,” sermon 36, The Works of John Wesley, vol. 2, III.3, ed. Albert C. Outler, Bicentennial Edition (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1985), 42.
3 With regard to prison reform, John Wesley commended John Howard’s work in prison reform, for example, calling Howard an “extraordinary man…one of the greatest men in Europe”; see letter “To Walter Churchey,” June 20, 1789, The Letters of John Wesley, ed. John Telford, Wesley Center online, accessed November 6, 2024, https://wesley. nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-letters-of-john-wesley/wesleys-letters-1789a/ With regard to slavery reform, Wesley famously wrote to the abolitionist William Wilberforce, encouraging his reform efforts; see letter “To William Wilberforce,” February 24, 1791, The Letters of John Wesley, ed. John Telford, Wesley Center Online, accessed November 6, 2024, https://wesley. nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-letters-of-john-wesley/wesleys-letters-1791/.
4 For example, see Manfred Marquardt, John Wesley’s Social Ethics: Praxis and Principles, frst published in German in 1976 (Nashville: Abingdon, 1992); Theodore W. Jennings, Jr., Good News to the Poor: John Wesley’s Evangelical Economics (Nashville: Abingdon, 1990); and Irv A. Brendlinger, Social Justice through the Eyes of Wesley: John Wesley’s Theological Challenge to Slavery (Charlottesville, VA: Sola Scriptura Ministries International, 2006).
5 In order to understand the family resemblance between Wesleyan, Holiness, and Pentecostal Christians, see Donald W. Dayton, Theological Roots of Pentecostalism (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1987).
6 For example, see Paul Alexander, Signs and Wonders: Why Pentecostalism Is the World’s Fastest Growing Faith (Hoboken, NJ: JosseyBass, 2009).
7 Kevin Mannoia and Don Thorsen, eds., The Holiness Manifesto (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 18-21.
8 Mannoia and Thorsen, 22-25.
9 Wesleyan Holiness Connection, Website, Resources, accessed November 7, 2024, https://holinessandunity.org/resources/documents/.
10 Wesleyan Holiness Connection, Website, Document Library, accessed November 8, 2024, https://holinessandunity.org/resources/ documents/.
11 Wesleyan Holiness Connection, Website, Food for Thought, accessed November 7, 2024, https://holinessandunity.org/resources/foodfor-thought/.
12 The National Institutes of Health (NIH) “estimated that at least 232,000 deaths could have been prevented among unvaccinated adults during the 15 months [May 30, 2021-September 3, 2022] had they been vaccinated with at least a primary series”; see Katherine M. Jia, et al., “Estimated Preventable COVID-19-Associated Deaths Due to NonVaccination in the United States,” NIH, National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, website, April 4, 2023, accessed November 7, 2024, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37093505/.
13 “In U.S., Decline of Christianity Continues at Rapid Pace: An Update on America’s Changing Religious Landscape,” Pew Research Center, Report, October 17, 2019, accessed November 7, 2024, https:// www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianitycontinues-at-rapid-pace/.
14 “Religious ‘Nones’ in America: Who They Are and What They Believe: A Closer Look at How Atheists, Agnostics and Those Who Describe Their Religion as ‘Nothing in Particular’ See God, Religion, Morality, Science and More,” Pew Research Center, Report, January 24, 2024, accessed November 7, 2024, https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2024/01/24/ religious-nones-in-america-who-they-are-and-what-they-believe/.
The Asbury Journal 80/2: 442-486
© 2025 Asbury Theological Seminary
DOI: 10.7252/Journal.02.2025F.08
Laurence W. Wood
John Wesley’s Mission of Spreading Scriptural Holiness: A Case Study in World Mission and Evangelism
Abstract:
This paper traces a narrow slice of the larger developing story of how John Wesley arrived at his distinction between justifying faith and full sanctifying grace. It covers other voices that infuenced Wesley, including William Law, Peter Böhler, John Fletcher and others who helped shape his theology. It will also serve as a case study to show that the call to justifcation by faith and a subsequent experience of sanctifcation by faith became the theme of his evangelistic preaching. This paper will conclude with some observations about the importance of Wesley’s holiness message for the founding of Asbury Theological Seminary and the E. Stanley Jones School of World Mission and Evangelism through the experience of H.C. Morrison and E. Stanley Jones.
Keywords: holiness, Christian perfection, sanctifcation, John Wesley, Charles Wesley
Laurence W. Wood served as the Frank Paul Morris Professor of Systematic Theology/Wesley Studies at Asbury Theological Seminary and is currently retired. He has written a number of books including: Pentecost and Sanctifcation in the Writings of John Welsey and Charles Wesley: with a Proposal for Today (2018), The Certainty of Faith and the Probabilities of Salvation History: The Dialectic of Faith and History in Modern Theology (2017) and Wesley Theology for Today (2009).
Lord, if I on Thee believe, The Second Gift impart, With th’ Indwelling Spirit give A new, a loving Heart: If with Love Thy Heart is stor’d, If now o’er me Thy Bowels move, Help me, Saviour, speak the Word, And perfect me in Love.1
--Charles Wesley
Rejoice, rejoice ye Fallen Race, The Day of Pentecost is come! Expect the Sure-descending Grace, Open your Hearts to make him Room.
Assembled here with one Accord, Calmly we wait the Promis’d Grace, The Purchase of our Dying Lord — Come, Holy Ghost, and fll the Place!
Wisdom and Strength to Thee belongs, Sweetly within our Bosoms move, Now let us speak with Other Tongues The New, Strange Language of Thy Love. 2
--Charles Wesley
A manual of discipline, called The Large Minutes, was given to all Methodist preachers when they joined John Wesley’s annual conference, containing this explanation: “God’s design in raising up the people called ‘Methodists’” was “to spread scriptural holiness over the land.”3 This paper will trace a narrow slice of the larger developing story of how John Wesley arrived at his distinction between justifying faith and full sanctifying grace. It will also serve as a case study to show that the call to justifcation by faith and a subsequent experience of sanctifcation by faith became the theme of his evangelistic preaching. This paper will conclude with some observations about the importance of Wesley’s holiness message for the founding of Asbury Theological Seminary and the E. Stanley Jones School of World Mission and Evangelism through the experience of H.C. Morrison and E. Stanley Jones.
William Law, “A Parent” of Methodism
In December 17264 John Wesley read William Law’s book, A Practical Treatise upon Christian Perfection (1726). He and his brother
Charles literally consumed it, and it became their often-quoted textbook on holiness. John Wesley said that William Law “convinced me more than ever of the absolute impossibility of being half a Christian.”5 He came to understand “true religion [is]. . . God’s dwelling and reigning in the soul.” By religion, John Wesley meant the experience of holiness, and not a system of beliefs.6 Charles Wesley accepted his older brother’s guidance in theology, and he too read William Law’s book on perfection, admitting “all I knew of religion was through him [William Law].”7 Again, notice religion means holiness of heart and life, not doctrine.
In 1729 William Law recommended to those who were “desirous of perfection, should unite themselves into little societies” and engage in “voluntary poverty, virginity, retirement, and devotion, living upon bare necessaries.”8 It is likely that this recommendation inspired Charles Wesley the very same year to start a religious society of three persons. After serving as his father’s curate, John Wesley returned to Oxford in 1729 and organized this society around his leadership with Charles Wesley’s full approval.
William Law said that he had served “as a kind of oracle” to John Wesley, and John Wesley acknowledged that there was some truth to William Law being “a parent” of Methodism.9 Within a few months after his frst visit to William Law in July, 1732,10 John Wesley preached a sermon at St. Mary’s Church, Oxford University, entitled “Circumcision of Heart,” which was the mirror image of Law’s defnition of Christian perfection.11 Under the tutelage of William Law, the Wesley brothers believed that anything short of Christian perfection was only being a half-Christian which for them was actually not being a Christian at all. William Law continued to serve as a mentor to the Wesley brothers between 1732 and 1735. William Law once expressed the transparency of their relationship in a letter to John Wesley: “You sought my acquaintance, you came to me as you pleased, and on what occasions you pleased, and to say to me what you pleased.”12 Law also mentioned that “you have had a great many conversations with me.”13
The Wesley brothers sailed with Gen. James Oglethorpe to Georgia on October 14, 1735, on board the Simmonds 14 hoping that it would be the means of their own perfection. They had learned from Law there was no salvation for ourselves unless we are involved in saving others.15 This is why John Wesley said: “My chief motive [for going as a missionary to Georgia] . . . is the hope of saving my own soul. I hope to learn the true sense of the gospel of Christ by preaching it to the heathens.”16 When Wesley talked
about the need to save his own soul, he had not yet developed the timelapse between justifying faith and sanctifying grace. So when Wesley talked about being “saved” as a motive for being a missionary, he was using Law’s equation of Christian perfection with being “saved by putting off this old man and being renewed in holiness and purity of life.”17
Aboard the Simmons, William Law’s Treatise on Christian Perfection served as their textbook, which they frequently consulted and read to others on the ship.18 Because Law emphasized that Christian perfection was achieved through a “resolution to attend only to the one thing needful,”19 John Wesley often made spiritual resolutions on the ship.20 However, John Wesley’s confdence in William Law’s High Church liturgical doctrines and his will-mysticism was sorely tested when he met a Moravian group of immigrants from Herrnhut, Germany. In the midst of a life-threatening storm with water surging over the ship, John Wesley was terrifed, but he noticed that these Moravians were calm because they possessed a personal assurance of faith in God and were unafraid to die.21
The Wesley brothers arrived in Georgia on Feb. 5, 1736, and two days later John Wesley talked with a Moravian missionary, Augustus Spangenburg, who confronted him with the need to experience an assurance of a personal faith in Christ. John Wesley said that he had an opportunity from February 14, 1735, to December 2, 1737, to engage in conversation with the Moravians two and three times a day.
While returning to England, he again experienced a lifethreatening storm. John Wesley was terrifed, but resolved that he would begin preaching the doctrine of saving faith to everyone on board the ship.22 He said: “I was strongly convinced that . . . the gaining a true, living faith was the ‘one thing needful’ for me.”23 Here Wesley equated the Moravian understanding of “living faith” with William Law’s language of “one thing needful.” Law italicized this phrase nine times as a reference to Christian perfection,24 and John Wesley put it in quotation marks to indicate its specifc meaning. Wesley had earlier written a sermon in May, 1734 entitled, “One Thing Needful,” which is defned in the same way as William Law defned it: “to love the Lord his God with all his heart,” “the recovery of the image of God,” “to be made perfectly whole,” and “the most entire renovation of our nature.” “The one thing needful,” Wesley said, is “perfection” and “to love the Lord his God with all his heart, and soul, and mind, and strength.”25 He preached this sermon in Georgia, and Charles also preached it in Boston26 and other occasions.
John Wesley returned to England from Georgia on Feb. 1, 1738, and what had he learned about himself in the meantime? This will sound very unusual for a missionary to say: “I went to Georgia to convert the Indians, but Oh! who will convert me?”27 Again, it is important to recognize that the word “convert” was not a reference to justifying faith as distinct from full sanctifying grace because Wesley believed that being a Christian was being a full Christian wholly devoted to God, not a half-Christian. Wesley had already, at this point, equated Law’s idea of Christian perfection with the Moravian idea of a living faith, as Richard Heitzenrater has also pointed out.28
The Missing Ingredient in William Law—the Full Assurance of Faith
A week after his return from Georgia, John Wesley met the Moravian Peter Böhler who had just arrived in England from Herrnhut for a brief stay on his way as missionary to South Carolina. John Wesley noted in his diary: “God prepared [Peter Böhler] for me as soon as I came to London.”29 When Böhler told John Wesley that faith is “‘dominion over sin and constant peace from a sense of forgiveness’,” he “looked upon it as a new gospel.”30 What further astounded Wesley was the claim that the full assurance of faith could be received “instantaneously.” But when he turned his attention to the book of Acts, “to my utter astonishment, found scarce any instances there of other than instantaneous conversions” of individuals who were in an instant delivered “from sin and misery to righteousness and joy in the Holy Ghost.”31
The Wesley brothers replaced the ffty-two-year-old William Law with the twenty-six-year-old Peter Böhler as their mentor. Law had not been able to help them to break through the faith-barrier. Interestingly enough, John Wesley introduced Böhler to William Law, but this interview was not productive in bringing the two men together in a common understanding of how salvation is attained.32
In a letter to William Law on May 14, 1738, John Wesley complained that “for two years . . . I have been preaching after the model of your two practical treatises” without any success. John Wesley admitted that the only faith that he personally had up to that point was a “speculative, notional, airy shadow, which lives in the head, not in the heart.” Compared to the intellectual resolutions of will-mysticism of trying to be holy, John Wesley said to Law: “What is this to the living, justifying faith in the blood of Jesus? The faith that cleanseth from sin, that gives us to have free
access to the Father, to rejoice in hope of the glory of God, to have the love of God shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us; and the Spirit itself bearing witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God?”33 This letter shows that Wesley was disappointed that, while William Law had advised him on many occasions and had properly defned Christian perfection, he had failed to help him to know how to attain it as a personal experience. Now that he had met Peter Böhler, this letter shows that Wesley came to believe that “justifying faith” is the same as being “cleansed from sin” (Christian perfection), entailing freedom from fear and doubt, the full assurance of faith, and being cleansed from all sin in an instant moment of personal faith rather than through the protracted, ritualistic, and self-defeating process of perfection proposed in the willmysticism of William Law.34
On the very same day that John Wesley had written to William Law (May 14, 1738), he preached a sermon on “Salvation by Faith” at St. Ann’s Church on Aldersgate Street. 35 This was two weeks before his Aldersgate experience of personal faith. This sermon shows that John Wesley linked Law’s idea of Christian perfection with the Moravian concept of justifcation by faith, defning “justifcation” to mean “salvation from sin” and it frees believers from “from all their sins: from original and actual.” In agreement with William Law,36 John Wesley also equated being “born again of the Spirit” with Christian perfection and being cleansed from all sin,37 although John Wesley subsequently made a distinction between being born of God in the lower sense of justifying faith and being born of God in the highest sense of Christian perfection, and twenty-two years later John Wesley further limited the term of being born of God to the initial moment of justifying faith in 1760 with his sermon, “The New Birth.”38 However, Charles always continued in his hymns to equate being born of God and “the second birth” with Christian perfection, as Charles Wesley scholars like Earnest Rattenbury39 and John Tyson have also shown.40
The conversion experiences of Charles and John Wesley were initially assumed by them to be their moment of Christian perfection. The immediate self-interpretation of John Wesley’s own personal Aldersgate experience of faith was in terms of Christian perfection: “I have constant peace;--not one uneasy thought. And I have freedom from sin;--not one unholy desire.”41 When he was tempted to doubt, he felt reassured that he had a “true heart in full assurance of faith.”42
The self-understanding of Charles Wesley’s moment of justifying faith as entailing Christian perfection is confrmed in that he preached his brother‘s sermon, “Salvation by Faith” on September 3, 1738, which identifed justifcation with entire sanctifcation.43 It is also confrmed by the fact that he interpreted his moment of belief to be the coming of the Holy Spirit to take up his abode in his heart, and as John Tyson has shown, Charles Wesley’s “Hymns for Whitsunday” interpreted the Pentecostal sending of the Spirit as synonymous with Christian perfection.44 So when Charles and John Wesley were taught by Peter Böhler that justifcation is the full assurance of faith, it was only natural that they would flter their idea of Christian perfection through the notion of an instantaneous faith.
Two Sources of John Wesley’s Idea of Pentecostal Holiness
Richard Heitzenrater has pointed out that John Wesley’s sermons had a stronger pneumatological focus after his Aldersgate experience. 45 The reason for this new emphasis is not what he learned from Peter Böhler, but comes from two other sources—one an High Anglican source and one a Moravian source.
The High Anglican source was John Heylyn, the frst rector of St. Mary-le-Strand (1724–59) who became prebendary of Westminster Abbey (1743–59), a much-admired minister and theologian46 whose writings had already exercised a strong infuence on John Wesley when he was in Georgia.47 On Pentecost Sunday on May 21, 1738, which was three days before his Aldersgate experience, John Wesley with some friends “sang a hymn to the Holy Ghost” to Charles Wesley who was lying in a sick-bed. Afterwards, John Wesley went to hear Heylyn preach. John Wesley recorded in his journal that Heylyn did “preach a truly Christian sermon on ‘They were all flled with the Holy Ghost’—and so, said he, may all you be.”48
Because the curate was ill, Heylyn, who already knew John Wesley, asked him to assist in Holy Communion.
In this sermon on Pentecost Sunday (Acts 2:2-3), John Wesley heard Heylyn distinguish between pre-Pentecostal and Pentecostal believers. Heylyn said the sanctifying baptism of the Spirit transformed the disciples after Pentecost from weak to strong believers in Christ. This description is similar to the way that John Wesley was later to explain the weakness of the disciples prior to Pentecost because, Wesley said, the sanctifying Spirit had not yet descended on them at Pentecost.49 Heylyn directed his hearers “to be baptized with the Holy Ghost” through earnest prayer as the disciples
on the day of Pentecost. He said that a Christian believer is sanctifed through the “baptism with the Spirit,” “purging away . . . carnal desires,” producing “perfect purity.”50 As noted by John Wesley in his journal, Heylyn encouraged believers today to be flled with the Holy Spirit. He showed that Pentecost was not a single past event, but it marked the beginning of the very possibility of a personal Pentecost for all subsequent believers. Heylyn said believers only need to do today what the disciples did on the day of Pentecost—wait in prayer.
John Fletcher,51 who was Wesley’s designated successor, and Thomas Coke,52 who became Wesley’s right-hand assistant and bishop of American Methodism, cited extensively from this sermon as an explanation of the Methodist idea of Pentecostal holiness. What was missing in Heylyn’s sermon was an emphasis on the full assurance of faith that the Wesley brothers had learned from their Moravian friends.
At the same time John Wesley was listening to Heylyn’s Pentecost sermon, the bed-ridden Charles Wesley received his own personal Pentecost at the house of a Moravian layman, Mr. Bray. Charles Wesley had already learned from William Law that Christian perfection was “to “make us like himself, to fll us with his Spirit”53 and that the only way we can practice the perfect love of God was through being “full of the Spirit of Christ.”54 So when the Moravians talked about an instantaneous moment of justifying faith, it was understandable that the High Churchman Charles Wesley would link it to Christian perfection.
This is why he described his expectation of saving faith (from all sin) in reference to Jesus’ promise: “At nine my brother and some friends came, and sang an hymn to the Holy Ghost. My comfort and hope were hereby increased. In about half an hour they went: I betook myself to prayer; the substance as follows: ‘O Jesus, Thou hast said, ‘I will come unto you’; Thou hast said, ‘I will send the Comforter unto you’; Thou hast said, ‘My Father and I will come unto you, and make our abode with you.’ Thou art God who canst not lie; I wholly rely upon Thy most true promise: accomplish it in Thy time and manner.’”55 Immediately after this prayer, he heard a woman in the house speak, “Arise, and believe.” At that moment, he said: “I felt a strange . . . palpitation of heart. I said . . . ‘I believe, I believe.’”56 He described this experience to mean: “I now found myself at peace with God, and rejoiced in hope of loving Christ.”57
As John Wesley was leaving the church service following Heylyn’s Pentecost sermon, someone brought him “the surprising news, that my
brother had found rest to his soul.”58 Then the very next day, on May 22, 1738, Charles expressed the hope that his brother John would also have his personal Pentecost. Charles said: “My brother coming, we joined in intercession for him. In the midst of prayer, I almost believed the Holy Ghost was coming upon him.”59 Rather, it was two days later on May 24, 1738, that John Wesley “felt his heart strangely warmed” and believed. Both of these young men now believed that they had received Christian perfection through an instantaneous moment of the full assurance of faith.
John Wesley’s belief that he had received Christian perfection at Aldersgate was short-lived because two days later he experienced again the old feelings of doubt and fear. This is why he went to Herrnhut on June 13, 1738, for a visit hoping that “those holy men … would be a means, under God, of so stablishing my soul.”60
If William Law had taught John Wesley the meaning of Christian perfection and if Peter Bohler had taught him the instantaneous moment of faith’s assurance, it was another Moravian who taught him to see more clearly that sanctifying grace is subsequent in time to justifying faith. On August 3, 1738, John Wesley met a lay preacher at Herrnhut by the name of Christian David. Throughout the following week, John Wesley heard him preach multiple times and held extended conversations with him.61 John Wesley gave an extensive report in his journal of the teachings of Christian David showing that the distinction between justifying faith and being cleansed from all sin (full sanctifying grace) is patterned on the basis of the disciple’s pre-Pentecost and Pentecost experience. Christian David said the full assurance of faith comes through “the indwelling of the Spirit.” He said the pre-Pentecost disciples of Jesus lacked this full assurance, although they were justifed and forgiven before Pentecost. Because of the descent of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, Christian David said one can, like the disciples, be cleansed from all sin.62 The disciples’ experience is thus cited as a pattern for all subsequent believers. John Wesley recorded this important explanation. “The state the apostles were in from our Lord’s death (and indeed for some time before) till the descent of the Holy Ghost at the day of Pentecost” included a degree of faith. Christian David compared “being justifed” with the experience of the disciples of the earthly Jesus prior to Pentecost, whereas the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost meant they were “fully assured” and “cleansed from all sin.”63
John Wesley returned to England on September 16, 1738. Upon his return, he met that same evening with Charles. He had written Charles
from Herrnhut the day after his conversation with Christian David, and now he was able to give him a frst-hand report of what he had learned from the leaders of the Herrnhut community. For the frst time the Wesley brothers began to distinguish clearly between justifying faith and a subsequent experience of Christian perfection, using the pattern of the disciples’ experience before and after Pentecost as the basis of the distinction between justifcation and sanctifcation. This time-sensitive distinction between justifcation and sanctifcation was not an unnatural extension of their own Anglican theology, as refected in the Pentecost sermon of John Heylyn, as well as in the Anglican liturgical distinction between water baptism (based on Easter) and confrmation (based on Pentecost).
In his journal for October 14, 1738,64 and in a letter to his brother Samuel on October 30, 1738, Wesley explained that Christian perfection means being delivered from all fear and doubt, freed from all sin, the seal of the Spirit, the indwelling Spirit, and receiving the fullness of faith. He explained to his older brother Samuel that he was justifed (“accepted in the Beloved”) and sin no longer “reigned over me” as a result of his Aldersgate faith-experience but he did not yet “feel” God’s “love shed abroad in their hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto them’.”65 And hence he said that he was only a “Christian in that imperfect sense” because he did not have “the indwelling of the Spirit.”66
Three months later in his diary for January 25, 1739, he reported that he “baptized John Smith . . . and four other adults at Islington. Of the adults I have known baptized lately, one only was at that time born again, in the full sense of the word; that is, found a thorough, inward change, by the love of God flling her heart. Most of them were only born again in a lower sense; that is, received the remission of their sins. And some (as it has since too plainly appeared) neither in one sense nor the other.” This journal entry indicates that John Wesley was already learning what he believed to be scriptural—that a time-lapse normally occurs between justifcation and sanctifcation.
The frst time full sanctifying grace was ever defned in an explicit manner as subsequent in time to the moment of justifying faith appeared in the published works of John and Charles Wesley’s Hymns and Sacred Poems in 1739. One of the hymns was entitled “JustiFied but not SAnctiFied.”67 In their preface to the London edition of “Hymns and Sacred Poems” (1740), the Wesley brothers said “we know, a cloud of witnesses, who have received in one moment, either a clear sense of the forgiveness
of their sins, or the abiding witness of the Holy Spirit,” but they said they did not know “a single instance” where anyone ever received both at the same time—forgiveness of sins and the abiding witness of the Spirit (“a clean heart”).68
Immediately following this observation, the Wesley brothers explained their frst-ever understanding of the order of salvation describing the transition from justifcation to sanctifcation: “Indeed how God may work we cannot tell. But the general manner where he does work is this... Those who once trusted in themselves” and “see the wrath of God hanging over their heads” will “cry unto the Lord, and he shows he hath taken away their sins.” “Knowing they are justifed… they have peace with God.” Following this moment of justifcation, the Wesley brothers said “in this peace they remain for days, or weeks, or months, and commonly suppose they shall not know war any more, till some of their old enemies, their bosom sins, or, the sin which did most easily beset them (perhaps anger or desire) assault them again… Then arises fear… and often doubt… their sins were forgiven… Under these clouds… they go mourning all the day long… But it is seldom long before their Lord answers for himself, sending the Holy Ghost, to comfort them, to bear witness continually with their spirit, that they are the children of God.69 Being aware of “the depths of pride,” they “hunger… after a full renewal in his image, in ‘righteousness,’ and all true holiness. Then God… giveth them a single eye and a clean heart. He stamps upon them his own image and superscription. He createth them anew in Christ Jesus. He cometh unto them with his Son and blessed Spirit, and fxing his abode in their souls, bringeth them into the ‘rest which remaineth for the people of God’ [Christian perfection].”70
The identifcation of the Pentecost-bestowal of the Spirit with Christian perfection is affrmed in their hymns, using such phrases as, “The Spirit of Adoption,” “baptize me now with fre,” “O that the Comforter would come,” “Come, Holy Ghost, all Quick’ning fre,” “the indwelling Spirit,” etc. In his journal for Friday, September 26, 1750, Charles Wesley defned “Christian perfection, that is, utter dominion over sin; constant peace, and love, and joy in the Holy Ghost; the full assurance of faith, righteousness, and true holiness.”71 He once said to John Fletcher: “Christian perfection is nothing but the full kingdom in the Holy Ghost.”72
In a hymn in the London, 1740, edition, entitled “Groaning for the Spirit of Adoption,” John and Charles Wesley identifed the Pentecostbestowal of the Spirit of adoption with Christian perfection:
O that the Comforter would come, Nor visit, as a transient Guest, But fx in me His constant Home, And take Possession of my Breast, And make my Soul his lov’d Abode, The Temple of Indwelling God.
Come, Holy Ghost, my Heart inspire, Attest that I am born again! Come, and baptize me now with Fire, Or all Thy former Gifts are vain. I cannot rest in Sin Forgiven; Where is the Earnest of my Heaven!
Where Thy Indubitable Seal
That ascertains the Kingdom mine, The Powerful stamp I long to feel, The Signature of Love Divine: O shed it in my Heart abroad, Fulness of Love,—of Heaven—of God!73
John Wesley also explained this Pentecostal basis of holiness as distinct from justifcation in his debate with Zinzendorf on September 3, 1741 at Gray’s Walk Inn in London when he argued that there was a difference between the justifying faith of the disciples before Pentecost and their entire sanctifcation after Pentecost when they were flled with the Holy Spirit.74 His point was the justifying faith of the disciples before Pentecost and the entire sanctifcation after Pentecost is a pattern for believers for all times.
In 1741, he wrote his sermon on “Christian Perfection” containing some of the same emphases found in John Heylyn’s Pentecost sermon and in the soteriology of Christian David. John Wesley said the possibility of being cleansed from all sin and made perfect in love became a possibility for the world only when the Holy Spirit descended on the disciples on the day of Pentecost. Like John Heylyn, John Wesley explained “the wide difference” between a pre-Pentecost and Pentecost experience in terms of sanctifying grace.75
Attached to this sermon is the hymn by Charles Wesley, “The Promise of Sanctifcation,” which highlights the instantaneous sanctifying work of the Spirit of Pentecost to occur “now.” Here are two verses:
(2025)
Thy sanctifying Spirit pour To quench my Thirst, and wash me clean: Now, Father, let the Gracious Shower Descend, and make me pure from Sin.
Within me Thy Good Spirit place, Spirit of Health, and Love, and Power, Plant in me Thy Victorious Grace, And Sin shall never enter more.76
In 1742 in “The Principles of a Methodist, John Wesley equated the “indwelling of the Spirit” with Christian perfection, and not justifcation. 77
In 1744, John Wesley preached before St. Mary’s Church at Oxford University on “Scriptural Christianity” on Acts 4:31:78 “They were all flled with the Holy Ghost.” This was a sermon on sanctifcation through being flled with the Spirit similar to the one he had heard John Heylyn preach on May 21, 1738, which he had called “a truly Christian sermon.” In the introduction, John Wesley linked the day of Pentecost with subsequent “fresh”79 infllings of the Spirit in the book of Acts, in contrast with the initial moment of justifcation. He said the purpose of being flled with the Spirit was “to give them… ‘the mind which was in Christ’… to fll them with ‘love, joy, peace, longsuffering’… ‘to crucify the fesh with its affections and lusts’ [Christian perfection].” He asked the professors: “Are you ‘flled with the Holy Ghost?’ with all those ‘fruits of the Spirit’ which your important offce so indispensably requires? Is your heart whole with God? full of love and zeal to set up his kingdom on earth?”80
In his essay, “Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion,” (1745) John Wesley defned “the baptism with the Spirit” as the “inward baptism” which had a deeper meaning than “water baptism.” He said: “Would to God that ye would…‘repent and believe the gospel!’ Not repent alone, (for then you know only the baptism of John,) but believe, and be ‘baptized with the Holy Ghost and with fre’… even till the love of God infame your heart, and consume all your vile affections!” Wesley then said the baptism with the Spirit bestows “all holiness” and “perfect love.”81
In 1747 Charles Wesley wrote a Pentecost hymn which was to become one of the most widely sung of Christian hymns of all times. The congregation sang it at the Royal Wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton on April 29, 2011, in Westminster Abbey. It is the best holiness hymn that Charles Wesley ever wrote, affrming that believers can
“suddenly” in an instant moment through the Pentecostal gift of the Holy Spirit be empowered to love God perfectly.
Love Divine, all Loves excelling, Joy of Heaven to Earth come down, Fix in us thy humble Dwelling, All thy faithful Mercies crown; Jesu, Thou art all Compassion, Pure unbounded Love Thou art, Visit us with thy Salvation, Enter every trembling Heart.
Breathe, O breathe thy loving Spirit Into every troubled Breast, Let us all in Thee inherit, Let us fnd that Second Rest: Take away our Power of Sinning, Alpha and Omega be, End of Faith as its Beginning, Set our Hearts at Liberty.
Come, Almighty to deliver, Let us all thy Life receive, Suddenly return, and never, Never more thy Temples leave. Thee we would be always blessing, Serve Thee as thy Hosts above, Pray, and praise Thee without ceasing, Glory in thy perfect Love.
Finish then thy New Creation, Pure and sinless let us be, Let us see thy great Salvation, Perfectly restor’d in Thee; Chang’d from Glory into Glory, Till in Heaven we take our Place, Till we cast our Crowns before Thee, Lost in Wonder, Love, and Praise! 82
In 1755 Wesley said in The Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament that the disciples before Pentecost were justifed. Based on John 14:23-27, Wesley said that “the Comforter, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name,” entailed “such a large manifestation of the Divine presence and love [Christian perfection], that the former in justifcation is as nothing in comparison of it.”83 Continuing his commentary on this high priestly prayer of Jesus to send the Holy Spirit, John Wesley said that Jesus’s prayer in John 17:17 to “sanctify them through thy word” means to “perfect them in holiness.”84
(2025)
In his Explanatory Notes on Acts 2:17, Wesley said that the day of Pentecost was not intended to be the only day of Pentecost but rather the Spirit was to be poured out “upon all fesh.” This is why Wesley said the promise, “Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost,” is a promise for “all true believers to the end of the world.”85 This observation corresponds to what John Wesley heard Heylyn say in his Pentecost sermon—“’They were all flled with the Holy Ghost’—and so, said he, may all you be.”
In his Explanatory Notes on Acts 2:38, John Wesley defned the bestowal of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost to mean “the constant fruits of faith, even righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost,”86 By the “constant fruits of faith” Wesley elsewhere explained that the Holy Spirit “purifeth the heart from every unholy desire and temper” [Christian perfection] that “the body of sin might be destroyed.87 His use of the words “constant fruit,” “constant love, joy, and peace,” and “constant peace” in his sermons and journal denoted full sanctifying grace.88
As noted above, this connection between the baptism with the Spirit on the day of Pentecost with full sanctifying grace is consistent with the same interpretation provided by John Heylyn in his Pentecost sermon. John Wesley also acknowledged the substantial infuence of John Heylyn’s Theological Lectures (which contained his Pentecost sermon) for his Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament 89 John Wesley clearly considered himself in agreement with Heylyn’s theology.
In his Explanatory Notes, Wesley noted that the Samaritan and Ephesian Pentecostal reception of the Spirit meant their “sanctifcation.” John Fletcher showed that John Wesley intended by “sanctifcation” to mean “[full] sanctifcation.”90 Indeed as it is commonly recognized, when Wesley used the term “sanctifcation” he used it in the sense of entire sanctifcation, as Harald Lindström has shown.91
In “An Extract of a Letter to the Reverend Mr. Law” in 1756, Wesley said: “That we ‘must be baptized with the Holy Ghost,’ implies this and no more, that we cannot be ‘renewed in righteousness and true holiness’ any otherwise than by being over-shadowed, quickened, and animated by that blessed Spirit.”92 “To be renewed in the image of God in righteousness , and true holiness” is Wesley’s defnition of full sanctifcation. 93
Wesley always connected the language of “the baptism with the Holy Ghost,” not to justifying faith or forgiveness of sins, but to holiness, even as he had connected “the indwelling of the Spirit” with perfection, and not justifcation, as for example in his “Principles of a Methodist” (1742).94
John Wesley’s Day of Pentecost Revival
Outler pointed out that when Wesley preached in his chapels he preached for thirty minutes and “his constant doctrine was salvation by faith, preceded by repentance, and followed by holiness.”95 His journals provide frequent accounts of this two-fold emphasis on justifcation and sanctifcation, especially after a holiness revival spontaneously developed in 1760. Here is one account for Wednesday, August 4, 1762:
I rode to Liverpool, where also was such a work of God as had never been known there before. We had a surprising congregation in the evening, and, as it seemed, all athirst for God… A little before I came, nine were justifed in one hour. The next morning I spoke severally with those who believed they were sanctifed. They were ffty-one in all: twenty-one men, twenty-one widows or married women, and nine young women or children. In one of these the change was wrought three weeks after she was justifed; in three, seven days after it; in one, fve days; and in Sus[annah] Lutwich, aged fourteen, two days only. I asked Hannah Blakeley, aged eleven, “What do you want now?” She said, with amazing energy, the tears running down her cheeks, “Nothing in this world; nothing but more of my Jesus!”96
John Wesley described this holiness revival in October 28, 1762, in terms of a new Pentecost:
Many years ago my brother [Charles] frequently said, ‘Your day of Pentecost is not fully come. But I doubt not it will, and you will then hear of persons sanctifed as frequently as you do now of persons justifed.’ Any unprejudiced reader may observe that it was now fully come. And accordingly, we did hear of persons sanctifed in London and most other parts of England, and in Dublin and many other parts of Ireland, as frequently as of persons justifed, although instances of the latter were far more frequent than they had been for twenty years before.97
John Fletcher’s Attempt to make John Wesley Consistent with His Own Theology of Pentecost
In 1770 the link between Pentecost and holiness became a theme of special importance for John Wesley’s designated successor, John Fletcher, but in private correspondence with Joseph Benson (his understudy) Fletcher noted John Wesley had apparently recently modifed some of his language
for Christian perfection. Fletcher did not want anyone else to see this private letter—except he would allow Charles Wesley to see it. John Fletcher was disappointed that John Wesley seemed to be allowing phrases such as, seal of the Spirit, Spirit of adoption, and baptism with the Spirit being used to describe justifying faith instead of Christian perfection.98 John Wesley communicated this shift in his thinking to Joseph Benson, suggesting that Benson read his later sermons, “Sin in Believers” and “The Repentance of Believers.”99 Benson had written an essay, “The Baptism of the Holy Ghost,” which John Wesley found objectionable and hence his letter of caution to Benson.100
It is apparent in part why this shift came in Wesley’s theology because he was worried that the work of the Spirit in justifying faith would be minimized, especially following the holiness revival when so many were being sanctifed subsequently to justifying faith. Wesley had once expressed his concern about “depreciating justifcation, in order to exalt the state of full sanctifcation?”101 John Fletcher began immediately to write two treatises on this topic, An Equal Check to Antinomianism and The Last Check to Antinomianism. His hope, as he explained it to Charles Wesley, would be to make John Wesley consistent in his theology of holiness.102 When Fletcher’s frst treatise was given to John Wesley for his editing and corrections, he found it convincing, saying Fletcher’s doctrine of dispensations, which ended with the baptism of the Spirit coming on the day of Pentecost, was the best explanation ever given, saying that “God has raised him up for this very thing.”103
His second treatise on Christian perfection further developed and emphasized the link between the baptism with the Spirit and Christian perfection. When this second treatise was still in manuscript form in 1775, John Wesley did his usual editing and correcting of Fletcher’s writings. After reading it, John Wesley told him there was “a slight difference” between them on the use of the phrase, receiving the Spirit, for Christian perfection.
It seems our views of Christian Perfection are a little different, though not opposite. It is certain every babe in Christ has received the Holy Ghost, and the Spirit witnesses with his spirit that he is a child of God. But he has not obtained Christian perfection. Perhaps you have not considered St. John’s threefold distinction of Christian believers: little children, young men, and fathers. All of these had received the Holy Ghost [that is, they had received the witness of the Spirit]; but only the fathers were perfected in love.104
Fletcher made the requested change and defned Christian perfection to mean the Spirit “is received in its fulness,”105 John Wesley then said to Fletcher that he did not now perceive there is any difference between them.106 In this treatise, Fletcher linked the baptism with the Spirit to Christian perfection numerous times without one word of disagreement from John Wesley. John Wesley said Fletcher had written with more clear understanding on this theme of “pardon and holiness” than “scarcely any one has done before since the Apostles.”107 Using Peter’s description of Jesus in Acts 2:24, Wesley says of Fletcher that God “raised him up” to make the idea of the history of salvation culminating in the coming of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost clearer than it ever had been previously understood in the history of the Church.108 Wesley noted that Fletcher’s intellectual abilities were superior to anyone whom he knew.109 Wesley admired “the purity of the language,” “the strength and clearness of the argument,” and “the mildness and sweetness of the spirit” which typifed Fletcher’s writings.110 Wesley never said one negative word about Fletcher’s published writings, only praise.
Whatever differences might have existed privately between John Wesley and Fletcher in the 1760s, it is clear that they were resolved, so that in 1777, Fletcher said: “My friend [John Wesley]… chiefy rests the doctrine of Christian perfection on being baptized and flled with the Spirit,” noting that “this is Mr. Wesley’s sentiment.”111 An indication of Wesley’s agreement with Fletcher is that he allowed Fletcher’s frequent use of the phrase “the baptism with the Spirit” to remain in his manuscript before it was published and he affrmed the treatise without a word of disagreement, which is altogether unlike Wesley if he disagreed.
As mentioned above, John Wesley had noted the slight difference between them about babes in Christ, young men, and fathers in the early draft of Fletcher’s manuscript on Christian perfection. John Wesley wanted to make sure the work of the Holy Spirit was linked to babes in Christ and young men, although only fathers were perfected in love. Shortly after John Wesley published this manuscript for Fletcher, he sent a letter to Fletcher indicating his agreement that Pentecost ought to be linked primarily to those who were perfected in love: “The generality of believers in our Church (yea, and in the Church of Corinth, Ephesus, and the rest, even in the Apostolic age) are certainly no more than babes in Christ; not young men, and much less fathers. But we have some [fathers], and we should certainly pray and expect that our Pentecost may fully come [when there
will be many fathers].”112 This link between perfect love and Pentecost is precisely the point that Fletcher made in his treatise with Wesley’s approval. Wesley’s later sermons also confrmed that John Wesley had re-asserted his earlier views about the Pentecostal basis of Christian perfection, as we shall see below.
Charles Wesley, along with John Wesley, edited Fletcher’s writings, and Charles volunteered to proof-read the copy text once the printer had set it up.113 Fletcher and Charles were very dear friends, and when Fletcher was writing his treatise on Christian perfection, he exchanged numerous letters with Charles, seeking his advice. In one letter, Fletcher said to Charles that he was attempting to make his brother John altogether consistent in his statements about the relation between the baptism with the Spirit and Christian perfection, and to bring his brother into full agreement with Charles’s Pentecost hymns.114 In another letter, he encouraged Charles to have another Pentecost day like the original one he had on May 21, 1738, noting that there were several Pentecost days in the book of Acts. Such repetitions of Pentecost, he said, would establish within the believer the habit of Christian perfection.115 The friendship between Fletcher and Charles was deep, and Charles fully approved of Fletcher’s writings. He once said to him: “You have had my imprimatur from the beginning.”116
So impressed was John Wesley with Fletcher that he offered to make him an equal partner as the co-leader of Methodism, or he said he would be willing to serve under Fletcher.117 He also urged him on several occasions at least to be willing to be his successor. Fletcher chose to remain as the Vicar of Madeley, Church of England, but this afforded him the opportunity to write many books explaining John and Charles Wesley’s doctrine of holiness and universal grace.
Ever since Fletcher’s treatise on Christian perfection which prominently highlighted the baptism with the Spirit as the means of entire sanctifcation, this connection became standard Methodist doctrine. Here is a typical understanding of this connection:
Should you ask, how many baptisms, or effusions of the sanctifying Spirit are necessary to cleanse a believer from all sin, and to kindle his soul into perfect love: I reply that the effect of a sanctifying truth depending upon the ardour of the faith with which that truth is embraced, and upon the power of the Spirit with which it is applied, I should betray a want of modesty, if I brought the operations of the Holy Ghost, and the
energy of faith, under a rule which is not expressly laid down in the Scriptures… If one powerful baptism of the Spirit seal you unto the day of redemption, and cleanse you from all [moral] flthiness, so much the better. If two, or more be necessary, the Lord can repeat them.118
In 1781, John Wesley published an essay in The Arminian Magazine entitled, “Thoughts on Christian Perfection” written by one of his most promising young scholars, Joseph Benson, who would also become the president of the British Methodist Conference on two separate occasions after Wesley’s death. The purpose of this essay was to encourage those who had been perfected in love to continue to grow yet more and more in love. With Wesley’s approval which he published, Benson wrote: “God may, and… does, instantaneously so baptize a soul with the Holy Ghost and with fre, as to purify it from all dross, and refne it like gold, so that it is renewed in love, in pure and perfect love.”119
In his sermon “On Zeal” preached on May 6, 1781, John Wesley said “the descent of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost” meant “the love of God… which flls the whole heart, and reigns without a rival.” It means “love enthroned in the heart” and one possesses “all holy tempers.”120
On June 3, 1781 (Pentecost Sunday), John Wesley wrote in his journal: “I preached on ‘They were all flled with the Holy Ghost;’ and showed in what sense this belongs to us and our children.” The phrase, “to us and our children,” is a paraphrase of Acts 2:39 where Peter says the Pentecostal gift of the Spirit is “to you and your children,”121 showing that Wesley believed that Pentecost should be personalized for everyone today. Wesley’s “later preaching was primarily extempore,”122 and this sermon on being flled with the Spirit was one of them.
Two months after Wesley had preached this Pentecost sermon on being “flled with the Spirit,” Fletcher preached on the same theme at the Leeds Conference with Wesley’s full commendation. On Wednesday, August 8, 1781, Wesley wrote: “I desired Mr. Fletcher to preach. I do not wonder he should be so popular, not only because he preaches with all his might, but because the power of God attends both his preaching and prayer.”123 From a letter written by John Pescod to his wife, and who one of Wesley’s preachers attending this conference, we know the subject of this sermon was holiness and the baptism of the Holy Spirit.124
Outler says that John Wesley published an untitled sermon in July and August, 1783, in the Arminian Magazine (“The General Spread
(2025)
of the Gospel”), with the text transposed (Isaiah 11:9 was printed as Isaiah 9:11).125 This sermon was an extension of his earlier sermon on “Scriptural Christianity” (1744). He said that the kingdom of God is now being realized in the world in an unprecedented fashion through the holiness preaching of Methodism. He cited the Old Testament promise concerning the restoration of the kingdom of Israel. He said this promise of the restored kingdom of God refers to the “experimental knowledge and love of God, of inward and outward holiness.”126 He observed that the initial fulflment of this Old Testament promise came on the day of Pentecost when the disciples were “flled with the Holy Spirit.” Their lives were characterized by “gladness and singleness of heart,” and being “all of one heart and of one soul.” Pentecost was the fulflment of the promise that God would circumcise the hearts of his people to enable them to love God perfectly.127 John Wesley identifed the Methodist revival as “only the beginning of a far greater work; the dawn of ‘the latter day glory,’”128 which will lead to “the grand ‘Pentecost’”129 which will spread to the whole world so that “all the inhabitants of the earth” will “receive those glorious promises made to the Christian Church.”130
Wesley identifed the earliest beginning of this “grand Pentecost” with his group of Oxford Methodists. He predicted (“prophesied”) that this reign of Christ in his kingdom on the earth will occur because of “the grand stumbling-block being thus happily removed out of the way, namely, the lives of the Christians.” As a result of Christians being flled with the Holy Spirit and refecting the image of Christ by their love for God and for each other, their witness will catch the attention of everyone because “their words will be clothed with divine energy, attended with the demonstration of the Spirit and of power” and those who “fear God will soon take knowledge of the Spirit whereby the Christians speak.”131
This “grand ‘Pentecost’” means the fnal fulflment of the frst Pentecost. It means the kingdom of God, frst contained in God’s promise to Abraham that his children will form an everlasting kingdom, is becoming an actuality. It is a kingdom of the heart, of “righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.”132 What Wesley describes here is not a reference to heaven, but to a time on this earth when the Pentecostal outpouring of the Holy Spirit will perfect all believers in God’s love.
Wesley concluded his sermon with this prophecy:
All unprejudiced persons may see with their eyes that he is already renewing the face of the earth. And we have strong reason to hope that the work he hath begun,
he will carry on unto the day of his Lord Jesus, that he will never intermit this blessed work of his Spirit until he has fulflled all his promises: until he hath put a period to sin and misery, and infrmity, and death; and reestablished universal holiness and happiness, caused all the inhabitants of the earth to sing together, “Hallelujah! The Lord God omnipotent reigneth!” “Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and honour, and power, and might be unto our God for ever and ever!”133
After her husband’s death, Mary Bosanquet Fletcher occasionally preached with John Wesley at designated locations. In one of her sermons, she referred to this sermon, calling her hearers to experience a personal Pentecost before there could be a “grand Pentecost.” If Charles Wesley had expected a day of Pentecost among the Methodists when many would be sanctifed (as noted above), and if John Wesley had predicted a grand Pentecost when the whole world would come to love God with a perfect heart, Mary Bosanquet Fletcher (who was a like a daughter to John Wesley) reminded her hearers that such a revival must start with individuals before it would spread to the world. She said: “We often talk of the time when righteousness is to overspread the earth, but this millennium must overspread our own hearts, if we would see the face of God with joy.” This millennium, she said, must begin with a personal Pentecost and with a personal entrance into the “spiritual Canaan [of perfect love], that baptism of the Spirit, to which every believer is expressly called.”134 This call for believers to have a personal Pentecost corresponds to what John Wesley said to Fletcher about the hope for a Pentecost when there would be many “fathers” perfected in love (as noted above).
One month after preaching this sermon on “The General Spread of the Gospel,” John Wesley published another sermon entitled, “The Mystery of Iniquity.” He said before Pentecost the believers were few in number (only 120) and they were “imperfectly healed.” He said: “How exceeding small was the number of those whose souls were healed by the Son of God himself [before Pentecost]! ‘When Peter stood up in the midst of them, the number of names were about a hundred and twenty’ (Acts 1:15). And even these were but imperfectly healed; the chief of them being a little before so weak in faith that, though they did not, like Peter, forswear their Master, yet ‘they all forsook him and fed’: A plain proof that the sanctifying ‘Spirit was not’ then ‘given,’ because ‘Jesus was not glorifed.’”135
(2025)
John Wesley Preached on the Baptism with the Spirit
As noted above, John Fletcher preached on the baptism with the Spirit at John Wesley’s annual conference in 1781. In 1783 Adam Clarke heard John Wesley preach on “the baptism with the Holy Spirit” at the conference at Bristol. According to Clarke’s autobiography, while he was attending the Bristol conference, early in the morning on August 3, 1783, he heard “Mr. Bradburn preach on Christian perfection, from I John iv.19.” Then at 10:00 a.m. he heard Wesley preach on the text from Acts. 1:5, “Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.” Again, later on during the day, he heard Wesley preach on the text, “Let us go on to perfection,” (Heb. 6:1).136 It was to be expected that the conference sermons would highlight Christian perfection, which was the distinctive doctrine of Methodism. Clarke further noted that when Wesley came into his district of Norwich in October, 1783, he again heard Wesley preach a sermon on the text, “They were all baptized with the Holy Ghost.”137 Within the space of a few months, Clarke heard Wesley preach two sermons on the baptism with the Holy Ghost.
In his autobiography, Clarke said for “most of these sermons” that Wesley preached during October 1783 he had “preserved either the skeletons, or the leading thoughts.”138 I have been unable to locate these notes among Adam Clarke’s archival collections at Duke University Library or the John Rylands University Library, but it is clear enough what the content of his sermon would have been based on his earlier statement about the baptism with the Spirit. As noted above, in “Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion,” (1745), he defned the baptism of the Spirit as distinct from repentance as signifed in water baptism, linking the baptism of the Spirit with “all holiness” and “perfect love.” In 1781, John Wesley published Benson’s essay on Christian perfection affrming that “God may, and… does, instantaneously so baptize a soul with the Holy Ghost and with fre, as to purify it from all dross, and refne it like gold, so that it is renewed in love, in pure and perfect love.” He approved Fletcher’s treatise on Christian perfection, saying that he perceived no difference in their theology after Fletcher had made the recommended changes allowing that justifed believers had already received the Spirit in some measure. This essay used the phrase, baptism with the Spirit, on numerous occasions as the means of Christian perfection with John Wesley’s approval. Wesley said to Fletcher on March 22, 1775, that “I know not whether your last tract
[The Last Check where Fletcher featured Christian perfection as received through the baptism with the Holy Spirit] was not as convincing as anything you have written.”139 Shortly after John Wesley published this treatise for Fletcher in London using his printer R. Hawes (City Road, Chapel: R. Hawes, 1775).140 John Wesley affrmed in a letter to John Fletcher that Pentecost should be linked to those who have been made perfect in love (as noted above). The Wesley brothers reprinted this volume in 1783 with a note that it was “sold at the New-Chapel, and at Mr. Wesley’s preachinghouses.”141 John Wesley’s widespread circulation of Fletcher’s treatise on Christian perfection also shows that John Wesley approved Fletcher’s link of Christian perfection with the baptism with the Spirit. We also know that Adam Clarke used the language of the baptism with the Spirit for Christian perfection.142 If John Wesley disagreed with this language, Adam Clarke would surely have noted it.
In 1787, Wesley said: “Some indeed have been inclined to interpret this [sacrament of “one baptism”] in a fgurative sense, as if it referred to that baptism of the Holy Ghost which the apostles received at the day of Pentecost, and which in a lower degree [italics mine] is given to all believers.”143 This show that John Wesley wanted to insure that those “in a lower degree” (which is a phrase he consistently used to describe those in a justifed state) are affrmed as having received the Holy Spirit in some measure, but also recognizing that the baptism of the Spirit in the fullest sense describes the fully sanctifed believer We also know that John Wesley often preached on the “baptism with the Spirit” many times in 1780’s, based on his own record of his diary on the subjects and texts that he used in his itinerant preaching. My latest book, Pentecost & Santifcation in the Writings of John Wesley and Charles Wesley, documents this fact.144
Wesley’s Canonical Hermeneutic
John Wesley’s assumed what is called today “canonical hermeueutics.” He saw the New Testament as the fulflment of the Old Testament promises in terms of “typological correspondence” and “reenactment.145 This is different from an allegorical method because typological correspondence assumes the real intent of the original Old Testament texts and sees their New Testament fulflment as the overspill of its original meaning. Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost is a good example of this canonical hermeneutic at work. He showed that the resurrection of Jesus from the dead is the new covenant counterpart to the
(2025)
Israelite crossing of the Re[e]d Sea. This connection between the miraculous crossing of the Re[e]d sea and Jesus’ resurrection from the dead is expressed in Peter’s words, “mighty works and wonders and signs” (Acts 2:22). These words always served as a traditional formula to designate the Exodus event (Deut. 6:20-24; 26:5-10; Joshua 24:17; Deut. 4:34; 7:19; 11:3; 29:3; Jer. 32:20-21; Acts 7:36). For Peter, this formula signifed that the signifcance of the crossing of the Re[e]d Sea was reenacted in Jesus’ resurrection from the dead (Acts 2:22-24). Peter also equates Jesus’ resurrection with “having loosed the pangs of death” (Acts 2:24). This world “loosed” (lmsas) is related to the idea of Israel’s being freed from Egyptian captivity. lmw is the root word for lmtrow (ransom), the word used in the Septuagint for Israel’s deliverance from Egypt. luw is also used in Rev. 1:5-6 as an allusion to the Exodus which serves as the paradigm of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead: “to him who loves us and has freed (lmsanti) us from our sins by his blood [Exodus theme] and made us a kingdom [Conquest theme]; priests to his God and Father.” Peter thus alludes to the Israelites being set free from the captivity of Egypt in describing the resurrection of Jesus from the dead as the liberating event (the new Exodus) from the bondage of sin.
Peter also recalls the Conquest theme in alluding to the restoration of the kingdom (cf. Rev. 1:50), not in the political sense that David’s kingdom would be literally restored in the Promised Land, but the reign of God’s kingdom prophesied by Joel and the prophets was now fulflled in the promised outpouring of the Holy Spirit of the exalted Christ (Acts 2:33) upon all believers. Jesus being “exalted at the right hand of God” and our “having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit” is the new Conquest (Acts 2:33). This great thing that happened on the day of Pentecost meant that the exalted Christ reigns in the hearts of believers, not in a political and earthly kingdom. This means the Church is made up of those who have formed a friendship (koinwnia, Acts 2:42) with God. That, after all, was the original thing God had planned for Abraham and his descendants. Friendship is the meaning of sanctifcation; it is an affection for the people of God; and it is loving God with all the heart, mind, and soul. This is why Jesus before Pentecost had told his disciples that his desire was for them to be more than servant; he wanted them to be his friends (John 15:15). The exalted Christ reigning in the hearts of his people through the indwelling Holy Spirit is the ultimate meaning of friendship with God.
God’s desire for friendship with humanity is why he entered into a covenant with Abraham in order to give his descendants the land of Canaan. This was to be a hallowed land where the Lord would be their God (Genesis 17:8). This Promised Land was to serve two purposes. One was to give Abraham’s descendants a place to live. To be a nation requires territory. Canaan was to be their establishment. More importantly, Canaan was to represent the place where God lived. Moses says Canaan is “the place, O Lord, which thou hast made for thy abode, the sanctuary, O Lord, which thy hands have established” (Ex. 15:17). In their wanderings through the wilderness, worship had been limited to the altar before the tabernacle (the tent of meeting), but as Yehezkel Kaufmann put it: “When the people became rooted in the land, this restriction became obsolete; the sanctity of the land overshadowed that of the tent, and throughout the towns and settlements of Israel sanctuaries arose.”146 Since Canaan was the land of the Lord, there was an absolute prohibition against idolatry. Idolatry might have been tolerated beyond the Jordan (Josh. 22:9-34), but not in Canaan Land. Canaan Land was a holy place and was the dwelling place of a holy God. Hence the people were to be holy. The sole condition for remaining in the Land of Canaan, “a land fowing with milk and honey” (Deut. 6:3) was loving God with all their heart, mind, and soul. Otherwise, they would be driven out of the land and the Lord “will destroy you from the face of the land” (Deut 6:15).
John and Charles Wesley interpreted the land of Canaan as a symbol of the Christian life of perfect love available here and now. In his sermon on “Christian Perfection,” John quoted Charles’ hymns on “The Promise of Sanctifcation,” which included this verse:
O that I now, from Sin released, Thy Word might to the utmost prove! Enter into the Promised Rest, The Canaan of Thy Perfect Love! 147
In a letter to Miss Furly, (June 11, 1757, John Wesley wrote: “The land fowing with milk and honey, the Canaan of his perfect love, is open. Believe, and enter in!”
John Wesley cited Charles’ hymn in A Plain Account of Christian Perfection that captures the imagery of Canaan Land, Pentecost, and
Christian perfection. Its biblical reference is the promise of rest in the Land of Canaan which the Hebrew writer shows is only a prefguration of the “rest which belongs to the people of God” (Hebrews 4:9).
Lord, I believe a rest remain To all Thy people known; A rest where pure enjoyment reigns, And Thou are loved alone.
A rest where all our soul’s desire Is fxed on things above; Where doubt, and pain, and fear expire, Cast out by perfect love.
From every evil motion freed (The Son hath made us free), On all the powers of hell we tread, In glorious liberty.
Safe in the way of life, above Death, earth, and hell we rise; We fnd, when perfected in love, Our long sought paradise.
O that I now the rest might know, Believe, and enter in! Now, Saviour, now the power bestow, And let me cease from sin!
Remove this hardness from my heart, This unbelief remove; To me the rest of faith impart, The Sabbath of Thy love.
Come, O my Saviour, come away! Into my soul descend; No longer from thy creature stay, My Author and my End.
The bless Thou hast for me prepared No longer be delay’d; Come, my exceeding great reward, From whom I frst was made.
Come, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, And seal me Thine abode! Let all I am in Thee be lost; Let all be lost in God.148
The failure to love God perfectly is what marked the downfall of the kingdom of Israel. They were driven from the Land of Canaan because
they failed to love God with all their hearts, mind, and soul (Deut. 30:6). Moses had promised that the kingdom would be restored once they had been driven from the land because of their lack of perfect love for God, and once it was restored they would never be driven into exile again because their hearts would be circumcised so that they would be enabled to love God with all their heart, mind, and soul (Deut 30:5-6). The promise of the restored kingdom was that they would then have the “power” to live victoriously and so remain in the land forever This sanctifcation of Israel was the theme of the prophets, and the prophets believed that their sanctifcation would come through the gift of the Spirit (Ezekiel 36:25-27). Peter reported in his sermon that the true meaning of the restored kingdom predicted by the Prophet Joel was now fulflled.
Some contemporary New Testament scholars think Pentecost is not about sanctifcation or love because the words are not explicitly used in Acts 2. These scholars fail to appreciate the “typological correspondence” involved in the promise-fulflment schema important for a canonical hermeneutics. A strictly historical-critical analysis of the text without the larger canonical context can only provide an incomplete biblical exegesis. The focus of Acts 2 on phenomena, as John Wesley pointed out in his sermon on “Scriptural Christianity,” is not the signifcance of Pentecost because the gifts of the Spirit were already being exercised in the earthly life of Jesus as a sign of his being the messiah, but rather the meaning of Pentecost is the bestowal of the whole fruit of the Spirit and being made in the image of Christ through being flled with the Spirit. The phenomena, as wind, fre, and tongues, were the evidences that the restored kingdom had now occurred with a new place for God’s abode, not in a geographical location somewhere, but within believers whose hearts are circumcised by the Holy Spirit enabling them to love God with all their hearts and their neighbor as themselves.
This is why John Wesley spoke about the prophetic message that God in the latter days would pour out God’s Spirit for the sanctifcation of God’s people.
Thus hath the Lord fulflled the things he spake by his holy Prophets, which have been since the world began;—by Moses in particular, saying, (Deut. xxx. 6,) I “will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul,” . . . and most remarkably by Ezekiel, in those words: “Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and
(2025)
ye shall be clean: From all your flthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you;—and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.—Ye shall be my people, and I will be your God. I will also save you from all your uncleannesses.—Thus saith the Lord God, In the day that I shall have cleansed you from all your iniquities, the Heathen shall know that I the Lord build the ruined places;—I the Lord have spoken it, and I will do it” (Ezek. xxxvi. 25, &c.).149
Based on Ezek 35 26-28: “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your fesh and give you a heart of fesh. My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances. You will live in the land that I gave to your forefathers; so you will be My people, and I will be your God,” Charles Wesley wrote in his hymn on “The Promise of Sanctifcation”:
The hatred of my carnal mind
Out of my fesh at once remove; Give me a tender heart, resign’d, And pure, and fll’d with faith and love.
Within me thy good Spirit place, Spirit of health, and love, and power; Plant in me thy victorious grace And sin shall never enter more.
Cause me to walk in Christ my Way, And I thy statutes shall fulfl; In every point thy law obey, And perfectly perform thy will.
O that I now, from sin released, Thy word might to the utmost prove! Enter into the promised rest, The Canaan of thy perfect love! 150
Christian perfection is none other than the cleansing (circumcision) of the heart by the Holy Spirit, which Peter said happened to the disciples on the day of Pentecost in his address to the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:89. Using the language of Pentecost, Paul said to the (Romans 6:1-3) that “the love of God is poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit who is given to us.” Both of these passages show that the inner dynamic of the gift
of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost was for circumcision of heart issuing in a heart of love.
Asbury Seminary and Henry Clay Morrison
The Fourth Article of Incorporation, Section D, of Asbury Theological Seminary says: “It will be the object of this Seminary to prepare and send forth a well-trained, sanctifed, Spirit-flled, evangelistic ministry.” The words “sanctifed” and “Spirit-flled” are used virtually interchangeably to denote the Seminary’s adherence to the Wesley brothers’ theology of Christian perfection. Henry Clay Morrison was the Seminary’s founder and frst president. Morrison attended Vanderbilt University Divinity School when its dean was Thomas O. Summers who embraced a “fawless Orthodoxy,”151 His biographer/personal friend said that Summers “held in theology to the strong views of Wesley and Fletcher concerning Christian holiness.”152 Illustrating this commitment to traditional Wesleyan theology, Summers published a revised version of The Memoir of the Life and Ministry of William Bramwell, who was one of Wesley’s preachers and known for his piety. The baptism with the Spirit as the means of entire sanctifcation was featured in this biography. The baptism with the Spirit was to become a prominent theme in Morrison’s preaching as an evangelist, and he may well have learned about this Pentecost emphasis from Thomas Summers at Vanderbilt. Some of the language of Morrison’s personal testimony to being baptized with the Spirit was similar to the testimony of John Fletcher about the numbers of times he had experienced the baptism of the Spirit before full sanctifcation had become a habit of his own life.153
Although Morrison only attended Vanderbilt for just one year (1874),154 he was one of the best well-known Methodist preachers in America having preached in more Methodist churches than possibly any other minister.155 For his accomplishments, Vanderbilt awarded him the honorary Doctor of Divinity degree.156 Morrison was particularly known for his holiness preaching with an emphasis on the baptism with the Spirit. In a widely circulated pamphlet, Morrison provided an account of his testimony of entire sanctifcation, entitled “My Pentecost.” He had been preaching the doctrine of entire sanctifcation for some years, but he himself desired to be flled with the Holy Spirit of perfect love, when suddenly he was overcome with divine power. He was holding a series of “protracted meetings” with another minister, and as they discussed together the results of the revival, Morrison exclaimed:
“Dr. Young, the power of God is all over this hill,” and throwing up my hands I said, “Doctor, I feel the power of God here in this room right now.” At that instant the Holy Ghost fell upon me. I fell over on the divan utterly helpless. It seemed as if a great hand had taken hold upon my heart, and was pulling it out of my body. Dr. Young ran across the room and caught me in his arms, and called aloud, but I could not answer. Several moments must have passed, when it seemed to me as if a ball of fre fell on my face, the sensation at my heart ceased, and I cried out, “Glory to God!” Dr. Young dropped me, and I walked the foor feeling as light as a feather. The Doctor said, “Morrison, what do you mean? You frightened me fearfully. I thought you were dying.” “It was the Lord working with me,” I answered. I had received my Pentecost. It was without doubt the Baptism with the Holy Ghost, and I felt my heart was cleansed from all sin.157
If this emotional response sounds a bit beyond the pale, let me cite from John Wesley’s own journal of a not too-dissimilar experience when he and other members of the Holy Club at Oxford had assembled together in prayer at 3:00 o’clock in the morning for a Watch Night service. George Whitefeld was also part of this group. This was before Whitefeld was inclined to Calvinism. Whitefeld at that time spoke of his “love of Christian perfection.”158 John Fletcher said that during Whitefeld’s Oxford days with the Wesley brothers that he interpreted the “baptism with the Spirit” as the means of Christian perfection, but in his post-Oxford days he did not.159 Fletcher knew Whitefeld very well who once asked Fletcher to be his curate.160 It is important to be aware of this personal information about Whitefeld as we will examine what happened during this Watch Night service. It is also to be aware that this service was only three months after John Wesley had returned from Herrnhut where he was encouraged to speak explicitly of Christian perfection in Pentecostal terms. This service occurred on January 1, 1739. Here is what Wesley recorded in his journal:
Mr. Hall, Kinchin, Ingham, Whitefeld, Hutchins, and my brother Charles were present at our love-feast in Fetter-Lane, with about sixty of our brethren. About three in the morning, as we were continuing instant in prayer, the power of God came mightily upon us, insomuch that many cried out for exceeding joy, and many fell to the ground. As soon as we were recovered a little from that awe and amazement at the presence of his Majesty, we
broke out with one voice, “We praise thee, O God; we acknowledge thee to be the Lord.”161
Whitefeld also recorded this event in his journal. He said: “It was a Pentecost season indeed.” He said: “Sometimes whole nights were spent in prayer. Often have we been flled as with new wine. And often have I seen them overwhelmed with the Divine Presence, and crying out, ‘Will God, indeed, dwell with men upon earth!—How dreadful is this place!—This is no other than the house of God, and the gate of Heaven!’”162
About a month later, John Wesley said to George Whitefeld: “The society at Mr. Crouch’s does not meet till eight; so that I expound before I go to him near St. James Square, where one woman has been lately flled with the Holy Ghost, and overfows with joy and love.”163 John Wesley’s and George Whitefeld’s description of their Fetter Lane experience as a “Pentecost season” of “exceeding joy,” “amazement at the presence of his Majesty,” and “overwhelmed with the Divine Presence,” corresponds with Wesley’s report of the woman in one of those meetings who was “flled with the Holy Ghost, and overfows with joy and love [Christian perfection].”
Putting these accounts together in context, this Fetter Lane experience would surely seem to be one of those instances that Fletcher was talking about when he asked “how many baptisms, or effusions of the sanctifying Spirit are necessary to cleanse a believer from all sin? . . . If one powerful baptism of the Spirit ‘seal you unto the day of redemption, and cleanse you from all [moral] flthiness,’ so much the better. If two or more be necessary, the Lord can repeat them.” Fletcher believed that Charles and John Wesley’s initial conversion experiences were one of those moments of entire sanctifcation that needed to be repeated again and again. Here is what Fletcher said to Charles Wesley:
But new baptisms are necessary from time to time. Compare Acts 2 and Acts 4. The more the magnet rubs the needle the more magnetized it becomes. Why did you not follow the Lord for another Baptism, and by his Spirit dwelling within you, when he once gave you an earnest of that happy day of Pentecost that you have not forgotten. Well then, Jonah, sleeper, why do you not cry to your God for the Spirit of Resurrection and of life which must enter again in the witnesses who are dead, or sleeping [an allusion to Charles’ sermon, “Awake thou, that Sleepeth].”164
E. Stanley Jones
E. Stanley Jones is not an unknown name in our midst, but I suspect that we have paid too little attention to his preaching on the baptism with the Spirit. President Emeritus Maxie Dunnam testifed once in Estes Chapel of his own moment of sanctifcation through the baptism with the Spirit while attending one of E. Stanley Jones’ Ashram meetings. The late Professor Emeritus E. Stanley Jones Professor of Mission, J. T. Seamands, was one of two other persons along with E. Stanley Jones who served on the executive committee of the Ashram movement.165
When I was a student at both Asbury institutions, I heard E. Stanley Jones on several occasions preach on this theme. This subject is accentuated in his devotional books, which I read often. The testimony of his sanctifying experience occurs in his autobiography, A Song of Ascents. He was reading the classic book on the Wesleyan doctrine of holiness, The Christian Secret of a Happy Life, by Hannah Whitehall Smith “when suddenly I was flled— flled with the Holy Spirit. Wave after wave of the Spirit seemed to be going through me as a cleansing fre. I could only walk the foor with the tears of joy fowing down my cheeks. I could do nothing but praise him—and did. I knew this was no passing emotion; the Holy Spirit had come to abide with me forever.”166 Jones writes: “The Holy Spirit brought me purity, and he brought me power, for he brought me himself. I need and want no more.”
“He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain [Pattern], this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit [Giver].” (John 1:33, RSV). So, Jesus is not only the Giver of the Holy Spirit; he is the pattern of the gift. If you surrender to the Holy Spirit, he will make you into his image, a Christ-like type of person.”167 Jones believed that “Modern Christianity… lacks power and it lacks full conviction because it lacks the Holy Spirit.”168
Concluding Comment
Without the baptism with the Spirit renewing us in righteousness and true holiness, then the doctrine of Christian perfection may be reduced only to a “speculative, notional, airy shadow, which lives in the head, not in the heart,” as John Wesley complained of William Law’s will mysticism. Only the Pentecostal power of the Holy Spirit of Christ can enable us to love God with all our hearts and our neighbor as ourselves and to evangelize the world so that righteousness will cover the earth as waters cover the sea. Henry Clay Morrison and E. Stanley Jones felt the optimism of world mission and evangelism because they believed in the baptism with the Holy Spirit.
May the optimism of the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit of these two patriarchs continue to inspire the mission of Asbury Theological Seminary.
End Notes
1 John and Charles Wesley, Hymns and Sacred Poems (Bristol, UK: Farley, 1742), 220, “A Prayer for Holiness,” v. 7.
2 Ibid , 165-66, “Hymn for the Day of Pentecost,” vv. 1, 7, 10.
3 The Methodist Societies, ed. Henry D. Rack in The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1976–), 10:845, “The Large Minutes.”
4 The Journal of the Rev. John Wesley, ed. Nehemiah Curnock (New York, NY: Eaton and Mains, 1909), 1:467n2.
5 John Wesley, “A Plain Account of Christian Perfection,” Doctrinal and Controversial Treatises II in The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley, 13:137.
6 Ibid.
7 The Early Journal of Charles Wesley, ed. John Telford (London, UK: Charles H. Kelly, 1909), 84; Thomas Jackson, The Life of Charles Wesley (New York, NY: G. Lane & P. P. Sandford, 1949), 78.
8 William Law, A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life (London, UK: printed for William Innys, 1729), 135-136.
9 John Wesley, Sermon 17, “On God’s Vineyard,” in Sermons III, ed. Albert C. Outler, in The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley, 3:504.
10 Henry Moore, The Life of John Wesley (London, UK: John Kershaw, 1824), 1:190. Journals and Diaries I (1735-1738), ed. W. Reginald Ward and Richard P. Heitzenrater, in The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley. 18:245n46.
11 Cf. “setter forth of strange doctrines” in William Law, A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life (1729), 138, with Wesley, “A setter forth of new doctrines,” Sermons, “The Circumcision of Heart,” ed. Outler, 1:401.
12 Letters I, 1721-1739, Works of John Wesley, ed. Frank Baker (Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1980): 25:549, (Letter from William Law, May 22, 1738).
13 Ibid., 25:543, (Letter from William Law, May 29, 1738).
14 Journal and Dairies I (1735-1739), The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley: 18:137, (Tuesday, October 14, 1735).
(2025)
15 Law, A Practical Treatise upon Christian Perfection (London, UK: William and John Innys, 1726), 467-468.
16 Letters I 1721-1739, Works of John Wesley, 25:439. Oct 10, 1735.
17 Law, Treatise on Christian Perfection (1726), 219.
18 Journals and Diaries, I (1735-1738, The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley:18:317, (October 30-31, 1785).
19 Law, Practical Treatise on Christian Perfection, 82.
20 Cf. Geordan Hammond, “Restoring Primitive Christianity: John Wesley and Georgia, 1735-1737,” (PhD thesis, Manchester University, 2008), 71-72.
21 Journals and Diaries I (1735-1738), The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley, 18:143, (Sunday, Jan 25, 1735).
22 Ibid., 18:210, (Jan 13, 1738).
23 Ibid., 18:247.
24 William Law, Practical Treatise on Christian Perfection, 82.
25 Outler, Sermons, “One Thing Needful.” Sermon 146. Sermon IV, 4:355-359.
26 Ibid., 4:351, “Outler’s Introduction to the Sermon.”
27 Journal and Diaries I (1735-1738), The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley, 18:214, (January 29, 1738).
28 Richard P. Heitzenrater, Mirror and Memory (Nashville, TN: Kingswood Books, 1989), 106-149.
29 Journal and Diaries I (1735-1738), The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley, 18:247.
30 Ibid. 18:248.
31 Ibid., 18:234. April 22, 1738.
32 Thomas Jackson, Memoirs of Charles Wesley (London, UK: John Mason, 1848), 55.
33 John Wesley, Letters I (1721-1739), ed. Frank Baker, 25:540542, (To the Revd. William Law, May 14, 1738).
34 William Law urged the pursuit of holiness in his concluding chapter: “I exhort the reader to labour after this Christian perfection.” He
writes: “Here therefore I place my frst argument for Christian perfection. I exhort thee to labour after it, because there is no choice of anything else for thee to labour after, there is nothing else that the reason of man can exhort thee to.” A Practical Treatise upon Christian Perfection, 512.
35 E. H. Sugden, Wesley’s Standard Sermons (London, UK: The Epworth Press, 1921), 1:36.
36 Law, A Practical Treatise on Christian Perfection, 67.
37 Outler, Sermons, 1:121-124, “Salvation by Faith.”
38 In 1754 in his Explanatory Notes on the New Testament (New York, NY: Carlton & Porter, nd) on John 3:3, John Wesley defned “born again” to mean “an entire change of heart,” and “inwardly changed from all sinfulness to all holiness.” He described Peter’s language of “being born again” to mean “purity of heart” and “pure from any spot of unholy desire, or inordinate passion” [Christian perfection]. Six years later in his sermon on “The New Birth” he defnes the new birth only as the beginning moment of justifying faith and not full sanctifcation, although Charles Wesley retained the language of the new birth as equivalent in meaning with the experience of Christian perfection.
39 J. Ernest Rattenbury, The Evangelical Doctrines of Charles Wesley’s Hymns (London, UK: Epworth Press, 1941), 303, 308.
40 John Tyson, Charles Wesley on Sanctifcation (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1986), 219-220.
41 Journals and Diaries I (1735-38), The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley, 18:253, (May 29, 1738).
42 Ibid.
43 The Manuscript Journal of the Reverend Charles Wesley, M.A., ed. S. T. Kimbrough, Jr and Kenneth G. C. Newport (Nashville, TN: Kingswood Books, 2008), 1:146.
44 John Tyson, Charles Wesley on Sanctifcation, 195.
45 Heitzenrater, Mirror and Memory, 108-109. Cf. Colin W. Williams, John Wesley’s Theology Today, A Study of the Wesleyan Tradition in the Light of Current Theological Dialogue (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1960), 102-104.
46 Jackson, Memoirs of Charles Wesley, 64; Journal of Charles Wesley, ed. Thomas Jackson (London, UK: John Mason, 1849), 1:146.
47 Journals and Diaries I (1735-38), The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley, 18:241n15.
48 Ibid., 18:241, (May 19, 1738). Italics are Wesley’s.
(2025)
49 Outler, Sermons, 2:454, The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley, “The Mystery of Iniquity.”
50 John Heylyn, “Discourse XV. On Whitsunday,” Theological Lectures at Westminster-Abbey (London, UK: Printed for J. and R. Tonson and S. Draper in the Strand, 1749), 119-120.
51 Fletcher, John Fletcher, “The Doctrine of the New Birth, as it is stated in these sheets, is directly or indirectly maintained by the most spiritual divines, especially in their sacred poems.” The Asbury Theological Journal. 50.1 (Spring, 1998): 56; cited hereafter as New Birth.
52 Thomas Coke, A Commentary on the New Testament (London, UK: G. Whitfeld, 1803), 2:942-957.
53 Law, A Practical Treatise on Christian Perfection (1726), 463.
54 Ibid., 520.
55 The Early Journal of Charles Wesley, ed. John Telford (London, UK: Charles H. Kelly, 1909), 146.
56 Ibid., 146-147.
57 Ibid., 149.
58 Thomas Jackson, The Life of the Rev. Charles Wesley (New York, NY: G. Lane & P. P. Sandford, 1842), 123.
59 The Early Journal of Charles Wesley, 150.
60 Journals and Diaries I (1735-38), The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley, 18:254, (June 7 – June 13, 1738).
61 Ibid., 18:270, (August 8, 1738). See J. Steven O’Malley, The Origin of The Wesleyan Theological Vision for Christian Globalization and the Pursuit of Pentecost in Early Pietist Revivalism Including a Translation of The Pentecost Addresses of Johann Adam Steinmetz (1689–1762), (Lexington, KY: Emeth Press, 2020). The Asbury Theological Seminary Series in World Christian Revitalization Movements in Pietist/Wesleyan Studies, Foreword by Timothy C. Tennent. This book traces the Lutheran roots of Christian David’s idea of a post-justifcation experience of the Holy Spirit, which so decisively infuenced John Wesley and through him the larger Methodist movement.
62 Christian David equated “full assurance” and being “cleansed from all sin.” Cf. Ibid, 18:272, (August 10, 1738).
63 The Moravians did not all agree about being “cleansed from all sin.” Christian David affrmed this doctrine, but John learned three years after his Aldersgate experience that Peter Böhler rejected it, as he told John Wesley on May 16, 1741. Journals and Diaries II (1735-38), in The Bicentennial Works of John Wesley, 19:195.
64 He wrote: “Yet, upon the whole, although I have not yet that joy in the Holy Ghost, nor that love of God shed abroad in my heart, nor the full assurance of faith, nor the (proper) witness of the Spirit with my spirit that I am a child of God, much less am I, in the full and proper sense of the words, in Christ a new creature; I nevertheless trust that I have a measure of faith am ‘accepted in the Beloved.” Journal and Diaries II, in The Bicentennial Works of John Wesley, 19:19, (October 14, 1738).
65 Letters I (1721-1739), ed. Frank Baker (Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1980), 25:575-578, (A letter to Samuel Wesley, October 30, 1738).
66 Ibid.
67 Hymns and Sacred Poems (London, UK: Strahan, 1739), 150. Small capitals and italics are the Wesleys’.
68 Hymns and Sacred Poems, (London, UK: Strahan, 1740), ix.
69 Hymns and Sacred Poems (1740), x.
70 Hymns and Sacred Poems (1740), xi.
71 The Journal of Charles Wesley (Grand Rapids. MI: Baker Book House 1980), 1:250. Cf. John Tyson, Charles Wesley on Sanctifcation, 177.
72 In a letter to Charles Wesley (July 4, 1774), The Asbury Theological Journal 53.1 (Spring 1998): 92. Cf. Benson, The Life of the Rev. John W. de la Flechere (London, UK: J. Mason, 1838), 166.
73 Hymns and Sacred Poems (1740), “Groaning for the Spirit of Adoption,” vv. 4-6, 132. Italics are the Wesleys’.
74 John Wesley, A Library of Protestant Thought, ed. Albert Outler (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1964), 367ff.
75 Outler, Sermons, in The Bicentennial Works of John Wesley, 2:110-111, “Christian Perfection.”
76 “Pleading the Promise of Sanctifcation,” Hymns and Sacred Poems (1742), vv. 6, 11. 261-262.
77 John Wesley, The Methodist Societies: History, Nature, and Design, ed. Rupert E. Davies, “The Principles of a Methodist,” in The Bicentennial Edition of the Works, 9:64-65.
78 John Wesley, in The Bicentennial Works of John Wesley, 1:159180, “Scriptural Christianity.”
79 John Wesley, The Explanatory Notes on the New Testament (New York, NY: Carlton & Porter, nd) on Acts 4:31, p. 286.
80 Following the introduction where Wesley defned the meaning of being flled with the Spirit, Albert Outler points out that Part I lists the
(2025)
order or sequence of salvation from “repentance” and “justifcation” to “full ‘renewal of his soul in righteousness and true holiness’,” “saved both from passion and pride… from every temper which was not in Christ,” and fnally a witness to the “hope of that ‘crown of glory’, that ‘inheritance incorruptible, undefled, and that fadeth not away’.” He thus defned the day of Pentecost in terms of Christian perfection: “Such was Christianity in its rise.” They “were all fled with the Holy Ghost… ‘were of one heart and of one soul’… So did the love of him in whom they had believed constrain them to love one another.” This interpretation of the sequence of the three thousand converts on the day of Pentecost is the basis of John Fletcher (his designated successor) to also explain that they quickly moved from justifcation in the dispensation of the earthly Son of God to Christian perfection in the dispensation of the Spirit. (John Fletcher, The Works of Rev. John Fletcher in Ten Vols., 1816, “A Portrait of St. Paul, 8:177-320, esp. 31920) Part II is an eschatological section regarding the spread of Christianity from the day of Pentecost when the church was “in one accord” until fnally “the tares appear with the wheat” and “the mystery of iniquity” began to work and weaken the church. Part III foresees the goal of Pentecost realized when “the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea” and “flled with peace and joy… united in one body… they all ‘love as brethren; they are all of ‘on one heart, and of one soul… and every man loveth his neighbor as himself.” Part IV is a practical application challenging the administrators, professors, and students to examine where this Pentecostal Christianity “now exists,” “Which is the country, the inhabitants whereof are ‘all flled with the Ghost’? Are all of ‘one heart and of one soul’?... Who one and all have the love of God flling their hearts, and constraining them to love their neighbor as themselves?... Why then, let us confess we have never yet seen a Christian country upon earth.” John Wesley then addresses the professors: “Are you ‘flled with the Holy Ghost’? Are ye lively portraitures of him whom ye are appointed to represent among men?... an heart full of God?” To the professors, he asked: “Are you ‘flled with the Holy Ghost’? With all those ‘fruits of the Spirit’ which your important offce so indispensably requires? Is your heart whole with God? Full of love and zeal to set up his kingdom on earth?” This sermon begins with being flled with the Spirit, who was given “to fll them with ‘love, joy, peace” and “to crucify the fesh with its affections and lusts,’” then spreading throughout the world, and fnally an eschatological hope of the day when all inhabitants of the world would be flled with the Spirit, concluding with a practical application that Oxford University needs a Pentecost of its own, if only its administrators, professors, and students were flled with the Spirit with a “heart whole with God” and “full of love and zeal to set up the kingdom on earth.” He called upon them to be “patterns… in charity… in purity” refecting a clean heart possessing all the tempers of Christ and fruits of the Spirit freed from pride.
81 Gerald Cragg, The Appeals to Men of Reason and Religion and Certain Related Open Letters, in The Bicentennial Works of John Wesley, 11:253, “A Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion, Part II.”
82 Charles Wesley, Hymns for Those That Seek, And Those That Have, Redemption in the Blood of Christ (London, UK: Strahan, 1747, 1112. Italics are Wesley’s.
83 Explanatory Notes on the New Testament, v. 23, 257.
84 Explanatory Notes on the New Testament, 263. John Wesley reported in his biography of John Fletcher that this high priestly prayer of Jesus formed the basis of his “favourite subject,” “Be[ing] flled with the Holy Spirit.” John Wesley, A Short Account of the Life and Death of the Rev. John Fletcher (London, UK: J. Paramore, 1786), 75-76.
85 Explanatory Notes on the New Testament, 275.
86 Explanatory Notes on the New Testament, 280.
87 The Marks of the New Birth [1748], It should be noticed that this sermon still operated with the idea that the new birth equals Christian perfection. Not until 1760 did he limit the term, new birth, to the initial moment of justifying faith. Here is what Wesley said about “constant fruit”: “An immediate and constant fruit of this faith whereby we are born of God, a fruit which can in no wise be separated from it, no, not for an hour, is power over sin;—power over outward sin of every kind; over every evil word and work; for wheresoever the blood of Christ is thus applied, it ‘purgeth the conscience from dead works;’—and over inward sin; for it purifeth the heart from every unholy desire and temper.” These “marks” include one who “loves God with all his heart,” his heart purifed “from every unholy desire and temper,” who has the ‘full assurance of faith” and is “perfect, as you Father which is in heaven is perfect.” Outler, Sermons, in The Bicentennial Works of John Wesley, 1:423, 427, 428, “The Marks of the New Birth.”
88 Here are examples of the use of the word “constant” to denote full sanctifcation. John Wesley wrote: “I buried the remains of Thomas Salmon, a good and useful man. What was peculiar in his experience was, he did not know when he was justifed; but he did know when he was renewed in love, that work being wrought in a most distinct manner. After this he continued about a year in constant [italics mine] love, joy, and peace; then, after an illness of a few days, he cheerfully went to God. Journal and Diaries IV, in The Bicentennial Works of John Wesley, 21:351, (Sunday, February 14, 1762). In a letter from one of his preachers about Martha Wood on August 16, 1777, John Wesley recorded this testimony: “For the frst ten years, she was sometimes in transports of joy, carried almost beyond herself. But for these last ten years, she has had the constant [italics mine] witness that God has taken up all her heart. ’He has flled me,’ said she, ’with perfect love; and perfect love casts out fear. Jesus is mine. God, and heaven, and eternal glory, are mine. My heart, my very soul is lost, yea, swallowed up, in God.’” Journal and Diaries V (1765-1775), in The Bicentennial Works of John Wesley, 22:462. In his journal for March 1787 Mon. 19, Wesley wrote:” I left Bristol with much satisfaction, expecting to hear of a plentiful harvest there; and in the evening preached at Stroud. The House was unusually flled, both with people and with the power of God. Tuesday, 20. We had a large congregation at fve. Afterwards I met the select society, many of them enjoying the pure love of God, and constantly [italics mine] walking in the light of his countenance. Journal and Diaries VII (1787-1791), in The Bicentennial Works of John Wesley 22:9.
89 Explanatory Notes on the New Testament, 4.
90 John Fletcher, The New Birth, 45.
91 Cf. Harald G. Lindström, Wesley and Sanctifcation (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1946), 127.
92 The Works of John Wesley, ed. Thomas Jackson, Third Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., Baker House, 1984), 9:495, “An Extract of a Letter to the Rev. Mr. Law.”
93 Henry Moore, The Life of John Wesley, 2:42.
94 E.g., see “The Principles of a Methodist,” in The Bicentennial Works of John Wesley, 9:60.
95 John Wesley, “Thoughts upon Methodism” (1786), in “The Methodist Societies: History Nature, and Design,” in The Bicentennial Works of John Wesley, 9:528.
96 Journal and Diaries IV (1755-65), eds. W. Reginald Ward and Richard P. Heitzenrater, in The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley, 21:383-84.
97 Ibid., 21:392, October 28, 1762.
98 The original letter is housed in the Manuscript Department of the William R. Perkins Library, Duke University, and it is transcribed by M. Robert Fraser. Cf. Fraser, M. Robert. Strains in the Understanding of Christian Perfection in Early British Methodism (Ph. D. Thesis, Vanderbilt University, 1988), 489. Cited with the permission of M. Robert Fraser who discovered this document.
99 Telford, Letters 5:214-215 (to Joseph Benson, December 28, 1770).
100 Joseph Benson, The Life of the Rev. John W. de la Flechere, 150155.
101 Cf. Henry Moore, The Life of John Wesley, 2:40.
102 ‘Unexampled Labours,’ Letters of the Revd John Fletcher to leaders in the Evangelical Revival, ed., with an introduction by Peter Forsaith, with additional notes by Kenneth Loyer (London: Epworth, 2008), 287-288; A letter published for the frst time in Luke Tyerman, Wesley’s Designated Successor, Luke Tyerman’s Wesley’s Designated Successor (New York, NY: Phillips and Hunt, 1883), 182-183.
103 Telford, Letters 6:136-137. Letter to Elizabeth Ritchie (January 17, 1775).
104 Ibid., 6:146, (to John Fletcher, March 22, 1775).
105 Fletcher, The Works of the Reverend John Fletcher (New York, NY: W. Waugh and T. Mason, 1833), 2:630, “Last Check to Antinomianism.”
106 Telford, Letters, 6:174-175, (to John Fletcher, August 18, 1775).
107 Ibid., 6:79-80. Letter to Mrs. Bennis (May 2, 1774).
108 Ibid., 6:136-137. Letter to Elizabeth Ritchie (January 17, 1775).
109 Benson, The Life of the Rev. John W. de la Flechere, 172.
110 Outler, Sermons, 3:617, “The Death of the Rev. Mr. John Fletcher.”
111 Fletcher, New Birth, 46-47.
112 Telford, Letters 6:221 (to John Fletcher, June 1, 1776).
113 ‘Unexampled, Labours’, 281. 305, 286.
114 Ibid., 287-288, 320.
115 Ibid., 258.
116 A letter loosely contained and bound up in a large volume (or folio) in John Rylands Library, entitled, Letters Relating to the Wesley Family, stored in JRULM MAW F1 Box 18. The immediate context of the approval of Fletcher’s writings given by Charles Wesley was related to a pamphlet that Fletcher wrote on “Three National Grievances,” but Charles expands on the extent of approval to include Fletcher’s writings from the beginning.
117‘Unexampled, Labours’, 134.
118 Fletcher, Works, 1806, 6:359-60. Italics and brackets are Fletcher’s.
119 Joseph Benson, The Arminian Magazine, 1781, 553. Italics are Benson’s.
120 Outler, Sermons 3:313-314, “On Zeal.”
121 Journal and Dairies VI (1776-1786), The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley 23:206, (June 3, 1781).
122 Outler, Sermons 4:525, “Appendix C” by Richard P. Heitzenrater.
123 Journal and Dairies VI (1776-1786), The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley 23:218, (August 8, 1781).
124 The Wesleyan Methodist Magazine 8 (August 1829): 528.
125 Op. cit., Sermon 16, dated April 22, 1783, pp. 341-348, 397403.
126 Outler, Sermons, 2:493, “The General Spread of the Gospel.”
127 Ibid., 2:494-95.
128 Ibid., 2:493.
129 Outler, Sermons, 2:494, ”The General Spread of the Gospel.”
130 Ibid., 2:498.
131 Ibid., 2:495.
132 Ibid., 2:491.
133 Ibid., 2:499.
134 Henry Moore, The Life of Mrs. Mary Fletcher, Consort and Relict of the Rev. John Fletcher, Vicar of Madeley, Salop. Compiled from her Journal, and other Authentic Documents, (London, UK: Thomas Cordeux, 1818), Appendix 2, Sermon: “Acts 27:29. They cast four anchors out of the stern, and wished for the day,” 436-443. Quote found on 443.
135 Ibid., “The Mystery of Iniquity,” 2:454.
136 An Account of the Infancy, Religious, and Literary Life of Adam Clarke (autobiography), edited J. B. B. Clarke (New York, NY: B. Waugh and T. Mason, 1833), 1:110.
137 Ibid., 171. In his autobiography, Clarke said for “most of these sermons” that Wesley preached during October 1783 he had “preserved either the skeletons, or the leading thoughts.” The Life of Adam Clarke (autobiography), 1:110. I have been unable to locate this information among Adam Clarke’s archival collections at Duke University Library or the John Rylands University Library.
138 The Life of Adam Clarke (autobiography), 1:110.
139 Telford, Letters, 6:146 (to John Fletcher, March 22, 1775).
140 R. Hawes was a printer that Wesley used for his books to be sold at the New-Chapel, City-Road, London. See Collections of Psalms and Hymns by John and Charles Wesley (printed by R. Hawes). A second edition of The Last Check was published in 1783 in London by J. Paramore with the notice that it was “sold at the New-Chapel, and at Mr. Wesley’s preaching-houses in town and country.”
141 Cf. The National Union Catalog Pre-1956 Imprints (London, UK: Mansell Information/Publishing Limited, and Chicago: The American Library Association, 1971), 175:237.
142 For example, cf. Adam Clarke, commentary on the Book of Acts on Acts 1:4,5, where he said, “Christ baptizes with the Holy Ghost,
for the destruction of sin.” The Holy Bible with a Commentary and Critical Notes (Cincinnati, OH: Applegate & Company, 1856): 3:490.
143 Outler, Sermons, 3:45, “Of the Church.”
144 Pentecost & Sanctifcation in the Writings of John Wesley and Charles Wesley with a Proposal for Today (Lexington, KY: Emeth Press, 2018), 193-204.
145 Gerhard von Rad, The Problem of the Hexateuch, and Other Essays trans. E. W. Trueman Dicken (London, UK: SCM press Ltd., 1984; Gerhard von Rad, “Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament,” in Essays on Old Testament Hermeneutics, ed. Claus Westermann. Trans. James Luther Mays (London, UK: SCM Ltd., 1963), 17-39.
146The Religion of Israel, trans. and abridged by Moshe Greenberg (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1960), 258.
147 “Pleading the Promise of Sanctifcation,” Hymns and Sacred Poems (1742), v. 14. 262.
148A Plain Account of Christian Perfection (London, UK: The Epworth Press, 1970), 26-27.
149 Wesley on prophetic promise of the last days.
150 “Pleading the Promise of Sanctifcation,” Hymns and Sacred Poems (1742), vv. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. 262.
151 O. P. Fitzerald, Dr. Summers: A Life Study (Nashville, TN: Southern Methodist Publishing House, 1885), 234.
152 Ibid., 334.
153 James Sigston, Memoir of the Life and Ministry of William Bramwell, Revised by Thomas O. Summers (Nashville, TN: E. Stevenson & F. A. Owen, for the Methodist Episcopal Church, South,1856).
154 Kenneth Cain Kinghorn, The Story of Asbury Theological Seminary (Lexington, KY: Emeth Press, 2010), 7.
155 Ibid., 14.
156 Ibid., 9.
157 Henry Clay Morrison, My Pentecost (Louisville, KY: The Herald Press, nd), 10-11.
158 Citation from Whitefeld in Luke Tyerman, The Life of George Whitefeld (London, UK: Hodder and Stoughton, 1876), 1:237.
486 The Asbury Journal 80/2 (2025)
159 1:590-591n, “An Equal Check”; cf. Works, 2:550, 560, “The Last Checks”; cf. Whitefeld, Twenty-Three Sermons on Various Subjects (London, UK: W. Strahan, 1745), 218-219.
160 Benson, The Life of the Rev. John W. de la Flechere, 57. Cf. Tyerman, Wesley’s Designated Successor, 116.
161 Journal and Diaries II (1738-1743), in The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley 19:29, (January 1, 1739).
162 Abel Stevens, The History of Methodism (London, UK: Wesleyan Methodist Book Room, 1878), 81; John Gillies, Memoirs of the Life of George Whitefeld (New Haven, CT: Joseph Barber, 1812), 24n. Cf. Robert Philip, The Life and Times of George Whitefeld (London, UK: George Virtue, 1838), 74. Luke Tyerman, The Life of George Whitefeld (London, UK: Hodder and Stoughton, 1876), 155.
163 George Whitefeld’s Journals (Edinburgh, Scotland: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1992), 224, (Letter on Feb. 20, 1739). Cf. Letter to the Revd. George Whitefeld and William Seward (Feb 26, 1739), Letters I 17211739, (Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1980) 25:601-602.
164 ‘Unexampled, Labours’, 145.
165 E. Stanley Jones, Song of Ascents (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1968), 231.
166 Ibid., 53.
167 Ibid., 59.
168 E. Stanley Jones, The Spirit of Power and Poise. (Nashville, TN: Abindgon Press, 1949), 1
The Asbury Journal 80/2: 487-509
© 2025 Asbury Theological Seminary
DOI: 10.7252/Journal.02.2025F.09
Robert A. Danielson
Susan Fogg: An African American Woman in the Radical Holiness Movement
Abstract: African American women are rare in the historic record in general, but accounts of their lives are even rarer within the Wesleyan-Holiness and Pentecostal traditions. Susan Fogg is the only known African American woman involved in the Metropolitan Church Association in its early years. This group of Holiness people combined a radical lifestyle and heavily emotional and physical forms of worship as they spread their message of complete sanctifcation. Following the ministry of “Black Susan,” as she was known, from her start as a washer woman in the Pentecostal Collegiate Institute in Saratoga Springs, New York (later Eastern Nazarene College) to her involvement in Holiness Camp Meetings in New England, to her wider association with the Metropolitan Church Association in the western United States, this article attempts to bring her life story into one place. While Susan Fogg came to prominence mostly in 1902 and 1903, her life overlaps in some signifcant ways with the history of the Holiness Movement. Her work included sharing the platform with Alma White, who is often identifed later for her support of the Ku Klux Klan. More importantly, Susan Fogg exhibits yet another example of how African American styles and forms of worship were introduced to white audiences through the Holiness Movement. She ft in well with the “Holy Jumpers” of the Metropolitan Church Association because of her enthusiasm, verbal responses to the speakers, and her physicality of dancing, jumping, and shouting. Yet these forms of worship developed out of earlier “Shouting Methodists” and earlier forms of African American worship.
Keywords: Susan Fogg, Metropolitan Church Association, radical holiness, African American women, “Black Susan”
Robert A. Danielson is the Director of Strategic Collections and Scholarly Communications Librarian at Asbury Theological Seminary. He has served as a missionary to the People’s Republic of China and done work in El Salvador and Honduras. He also teaches at the E. Stanley Jones School of Missions and Ministry at Asbury Theological Seminary.
Introduction
One of the more intriguing fgures of the early Metropolitan Church Association (MCA) was an African American woman by the name of Susan Fogg. The Metropolitan Church Association was one of the early parts of the Radical Holiness Movement.1 Before the 1890s the Holiness Movement was frmly connected to its Methodist roots and was prominently represented by the National Holiness Association. However, in the minds of some holiness people, the movement was not going far enough and appeared to be hindered by its denominational ties. Led by Martin Wells Knapp and Seth Rees (and building on some of the theology of A. B. Simpson) the International Holiness Union and Prayer League was founded in 1897. Marked by strong positions on divine healing and a premillennial outlook, radial holiness people began forming new groups and new denominations, such as the Church of the Nazarene and the Pilgrim Holiness Church, and these groups would also play a major infuence on the future development of Pentecostalism. While Knapp was centered in Cincinnati and Ress’ infuence was primarily associated with southern New England, another group known as the Metropolitan Mission was founded in Chicago by Duke M. Farson and Edwin L. Harvey, under the infuential teachings of Beverly Carradine. By the end of 1900, Rees relocated to Chicago and Knapp was supportive of the growing Metropolitan Church Association. The MCA completely endorsed the theology of sanctifcation and focused on living by faith in a radical self-denial accompanied by enthusiastic worship which often included shouting, dancing, and jumping, which led to them being referred to as “Holy Jumpers” in some newspaper reports. By 1900, the group was within the network of the International Holiness Union and Prayer League, and in 1901 Knapp formally left the Methodist Episcopal Church (beginning a movement of the “come-outers” which encouraged holiness people to leave traditional denominations). This was followed by a holiness convention of the Metropolitan Church Association, and a massive revival in Chicago. During the summer of 1901 holiness evangelists from the MCA spread out over the country but regrouped at the Portsmouth Camp Meeting Association winter revival in Boston in December of 1901. Bud Robinson and Edward Fergerson joined John Pennington at a new camp meeting held by Arthur Greene in North Attleboro, Massachusetts just prior to the Boston meeting. This brought together many of the New England Holiness people with new connections
to the Radical Holiness network. Robinson, Fergerson, Pennington, and Greene would all join Harvey, Farson, Frank Messenger, John Norberry, as well as Louis F. Mitchel and L.C. Petit from the Providence Collegiate Institute at the Boston meeting in 1901. Rees’ popularity and existing network made the growth in this area possible, and while the unexpected death of Martin Wells Knapp on December 7, 1901, impacted the group, Rees took over leadership and Arthur Greene’s infuence began to rise in New England.
Susan Fogg would be one of these new adherents to the teachings of the Metropolitan Church Association, particularly in 1902. While her association with the “Holy Jumpers” was brief, mostly lasting through the year 1903, the impact of “Black Susan” (as she was frequently called) would be infuential during her involvement with the group.
“Black Susan” and Her History
What little we know about Susan Fogg comes from her own words and a few reports, recorded in the periodical The Burning Bush, the main publishing arm of the MCA, as well as newspaper reports on various holiness activities. Susan noted in an article from September 3, 1903, that she was from Oxford, North Carolina. At the time of this article, she was preparing to leave with a couple others to serve as a missionary in India, and she noted that while she was still in North Carolina, “…the Lord said to me, ‘Go and I will go with you,’ and ‘Speak and I will speak through you,’ and I did not know then He wanted me to go to India and speak there, but you see you always get more than you ask for. Folks think it strange for a white lady and a black lady to go together, but the Lord can put one white horse and one black horse together if they will pull.”2
Records from the 1880 census show that Susan Fogg was from Louisburg, North Carolina, just outside of Raleigh and close to Oxford. She was the daughter of Archibald and Delilah Fogg. She had an older sister, Elenora, and three younger brothers: Mac, John, and William. She was about fve years old at the time of the census and so she was born about 1875. Her father was a farm worker in the area. Much remains unknown about Susan’s earlier life. It does appear from her account that she made her living initially through washing and ironing. She noted, “I believe when God gave me enough salvation to give up washing and ironing, the fruit of the sacrifce was to be winning souls. I felt I was gone when I stopped my
trade, but I praise God I ever died out and quit working for dollars, and when people come ‘round telling me to work for a salary I look to Jesus.”3
Susan Fogg eventually made her way north and worked in the laundry of the Pentecostal Collegiate Institute4 in Saratoga Springs during its second year in operation in 1901. Eastern Nazarene College historian, James R. Cameron wrote,
Probably the two greatest spiritual forces in the school during this year (1901) were the President (Lyman C. Pettit) and the Negro woman, Susan Fogg, who worked in the laundry. In a letter to his mother Tracy reported that the “head professor was keeping up a profession but had lost the experience of Holiness and God got hold of him and made him willing to be taught and led back again by the negro worker women [sic] who had charge of the school laundry…” Not only was Susan Fogg an effective evangelist at the school but she was in great demand to hold services, especially in New England. Tracy enthusiastically predicted that in a few years she would become as popular as Amanda Smith.5
Susan Fogg appears in the New England historical record in July of 1902 when she arrived at the Holiness Camp Meeting at Camp Hebron in North Attleboro, Massachusetts. The North Attleboro holiness people had previous connections with the Pentecostal Collegiate Institute.6 Camp Hebron was made ready with a new tabernacle with a seating capacity of 2000, which had been dedicated July 4, 1902. In the July 7, 1902, account of the camp meeting, there is a note of new arrivals including “Black Susan of Saratoga, NY.” The evening plans for this event included an address on the work of the Pentecostal Collegiate Institute at Saratoga, New York, so she was likely coming in her connection with this organization.7 However, the description also notes that Rev. Edward Fergerson of Chicago had given an address, and this could be a possible connecting point with her future work in the Metropolitan Church Association. Fergerson had been a speaker at the Chicago Revival of the MCA in the Spring of 1901 as well as the Boston gathering in December of 1901.
Two days later, President L.C. Pettit of the Pentecostal Collegiate Institute at Saratoga Springs had arrived. The article notes, “The ecstacy (sic) of the meetings has increased considerably. Yesterday one of the speakers climbed one of the timber uprights and preached down to his audience from among the rafters; another leaped upon the reading desk and spoke
(2025)
from there; the marching, leaping, creeping, shouting and evidence of strong physical ecstacy (sic) are very much in evidence.”8 The report also includes a case of divine healing, and prophecy of a volcanic eruption in the Caribbean, which had been fulflled a week after the prediction. However, despite all of this, the author ends the article noting,
Among the most interesting characters at the camp is the acrobatic but very earnest negro woman, “Black Susan.” Her exhortations, her remarks interjected at the top of her lungs into the remarks of the speakers, and her exhibitions of physical agility, which are continuous, make her easily the most conspicuous person at camp. Some of her sayings have been caught by Rev. Mr. Greene, and his little collection of them contains some very quaint gems of negro philosophy.
It appears that Susan Fogg remained in Lowell, Massachusetts instead of returning to Saratoga after the camp meeting.9 An introduction to a publication of some of her sayings, produced in 1902, contains an introduction by L.F. Mitchel.10 He wrote in his introduction,
Truly this “King’s daughter is all glorious within.” We praise God for ever sending this Spirit flled woman to the Pentecostal Institute. She had not been with us two days before eleven were on their faces, reminding one of Sammy Morris’ experience with the students. May God use her burning words and make them live coals to many a heart and tongue. We need more men and women who are packed with holy fre, and who travail in prayer, and shout God’s praises and leap for joy, and put the trumpet to their mouths and cry aloud, as Susan does. God bless her and make her one hundred times more than she is.11
In a second introduction in the same source by Samuel G. Otis of the Christian Workers Union (who was also present at the July 1902 Camp Hebron meeting), it noted that she was present with that group for a year (most likely 1902). Otis established the Christian Workers Union in 1878 in Springfeld, Massachusetts. His work was publishing a monthly magazine Our Gospel Letter, which would later become Word and Work, as well as tracts known as Words of Life. Otis was one of the earliest holiness publishers to work all over southern New England. His wife transcribed the sermons at the Portsmouth Camp Meeting, which Samuel helped organize in 1890. Otis wrote, “During the year Susan was with us, she used to say,
‘I’m settin’ in the beltry, pullin’;” by which she meant she was holding on to God in prayer. We believe much more work could be accomplished for God if there were more ‘Beltry’ Christians.”12
At the time of a Fall camp meeting at Camp Hebron held on September 9, 1902, another article noted,
Camp Hebron was again yesterday the center of attraction for thousands of persons who are interested in the holiness movement. The vast congregations at each service manifested great enthusiasm.
Rev. Arthur W. Greene of North Attleboro, Mrs. Susan Fogg of Lowell and Frank Governs of Saratoga, NY, were the principal speakers. They delivered stirring addresses. Said one: “If the churches and ministers are holy, they don’t have to be supported by selling beans, by selling neckties and by such things.”13
It is likely that Susan Fogg joined the MCA at this time, as she then went with them to Boston in December of 1902. It seems to have been a good ft from the start. The Burning Bush in relaying Fogg’s story described her in an article,
One of the most interesting characters in New England is a colored, sanctifed saint known as “Black Susan.” She is on fre, has been all over New England, and is surely a holy woman of God. She is all aglow with holy love and zeal and sets any service on fre. The theme of her sermon is mostly, “You haven’t got it,” referring, of course, to holiness, which is such a minus quantity in this country…
When she met our band she said she nearly died. She had shouted and jumped, and the folks said she was a negress and emotional, but when Sister White, Mrs. Harvey and Miss Hoffnagle were taken to the station for the self-same crime, her joy knew no bounds. She would say, “They is my sisters.”14
"BLACK
Susan Fogg or “Black Susan” Image from The Burning Bush (January 1, 1903), page 3. (Image in the Public Domain)
Susan Fogg and the MCA
In December of 1902, a group from the Metropolitan Church Association descended on the town of North Attleboro, Massachusetts. They clearly had the way opened by Rev. Arthur Greene who was the pastor of two groups, the independent Emmanuel Pentecostal Church and the People’s Free Church.15 He had also been present at the Boston meeting in 1901 and was clearly connected with Rees’ network. He had also established the holiness campground known as Camp Hebron in North Attleboro. The Boston Post described the opening of the event on December 24, 1902,
The “White Horses” have opened their holiness convention. Those present are: E.L. Harvey, the sanctifed Chicago hotel man; Duke M. Farson, the sanctifed Chicago banker; Mrs. Kent White, said to be the greatest woman preacher in the West, hailing from Denver, Col.; John Wesley Lee of Indiana; A.F. Ingler, the famous singer and composer of Denver, Col.; Susan Fogg, known all over this district as “Black Susan,” who
SUSAN,"' Evangelist. Chicago.
created such a sensation in town last winter16; Mrs. E.L. Harvey and F.M. Messenger of North Grosvenordale, Conn., who is chairman of the New England workers.
The attendance, while small, has lots of spirit in it. A vigorous attack is expected to be made on the various secret orders.
E.L. Harvey conducted the services. Once or twice he let out and the hall re-echoed with the yells of the evangelists. Duke Farson was on the stage, and he helped matters along all he could. “Black Susan” also made herself conspicuous during the session. Before the convention is brought to a close many unheard-of events are prophesied for North Attleboro by the evangelists.17
By December 26, 1902, the group of evangelists were expected to leave the Opera House where the convention was being held. The article noted:
Owing to the fact that a theatre company was booked for this evening, the Holiness convention was obliged to adjourn to another hall. The worshippers did not like the idea of leaving the opera house, and so started an outdoor rally. In a short time a crowd had gathered, and the street was blocked.
Chief of Police E. Carlisle Brown and offcer Jesse B. Stevens were obliged to order the noisy singers inside. Susan Fogg, better known as “Black Susan,” and Mrs. Kent White of Denver, Colo., rebelled against the order, and called the chief a bulldog.
As she was forced through the door to the hall, she screamed out: “I pity this town. You’ll get your fngers burned if you touch me.”18
A report also noted that in the confrontation with police, “Black Susan refused to go until she had offered a long prayer for the police.”19
Things got even more raucous as the convention continued into January of 1903, when a Miss Maud Reed died of heart disease during worship. The physician said that the “heart disease was brought on by the excitement.” The young woman was only 21 years old. The account ended, noting, “After the young woman’s death the worshipers continued shouting and praying with added fervor. Susan Fogg, known as ‘Black Susan,’ fainted away and it was more than an hour before she regained consciousness.”20
From New England, Susan Fogg travelled west with the MCA evangelists and was a major fgure in their speaking programs. She spoke in Chicago and Colorado Springs. In the latter convention, it was noted, “The most unique feature of the service was the outburst of ‘Black Susan,’ a huge
negress from New England, who “runs wild” in the meeting, doing just as she pleases, to the delight of the congregation.”21 Yet another account from her work in Colorado Springs reported,
Then there is Black Susan, a negro woman, said to be from Boston. When every one else is about played out or talked out or sung out, Black Susan takes hold. She’s a wonder. She aims to be a captain and keeps the aisles clear. Where she shines especially is at the altar service at the conclusion of the talk or sermon. She simply yells when she is appealing to her Father in heaven. Were she a permanent resident of Colorado she would never be accused of having come here for lung trouble. She is thoroughly black, a genuine African, and when the Spirit moves her to sing or to pray she can raise the roof and keep going for a half hour.22
By April 30, 1903, Susan Fogg was conducting a revival in Lincoln, Nebraska with Mrs. Kent White as part of the Pentecostal Union Evangelists of Denver, Colorado.23 Mrs. Kent White explained in the article that in 1890 she left the Methodist Church and joined the Burning Bush group to return to an earlier form of the “Shouting Methodists.” Susan Fogg is listed as “a colored exhorter of Boston, Mass.” The article also contains a detailed description of the group’s efforts,
The meetings are announced on the streets by Sister Fogg, who assisted by local converts, does a cake walk and a sort of dance. When she has gathered a large crowd she conducts them to the hall where the other evangelists are awaiting their arrival. As soon as the audience begins to enter a musician strikes up a tune on the piano. Then the Rev. Mr. Ingler begins to sing in a monotone, assisted by the other members of the party, some kneeling, others pacing back and forth on the platform and still others jumping up and down. The music is continued for nearly an hour and its effect upon the more susceptible of the auditors soon sets them to swaying and singing in unison with the others. After the song is concluded a prayer begins. One member of the party prays in a frenzied and impassioned manner, gradually working himself up to a pitch where he shouts, screams and rages. During the prayer the other members of the party break in with various ejaculations. As the prayer draws to a close the praying one rises to his feet, with arms extended outward and face turned upward and beseeches and entreats as though to avert some terrible crisis. The others spring to their feet and as the prayer concludes another starts in. Friday night, Sister
Fogg, in her excitement, grabbed a chair and swinging it aloft marched up and down the platform whirling it over her head. Some of the mourners and penitents involuntarily “ducked” their heads to prevent a possible collision. But continued their swaying and crooning.
At the conclusion of the prayer the Rev. Mr. Ingler delivered a short sermon, SAY THE CHURCHES ARE WRONG.
“The churches are all wrong,” said he, “There is no religion in them. At the Pentecostal supper the Lord and his disciples drank wine. Yes, wine. Some called them drunk, but, dear ones, they were not drunk on the wine, they were drunk with the spirit of the Holy Ghost. I am drunk with that same tonight.”
“I’se drunk, too, praise God,” vociferously declared Sister Susan as the speaker paused.
Mr. Ingler, at the conclusion of his address, introduced the Rev. Mrs. White, the leader of the sect in the United States. She is a forcible talker, but gradually as she got deeper and deeper in her sermon worked into a frenzy. She took as her theme the old story of Jonah and the whale. Her discourse was frequently interrupted by the others, and in some parts was in the nature of a dialogue.
“There are Jonahs in this audience tonight,” she declared, and several of the colored members of the congregation glanced nervously at those occupying seats next to them. “You are all Jonahs, unless you have the love of God in your hearts and are sanctifed.”
During the progress of the meeting many of the audience, particularly the colored members, became excited and joined in the exhortations.
“The Lord is here tonight,” declared the speaker.
“Dat’s right! I sees you, Lord,” vehemently asserted a portly sister in the audience, carried away by the hypnotic infuence which the speaker seemed to extend.
“He wants to see you all up there,” continued the speaker.
“In cose he does, dat’s right,” assented the other.
“Give up all and follow Him,” went on the speaker. “He will provide. You won’t have to worry if you are sanctifed. Your heart’s desire will be gratifed.”24
In a photograph from The Burning Bush in June, we can see the Bible students and instructors from the MCA school, which was still fairly new. What is interesting to note is the presence of three African American men and one woman (Susan Fogg). For the most part, the radical holiness groups did not separate based on race, and as can be seen in the descriptions of Fogg’s meetings both black and white people were present
in mixed congregations as well. This was true beyond the MCA as can be noted with speakers like the evangelist Amanda Smith as well in her work with the Christian Holiness Association. It is not clear what role Susan Fogg might have played in the Bible school, which is curious since it is noted elsewhere that she could not write.25 However, given the theological nature of the radical holiness people, even this obstacle would not likely prevent Fogg’s involvement with the school.
The Bible Students and Instructors at the MCA Bible School (Alma White is likely sixth from the left seated in the second row, Susan Fogg is seated on the ground frst on the left in the front)
The Burning Bush (June 4, 1903) Page 9. (Image in the Public Domain)
By August, Susan Fogg and others of the MCA were at the Rockford Camp Meeting in Illinois. In one report, Duke Farson told the crowd that Rockford was asleep, “’Wake ‘em up!’ yelled Black Susan as she leaped to her feet from her front row seat and waved her arms wildly.”
The report goes on to note, “Black Susan is the busiest worker in the bunch. She is absolutely ferocious, and when she starts after a prospective convert, surrender is assured in almost every instance. She will not take ‘no’ for an answer.”26
By September 1903, at the Buffalo Rock Camp meeting, it is reported that God had called Susan Fogg along with Ella Hanson to go to India as missionaries. It is in this context that the most detail on Susan
TflE JJURNING BUSH
Bible Students and Instructors.
Fogg’s life is given. In particular, she is recorded as talking about giving up everything, including her work washing clothes for Christ. She also related her experience of joining the MCA,
They told me some workers from the West were coming East, and these are the workers; Mr. and Mrs. Harvey came and I said, ‘Them’s my people.’ Folks said I was only taking up with them because they agreed with me in some of my ideas of salvation, but I felt they were my people. I was glad to see some white people who could jump, and praise the Lord, and I never heard of a white man who could beat me preaching restitution until I saw them. You think that is all left to the negroes, and the white people need not make restitution, but they are just as guilty. Some people think I have come to the North to tell you people how they treated by mother and grandmother. If they had gotten religion they would have been all right, and I want to tell you I am not ‘round fnding fault with white folks or negroes, but I want to tell both that they must get salvation. The negroes are not going to get inside God’s Heaven because they are poor and downtrodden, nor is the rich because they is rich. You have to repent of your sins and make restitution. I want to tell you that the fellow who gets saved and sanctifed and never makes any restitution, is a candidate for hell fre.27
Sayings of Susan Fogg
Susan Fogg is recorded as having preached in various places, but so far, I cannot fnd any complete transcriptions of her preaching style or the content of her sermons. There is only one written account which may be a partial sermon or extended speech by Fogg, which appears in The Burning Bush and is likely from the Rockford Camp Meeting.
There are many people who say they are out for God, but the great crowd of those who are out have not spunk enough to come up steam. They cannot stand jumping and screaming and shouting; they cannot stand anything that’s hot. They have come up out of sin, and some of them have come out of their dead churches, but they are half-hearted. That is not the way I serve God. Glory be to God for a whole-hearted salvation! They will have to lay on their faces until they are willing to stand anything for God and do anything for God, and they will get the blessing. You must get where you can stand no breakfast, and no dinner, and no house to live in for Jesus’ sake, and if you are not there, you might as well as not be nowhere at all, because you are no good when you are
half-hearted. God wants whole-hearted folks that can go up stream. Friend, let’s be hot. Great God, put the hot spirit upon this people.28
True to the radical nature of the MCA, Fogg’s brief speech recorded here shows a passion for complete surrender of all things, even to the point of diffculty as a sign of extreme faith and commitment. She also follows the MCA in being critical of those who were not fully committed to living the sanctifed life. Living out the sanctifed life in the Holy Spirit would result in being “hot” or “on fre” for God, and this in turn would be demonstrated through unrestrained worship with the body as well as with the voice. Jumping, dancing, and shouting were signs of the movement of the Holy Spirit in the person’s life.
Susan Fogg was more frequently known for her quick wit and short religious statements. These seem to have made enough of an impression that many of them were recorded. Since Fogg was unable to write, these captured sayings are the most complete idea of what her theological views were, and how she communicated. While recorded in dialect, which was often a way to disparage African Americans at the time, I have chosen to keep the dialect because those collecting the sayings were not trying to ridicule her ideas, but rather preserve some of her spiritual lessons, and so the dialect was used to help show how she spoke in the MCA settings. The two extant sources for her sayings include a small tract published in 190229 and a selection of her sayings recorded in The Burning Bush in 1903.30 These are just a representative of select sayings from these sources.
I prays in season an’ out of season, so as to make a season an’ be in season. Down South when it is dry we go to the pumps an’ sprinkle our gardens an’ make a wet season. So when it is dry, that is a sign to me that I mus’ pray, pump an’ sprinkle.31
I like grapes when they is cool an’ sweet. O, how good they tas’ on a hot day! That is jes’ what God feeds me on when my soul is dry an’ parched. He’s got lots of grapes for you if you’ll reach out an’ take ‘em.32
Berries that grow way up on the hill-side ain’t like those that grow down in the rich valley. If you want big, fat ones you mus’ go down in the valley. That’s where we gits the bes’ fruits of the Spirit.33
My people is gittin’ fashioned an’ stiff. They don’t git down on their knees an’ foor as they use to do. That is the way I got it an’ I am goin’ to keep it. As you receives Jesus so mus’ you walk in Him. It took a heap to save me, an’ it takes a heap to keep me. I can’t ‘ford to let up on any of these lines, for I was an awful mean negro.34
Don’t let up on me, Lord. I wants to know the wors’ of my case now. The day of judgment will be too late for me to fx up; so I asks You to turn your great lectrif light on me so I can see things jes’ as they is.35
The Lord stir up our faith in us. Prayer is the key, but it takes faith to turn the key an’ unlock the door. There is lots of doors locked up an’ we need faith to unlock ‘em.36
I praise God I got salvation. I didn’t get religion an’ hang it up on a nail.37
All the Lord asks of me is to jes’ be my own black se’f, flled with the Holy Ghost.38
I bless God for freedom. When a bird sits up yonder in a tree, she ain’t askin’ who the tree belongs to, she jes’ sits an’ sings. That is what I am doin’ this mornin’. My soul is jes’ d’lightin’ herse’f in the Lord. Hallelujah!39
Lord, don’t you let me go to that convention if I wants to have a ‘scursion or a good time. You make me a ball of fre or You keep me home.40
I want to be boilin’ hot, so I can burn an’ blister sin an’ scal’ the devil. Some of you people haven’t got fre enough to burn a bug.41
I’m ‘shamed of some white folks, and some white folks is ‘shamed of me. I was in a ‘lectrif car once with a white friend, an’ he was ‘shamed of me ‘cause I was black, an’ I was ‘shamed of him, ‘cause he smelt of tobacker.42
They call me Black Susan, but I’ve got a salvation that’s mo’ than skin deep, an’ the Lord sees through the whole business an’ calls me whiter than snow.43
The End of 1903 and the Mystery of Susan Fogg’s Fate
In September of 1903, it was announced that Susan Fogg had felt the call to go as a missionary to India with Mrs. Ella Hanson from the MCA. The Burning Bush publicized a trio of missionaries leaving out of New York
in October of 1903. According to the notice, Susan Fogg and Mrs. Ella Hanson would be joined by Miss Susie Kraft. They would attend services in Chicago and then Brooklyn, New York before sailing on October 24, 1903. This is the last mention of Susan Fogg. There are letters published from Susie Kraft showing her arrival in London in early November, but in these letters, she simply refers to “we” and “us” without indicating if Susan Fogg was still among the group at this time.44 Later reports show both Susie Kraft and Ella Hanson in India in 1904, but no mention is made of Susan Fogg.
Susan Fogg seems to have left the group, either in New York, the port of departure, or London, when the group arrived, but she is not mentioned in the writings of the Metropolitan Church Association after announcing she was headed to India. It is expected that if she remained in the United States, she likely would have continued her evangelistic ministry in some form and would have appeared in the historic record again, but no evidence of this has been located. If she abandoned the work in London, she is less likely to be recorded historically, but whatever the case, it is not clear where she spent the remainder of her life, when she died, or where she was buried.
Last known photo of Susan Fogg The Burning Bush (October 8, 1903), page 7. (Image in the Public Domain)
Refecting on Susan Fogg’s Infuence: Alma White and African American Worship Styles
Most interesting in Susan Fogg’s story is the way she worked closely with Mrs. Kent White, who was known mostly as Alma Bridwell White, who became the bishop of her own movement, the Pillar of Fire Church in 1918 (the frst woman bishop in the United States). Born in Kentucky, she was converted by Holiness leader William Baxter Godbey when she was 16 years of age (he would also ordain her in 1918). She centered her work in Zarephath, New Jersey. In the history of the Holiness Movement, Alma White is most often known for her defense and even acceptance of the teachings of the Ku Klux Klan, especially through the 1920s and 1930s.45 While she promoted feminism as well, her views on race and white supremacy separated her from many in the Holiness Movement and in Christianity in general.
The fact is that in most of the accounts of Susan Fogg, we see her sharing the platform, preaching in the street, confronting police with, and associating with Alma White in 1903 while a part of the Metropolitan Church Association. This certainly raises a lot of questions. How did these two women work together and how might this relationship have shaped White’s later positions on race? Conversely, was Fogg’s decision to go to India and ultimately leave the MCA tied to White’s racist views? If nothing else, this historical reality demonstrates some the tensions within Alma White’s own movement and her theology, which allowed her to work so closely with an African American evangelist, such as Susan Fogg early in her ministry, but to reject such ideas later in her life. These questions are not easy to answer, since the information on Susan Fogg is so limited, and details of her connections with Alma White are not well documented or detailed, however the close association of Fogg and White in the MCA add further complexity to Alma White’s legacy.
Another area of potential infuence can be found in the area of Holiness-Pentecostal worship. An early description of Susan Fogg from December of 1902 records some perceptions of the MCA worship styles at this period,
No one of the Holiness band of “Holy Ghosters,” as they are called, makes an endeavor to keep quiet or stop dancing when there is any music, and they dance singly, in pairs or any other way that seems convenient, some of them marching up and down, shouting and shrieking,
and occasionally at the head of the procession is “Black Susan,” waving a red shawl.46
What is interesting here is not just the descriptions of early worship in this radical branch of the Holiness Movement, but also the similarity with worship styles in the later African American holiness churches and Pentecostalism.
The accounts of Susan Fogg and the worship of the MCA predates much that is described by Cheryl J. Sanders in her book on the HolinessPentecostal experience in the African American context.47 While shouting and dancing as forms of ecstatic worship clearly existed among African American religious communities and early Methodists before 1903, the key elements Sanders identifes as exilic liturgy within the “Sanctifed Church” in the 20th century primarily include ecstatic elements such as shouting, dancing, and chants of affrmation often connected to music and singing. There were also specialized liturgical roles for women. While there is not enough information to really understand what is happening with Susan Fogg in the context of the MCA, the worship clearly exhibits styles found in other emerging Holiness and Pentecostal Churches, which came after 1903.
Were these extensions of worship styles experienced by Fogg in North Carolina? Did Susan Fogg bring existing African American styles of worship into the MCA, or did she simply help develop existing worship trends within the white Holiness Movement which emphasized freedom and a return to early “Shouting” Methodism? Did the national evangelistic efforts of the MCA help spread new forms of worship, or perhaps inspire a return to earlier African American forms? It is impossible to say, but for 1903 Susan Fogg’s expressive and ecstatic forms of worship were clearly noticeable and attracted attention. It is possible Fogg brought some of these practices out of North Carolina, and certainly her role as a laundry worker or washer woman places Susan Fogg alongside many other African American women of the Holiness and Pentecostal Movements.48
In the end, Susan Fogg’s story is an intriguing case of an African American woman who became connected to the Radical Holiness Movement in the early years of the Metropolitan Church Association. She rose from her work as a washer woman who could not write, to a position of some recognition within the organization. She shared the life, theology, and worship styles of Alma White in her early years, and people collected
her sayings as example of popular folk theology. Fogg represented and lived out a holiness ideal that what was important was the empowerment of the Holy Spirit and not the color of one’s skin. She may also serve as an early example of how African American worship styles began the process of merging with Holiness theology from white leaders which would ultimately emerge into worship styles in modern Pentecostalism. As such Susan Fogg’s story may have broader applications in the felds of Holiness-Pentecostal studies.
End Notes
1 For a much more in-depth treatment of the Metropolitan Church Association and its history and infuence see William Kostlevy, Holy Jumpers: Evangelicals and Radicals in Progressive Era America. New York, NY: Oxford University Press (2010).
2 “The Missionary Meeting.” The Burning Bush, September 3, 1903: 5.
3 Ibid., 4.
4 The Pentecostal Collegiate Institute and Bible Training School was founded in September 1900 by the Association of Pentecostal Churches of America (APCA) in Saratoga Springs, New York. From 1901-1903 it was known as the Pentecostal Collegiate Institute and Biblical Seminary. The president, L.C. Pettit chose to resign from the APCA in 1902, and the organization removed its support. The school was moved by the APCA to North Scituate, Rhode Island in 1902 and in 1907 the APCA merged with the Church of the Nazarene, and the school became the Eastern Nazarene College in 1918. In 1919 the school moved to Quincy, Massachusetts.
5 James R. Cameron, Eastern Nazarene College: The First Fifty Years: 1900-1950. Kansas City, MO: Nazarene Publishing House (1968): 25. The original of this letter is recorded as being in the archives of Eastern Nazarene College, but these have recently been moved to the Nazarene Archives in Lenexa, Kansas. They are still processing this material and so I was unable to access the original of this letter, which might shed more light on Susan Fogg’s role and how she was perceived in the early Pentecostal Collegiate Institute.
6 In March of 1890 one of the earliest groups of holiness people in New England met to form the Central Evangelical Holiness Association in Rock, Massachusetts. The frst treasurer was Benjamin Luscomb who was in the process of becoming the pastor of the North Attleboro group. This group, while tied in many ways to Seth Rees’ work in the Portsmouth Camp Meeting and in Providence, Rhode Island, was also a thriving center for the Holiness Movement in its own right. They merged with the Association of Pentecostal Churches in 1897 when they became the Association of
Pentecostal Churches of America. This was the group behind the formation of the Pentecostal Collegiate Institute and Bible Training School which was started in Saratoga Springs, New York in 1900. So, the presence in 1902 of Lyman Pettit and Susan Fogg from the Institute in North Attleboro should not be surprising. Cf. James R. Cameron, Eastern Nazarene College: The First Fifty Years: 1900-1950. Kansas City, MO: Nazarene Publishing House (1968).
7 “Thirty-Two Converted.” Boston Daily Globe, July 7, 1902: 14.
8 “’Wrath of God.’ Man Who Prophesied Eruption of Mt Pelee.” Boston Daily Globe, July 9, 1902: 17.
9 Cf. “The Missionary Meeting.” The Burning Bush, September 3, 1903: 4-5. While her account in this article is very confusing, in essence it sounds like Fogg did not feel the work at the Pentecostal Collegiate Institute was “hot” enough. While she does not name the institution she reports going to a school in New York where sometimes they only had potatoes and salt to eat, and while in Springfeld, Massachusetts she became convinced that she needed to give up working for a salary. She mentions that as she lived by faith, things became diffcult and she was invited to go back to New York, but her response was “No more hired servant I: the Lord put the hireling spirit out of me.” She also noted, “…it hurt me when I saw the school was not hot enough, and if the principal were here he would say so himself.” This seems to indicate she had a positive impression of L.C. Pettit, but not of the school in general.
10 Mitchel would join the Metropolitan Church Association and leave his position as a professor of music at the Pentecostal Collegiate Institute. He would become a major supporter of the MCA and write music and hymnbooks for the group.
11 Nuggets No. 2 From Black Susan. Words of Life, No. 111, gathered by Louis F. Mitchel. Springfeld, MA: Christian Workers Union, (1902): 2.
12 Ibid.
13 “Holiness Movement. Large Gathering at Each Service Held Yesterday.” The Boston Daily Globe, September 9, 1902: 16.
14 The Burning Bush, January 1, 1903: 3-4.
15 Arthur Greene would continue to pastor these churches until around 1912.
16 It is not entirely clear what is being referenced here, since Fogg frst appears in the records in July of 1902. Was she also involved in the Boston meetings of December 1901? I have not found a reference to indicate her presence, but it is completely possible that she attended that revival as well as the others from the Pentecostal Collegiate Institute. This might explain the reference to the excitement she caused last winter, which
would have been 1901. Currently there is no other evidence to support this possibility.
17 “White Horses” Holding Holiness Convention.” Boston Post, December 25, 1902: 5.
18 “Didn’t Like It. Holiness Convention Had to Leave Opera House.” Boston Daily Globe, December 27, 1902: 2.
19 “North Attleboro Meeting.” The Burning Bush, January 8, 1903: 2-5.
20 “Fatal Excitement. Maud Reed Succumbed to Heart Disease. Dropped Dead in Holiness Meeting in North Attleboro.” Boston Daily Globe, January 2, 1903: 7.
21 “Unusual Scenes at meeting of the Holiness Convention.” The Burning Bush, March 26, 1903: 2. Reprinted from the Colorado Springs Evening Telegraph of March 11.
22 “The Burning Bush Evangelists.” The Burning Bush, March 26, 1903: 3. Reprinted from the Colorado Springs Gazette of March 15.
23 “Will Hold Meeting.” Lincoln Daily Star, April 30, 1903: 2.
24 “Pentecostal’s Noisy Meeting.” Lincoln Daily Star, May 2, 1903: 1.
25 Susan Fogg’s lack of ability to write is noted in “Black Susan at Kewanee, ILL.” The Burning Bush, October 8, 1903. The article records, “God tells Susan things that nobody else seems to get. Holding services at Kewanee, Ill., with our missionaries, she felt that Brother Farson was needed to rent a hall and attend to some business. As Suasn cannot write, she prayed and asked God to send him. Soon she told the folks he was coming that same evening. Evening came and he was not there. She was asked by a friend, ‘Where is he?’ She said, ‘He is coming.’ The open air service was held and as they were in prayer in a parlor they looked up and there was Brother Farson. God had told her all about it.” The article continues with another more elaborate story which also notes, “Susan had no way of telling except by the throne. Her heavenly telephone was working.”
26 “Holy Jumpers Get Big Crowd.” The Burning Bush, August 13, 1903: 4. Reprinted from the Rockford Register Gazette for August 3.
27 “The Missionary Meeting.” The Burning Bush, September 3, 1903: 5.
28 “Nuggets From Susan.” The Burning Bush, January 1, 1903: 3-4.
29 Nuggets No. 2 From Black Susan. Words of Life, No. 111, gathered by Louis F. Mitchel. Springfeld, MA: Christian Workers Union (1902).
30 “Black Susan at Camp Meeting.” The Burning Bush, August 6, 1903: 3.
31 Nuggets No. 2 From Black Susan. Words of Life, No. 111, gathered by Louis F. Mitchel. Springfeld, MA: Christian Workers Union (1902): 4.
32 Ibid., 5.
33 Ibid., 6.
34 Ibid.
35 Ibid., 7.
36 Ibid., 8.
37 Ibid.
38 “Nuggets From Susan.” The Burning Bush, January 1, 1903: 3.
39 Ibid.
40 Ibid.
41 Ibid., 4.
42 Ibid.
43 Ibid.
44 “From The Foreign Missionaries.” The Burning Bush, December 24, 1903: 8. Susie Kraft’s letters are quite interesting for those interested in the MCA as a whole. She relates a bit about the trip to England and disagreements they had with missionaries from McClurkan’s Pentecostal Mission in Tennessee who were also going to India. In London, the MCA missionaries spend time visiting slums, but they are critical of the Salvation Army which are “substituting their brass bands for the old time fre and power.” Kraft does make a comment about desiring to have an MCA mission in London, so it is possible Fogg may have stayed on, but I expect this kind of activity would have been reported in The Burning Bush, and there is no evidence of this.
45 A good example of research in this area can be seen from Lynn S. Neal, “Christianizing the Klan: Alma White, Branford Clarke, and the Art of Religious Intolerance,” Church History 78:2 (June 2009): 350-378. Much more has been written on White's associations with the Ku Klux Klan, but this is outside the scope of this article.
46 “North Attleboro Meeting.” The Burning Bush, January 8, 1903: 3.
47 Cf. Cheryl J. Sanders, Saints in Exile: The Holiness-Pentecostal Experience in African American Religion and Culture. New York, NY: Oxford University Press (1996). See especially chapter three, “’In the Beauty of Holiness’: Ethics and Aesthetics in the Worship of the Saints.”
48 This is true of Azusa Street and the origin of Pentecostalism. Sanders (Ibid., 32) notes, “The original Azusa Street congregation had at its core a group of black female domestic workers, a group typically overrepresented in the ranks of the Sanctifed churches at a time when the vast majority of black women were employed as domestics. In Seymour’s own words, ‘The work began among the colored people. God baptized several sanctifed wash women with the Holy Ghost, who have been much used of Him.’” See also, Robert A. Danielson, God’s Image Carved in Ebony: African-American Women in the Holiness Movement. Wilmore, KY: First Fruits Press (2025). Numerous examples of African American women in the Holiness Movement exist which worked originally as washer women. Amanda Berry Smith and Roxy Turner are two such examples.
The Asbury Journal 80/2: 510-554
© 2025 Asbury Theological Seminary
DOI: 10.7252/Journal.02.2025F.10
Nicholas M. Railton
“We are all Jews here”: American Methodists and the People of Israel
Abstract:
The English Reformation led to an increased interest in the Hebrew language and the prophetical scriptures. One consequence was an astonishing output of eschatological studies. Methodism was not untouched by these streams of thought. Individual Jews converted and joined Methodist churches. Specifc mission work among Jews was established in the late nineteenth century just as Zionism, the national liberation movement among Jews, was being birthed. Methodists were involved in the establishment of the Hebrew Christian Alliance and Hebrew Christian churches in the United States. During the period of great Jewish suffering Methodists produced a lot of sympathetic words. And while the country closed its doors to Jews seeking refuge in the twentieth century, American Methodism produced one Righteous Gentile, who risked his life to save Jews, and another who helped create the State of Israel in 1948. The liberalising forces that began impacting Methodism in the middle of the nineteenth century continue to shape the political statements made by bishops of the United Methodist Church, not least those regarding the reconstituted Jewish state.
Keywords: Jews, Israel, anti-Semitism, Zionism, Methodist, mission.
Nicholas M. Railton is a retired university lecturer and secondary school teacher. nicholasrailton@gmail.com
Introduction
Ever since the English Reformation, interest in the fate of the Jewish people has been a perennial element in the eschatological discourse in Britain and the United States.1 In his commentary on the Revelation to the apostle John, Thomas Brightman (1562-1607) asked the question:
What shall they returne to Ierusalem againe? There is nothing more certaine, the Prophets doe euery where directly confrme it and beate vppon it. Yet they shall not come thether to haue their ceremoniall worship restored; but to make the goodnes of God shine forth to all the world, when they shall see him to geue to that nation (which is nowe and hath bene for many Ages scattered thorough out the whole world, and inhabiteth no where but by leaue and entreaty) there owne habitations where their Fathers dwelt, wherein they shall worship Christ purely, and sincerely according to his will, and commandement alone, Which is a matter that was commonly spoken of by the auncient Iewes, which they vunderstood out of the Prophets, but yet lightly and as it were thorough a lattice glauncingly, whence it came to passé that it hath bene defled woth many old wiues fables, among the auncient Iewes, as it is also nowe at this daye.2
God would gather the Jews from all nations and allow them to live in security. In the same year, Thomas Draxe similarly argued that it was very probable that the Jews would be brought back to their own country in the future. All the prophets of Israel spoke, he said, of such a restoration. It was certain, that God would again have mercy on his people following a long period of separation. People were expecting and praying for the calling and conversion of the Jews which would bring new life to the whole world. The Ottoman Empire (he terms it the Turkish Dominions) would also be raised from spiritual death and receive the divine light.3 This hope was not completely absent from early Methodism (Charles and John Wesley both held to it) and seems to have survived into the second half of the nineteenth century.4 In this article light is shed on some of the interactions between American Methodists and Jews.
Jewish Methodists
In a letter to the Bishop of London John Wesley notes in passing that Jews had been converted through his ministry. He apparently was in the habit of writing down the names and addresses of inquirers in order to
(2025)
visit them at a later date.5 While he had dealings with individual Jews in England the idea of a specifc missionary outreach to Jews did not occur to him. Lutherans and Moravians had taken the frst steps towards Jewish mission, but only in the nineteenth century were such denominational organisations to be established.6
In contrast to other Protestant denominations Methodists showed relatively little interest in mission to Jews. Few Methodists became involved in Jewish missionary societies, though there is evidence that the eschatological role of the Jews as a people was not foreign to those Methodists who eschewed typological interpretations of the prophetical scriptures. This is a little surprising given that a Jewish Christian from Mecklenburg, Ludwig Jacoby (1813-1874), founded Methodism in Iowa and Wisconsin before he returned in 1849 to his native Germany as a missionary. He died with a Hebrew word on his lips: Hallelujah!7
Jacoby was not the only Jewish Christian who became a preacher for the Methodist Episcopal Church (MEC). Siegfried Kristeller (1836-1883) from Wollstein in Prussia served the New York East Conference on Long Island (1869-1876).8 Another Jewish Christian, Silian Bonhomme, was a Methodist who worked for the American Society for Meliorating the Condition of the Jews.9 In 1844 he established the Brotherhood of Jewish Proselytes and became secretary of the Prayer Alliance for Jewish and Gentile Christians.10 He preached and lectured on the Jews in churches of all denominations.
Two Hungarian-born Jews became Methodist preachers and missionaries to Jews in the USA. Charles Freshman (1819-1875) had once been a rabbi and was led to Christ by the Methodist preacher James Elliott. Freshman became a German-Wesleyan missionary to German-speaking immigrants in Canada. From 1860 he was employed by the MEC and was able to establish about thirty Wesleyan congregations. In accordance with Romans 11 Freshman believed that a national conversion of Jews would take place once the fullness of the Gentiles had been gathered in11 His son, Jacob Freshman (1844-1898), founded in October 1885 the frst Hebrew Christian fellowship in the United States. The meetings took place in a private home on St. Mark’s Place, East Eighth Street, Manhattan. Many Methodists preached there for him.12
Not surprisingly, there was not a little criticism of such efforts from within the Jewish community.13 Freshman edited the newspaper The Hebrew-Christian and worked towards the establishment of a non-
denominational fellowship of Jewish Christians where Jews felt included and at home. Clearly, that was still not the case in Methodist churches.14
The eschatological role of the Jews was an important matter for him. In 1892 he took part in the Northfeld Conference.15 Four years later he was a participant in a conference in Chicago on biblical prophecy. In attendance were also Ernst Stroeter (1846-1922) of the Central Wesleyan College, William E. Blackstone (1841-1935), Arthur Tappan Pierson (18371911) and Adoniram Judson Gordon (1836-1895).16
When Freshman left Canada for New York he had to forego a salary from the MEC, but he remained in contact with the Montreal Conference, sending reports on his work to two Canadian newspapers (Christian Guardian and The Faithful Witness). For his inter-denominational work at the Hebrew Christian Church Freshman was dependent on voluntary contributions.17 In 1894 he resigned from the work and accepted a call to North Park Presbyterian Church in Newark, New Jersey.18 From 1897 he was pastor at West Avenue Presbyterian Church in Buffalo, New York.19 The missionary work among Jews was later conducted by Hermann Warzawiak (1865-1921) under the auspices of the American Mission to the Jews (est. 1895) and Bernhard Angel (of the American Hebrew Christian Mission).20 The property was taken over by the New York City Mission and Tract Society.21
In Galena, Illinois, a committee of the North-West German Conference of the MEC was established in 1886, which appointed Polishborn Rev. John Hermann Wallfsch (1862-1920) as secretary and missionary to Jews.22 Paulus Stephanus (Saul Selig) Cassel (1821-1892) had baptised Wallfsch in Berlin in 1880.23 Wallfsch was editor of the newspapers Gesundheits-Blatt für jeden Stand and Immanuel. He was also friends with the editor of The Peculiar People, Rev. William Clifton Daland.24 Daland was a Seventh Day Baptist who had been doing missionary work among Jews since 1887. Through this friendship Wallfsch joined that denomination for a while, attending a congregation in Garwin, Iowa. In 1891 he returned to Germany, later working for the Mildmay Mission to the Jews in Posen.25 In 1895 he was in Dresden, and gave a lecture there in 1894 on the “Jewish Question.”26
Jacob Freshman gave talks and preached all over the South and prepared the way there for other missionaries.27 In Georgia, Julius Magath (1859-1920) worked as a Jewish missionary for the Methodist Church, South. An association of professors and students at Emory College in Oxford
(2025)
was formed to support his work.28 Magath was born in Wilna (Vilnius) and had studied in Paris and Edinburgh. He was editor and publisher of the newspaper The Hebrew Messenger. He joined the South Georgia Conference of the MEC, South, in 1883, but the North Georgia Conference appointed him in 1884 to work among the Jews in the southern states. Rev. James Orson Branch (1838-1904) was a major supporter of this work.29
When, in 1885, Julius Magath became Professor of Hebrew and Modern Languages at Emory College (Oxford, Georgia) the missionary work had to stop. In 1885 the MEC, South, established the Hebrew Mission of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, in 1904. Julius Magath was sent to Atlanta as missionary. Some Jews were persuaded to convert. He worked as a missionary until his death. He helped establish the Atlanta Hebrew Christian Association in 1905, led by Rev. Louis Jacob Ehrlich (1862-1920) and Mrs W. F. Clark.30
Gentile Methodist Missionaries
Wallfsch and Magath were both Jewish Christians. Two German Gentiles, Ernst Ströter (1846-1922) and Arno Clemens Gaebelein (18611945),31 were the most prominent and infuential MEC Jewish missionaries. The editor of Our Hope was the German Ernst Ferdinand Stroeter (18461922). He had studied theology between 1865 and 1868 at the universities of Tübingen, Berlin and Bonn. Johann Tobias Beck (1804-1878), a key proponent of Biblicism in the approach to the scriptures, was the lecturer who most infuenced his thinking. He came to faith through the ministry of the Methodist preacher, Wilhelm Schwartz, in Paris.32 He moved from his native Germany to the United States in 1869. He was a member of the North West German Conference and became an associate preacher in Philadelphia, before Bishop Matthew Simpson (1811-1884) sent him as a travelling preacher to Texas. In 1879 he was preacher for the North West German Conference in Saint Paul, Minnesota. He was appointed Professor of Historical and Practical Theology at the Central Wesleyan College in Warrenton, Missouri, and spent six years lecturing there before becoming professor of Latin Language and Literature and Director of Modern Languages at the University of Denver. William Blackstone’s Jesus Is Coming (1878)33 reshaped his thinking on prophecy. He had been studying biblical prophecy relating to national Israel for the previous ffteen years and became a believer in the millennium and the conversion of the Jewish nation.34
In June 1894 he teamed up with Arno Clemens Gaebelein at the headquarters of the mission at 209 Madison Street. Gaebelein called him a man who “understands Israel prophetically, has a burning love for the dispersed nation, and brilliant hopes for their future.”35 In the very frst issue of the paper an article appeared on the Jewish settlements in Palestine.36 Though he returned to Germany in 1899, the theme of Jewish conversion and restoration would remain a constant theme of the journal for the next ffty years.
In his autobiography Gaebelein relates how Louis Wallon (18341907) issued a call to him to support his work with a German congregation in New York’s Second Street. This was the same street where the Hope of Israel Mission was later based. He resided with Wallon’s father, Abraham Louis Wallon (1807-1889). Both had been involved in evangelistic outreach in southern Germany before Louis was expelled from the country and emigrated to the United States. It was Abraham Louis Wallon who talked incessantly with Gaebelein about the Antichrist and Israel’s future role in the world. He recommended a French book by Émile Guers (1794-1882) on Israel in the Last Days of the Present Economy; or, An Essay on the Coming Restoration of this People. The original had appeared in Geneva in 1856 and an English translation was produced six years later. Guers resisted a spiritualizing approach to Old Testament prophecies. As such, the book led to a revolution in Gaebelein’s thinking on the topic.
Gaebelein, a member of the New York East Conference of the MEC, was able to develop the mission “within certain well-defned limits” and “on such broad lines as will prevent all denominational narrowness.”37 In July 1894 the frst issue of the mission’s newspaper – Our Hope. A Monthly Devoted to the Study of Prophecy and Christian Judaism – was published. A Yiddish paper Tiqweth Isroel (in English: the Hope of Israel) started to appear in June 1893. In addition to these, a German-language version called Unsere Hoffnung (Our Hope) was published from October 1893. Dr A. C. Grimm, a homeopathic doctor, had charge of the Hope of Israel Dispensary. There was a branch of the Penny Provident Fund in the headquarters. Donations were made to the City Mission Society and the poor were relieved. John Wilkinson of the Mildmay Mission to the Jews in London, granted ten thousand copies of the New Testament, presumably in Hebrew or Yiddish (Jargon). Every evening, with the exception of Saturday, the New Testament in Hebrew was expounded, verse by verse, from
(2025)
Matthew to Revelation. In the frst year, attendances at the Sabbath morning service averaged 550 people.
Stroeter and Gaebelein were supported in their work by Harry Zeckhausen, a Jew who had been born in Kovno, Russia, in 1863.38 By profession Zeckhausen was a teacher. He had come to faith in Christ through the mission. From 1893 he was employed by the mission society even while he studied medicine. Zeckhausen had an offce in 92nd Street. Zeckhausen identifed as a Hebrew Christian missionary doctor. His missionary efforts were based in the Allen Street Memorial Methodist Episcopal Church (89-91 Rivington Street). The mission’s main headquarters was at 209 Madison Street, and medical help was available in Eleventh Street. In 1903 Zeckhausen established the New York Hebrew Christian Association.39 He played a signifcant role in the founding of the Hebrew Christian Alliance in America and was an active participant in its founding conference in 1903.40
The Hope of Israel Mission to the Jews of the Methodist Episcopal Church in New York was supported from April 1893 by the New York City Church Extension and Missionary Society (est. 1866).41 Stroeter (the secretary) and Gaebelein (the superintendent) sought contact with others in the same feld and gradually found a greater independence from their own denomination.42 At the end of 1897 the fnancial and organisational support of the MEC for Jewish missionary work dried up. The desire for a more non-denominational mission had played its part in weakening the bonds.43 Stroeter and Gaebelein were now reliant on voluntary donations which were required not only for salaries, but also for the rent that now had to be paid to the MEC for the use of offce space and meeting rooms.44 Over time, differences emerged between the two leaders regarding what today is called Messianic Judaism. Stroeter did not accept that a converted Jew ceased to be Jewish and should be encouraged to leave Jewish traditions and holidays behind him.45 Nor did Gaebelein want to ‘gentilize’ Jews after their conversion. He did reject the ideas of Jacob Freshman about the need to establish Hebrew Christian churches under Jewish leadership. And, unfortunately, under the infuence of Henry Ford’s Dearborn Independent, Gaebelein went on to use the anti-Semitic tropes of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, perhaps the worst conspiracy theory ever produced. Statements to this effect appeared in his Confict of the Ages which ironically appeared in 1933, the year Hitler seized power in Germany. Opening his mind to such ideas had a lot to do with Gaebelein’s visceral anti-Communism and little, if anything, to do with anti-Semitism. There is actual praise for orthodox
Jews who “had held on to the faith of their fathers” and who “pray for the coming of the Messiah-King.”46
The Hope of Israel Mission was renamed the Gospel Mission to the Jews in 1899.47 The Mission to Jews seems to have gradually lost the theological backing of the MEC. Arno Gaebelein became increasingly critical of the spiritual state of American Methodism. He spoke of the “long step downward” from the faith of the founding fathers of Methodism, which had led to a spiritual blindness regarding the Jewish people. The inerrancy of the divinely inspired Holy Scriptures that the Wesleys and George Whitefeld had adhered to was, he believed, already being mocked by modern Methodists. Formalism had taken the place of spiritual power.48 The loss of confdence in the inerrant Bible led to a loss of faith in the prophesied restoration of Israel in the Promised Land. Supersessionism (replacement theology) gained more and more adherents. At the same time the MEC was becoming ever worldlier and, increasingly, dogmatically confused. That was at least the view of Arno Gaebelein.49 He left the MEC in 1899 after reading that hundreds of Methodist preachers had applauded a talk by Dr. Samuel Parkes Cadman (1864-1936) at a conference in New York, in which the Bible was massively criticised.50
The various Jewish Christian actors in the mission feld were drawn together by a common heritage. The establishment of a Hebrew-Christian Alliance at the beginning of the twentieth century was supported by the following Jewish Christian Methodists: Maurice Ruben (Pittsburgh), Rev. Louis J. Ehrlich (Morganton, N.C.), Rev. Jacob Finger (Bakersfeld, Vt.), Rev. C. E. Harris (Brooklyn, N.Y.), Professor Ismar J. Peritz (Syracuse, N.Y.), Rev. Julius Magath (Oxford, Ga.), Levi Rosenbaum (Washington, D.C.), and Dr Harry Zeckhausen (New York).51 According to the minutes of the founding conference these Methodists still identifed as “national Jews,” just as Dr. Herzl und Dr. Nordau did, while accepting and recognising Christ as the goal and fulflment of the Mosaic Law.52 As Methodists and Americans they felt deep ties with the Jewish nation. In 1916 Magath of Emory University was treasurer of the Hebrew Christian Alliance of America.53
The Alliance was impacted by the nascent Zionist movement and its members followed political events carefully. It reported in May 1918 that the war had overturned “the old world-order” and was working “tremendous changes in the Jewish people also.” “The capture of Jerusalem by a Power friendly to the Jews on the anniversary of its re-conquest by Judas Maccabeus, the founder of the last Jewish State before the frst coming of
(2025)
the Messiah, is in itself a signifcant sign.”54 One empire tottered and fell; borders were redrawn. The United States emerged as a major player on the world stage. What might these changes bring about?
Persecution and Zionism
There was still considerable interest among rank-and-fle Methodists in the United States in the fate of the Jews in Europe, particularly in eastern Europe and Russia. The Methodist lay preacher and evangelist William Eugene Blackstone (1841-1935), a member of the MEC, was the frst president of Chicago Hebrew Mission (est. 1887). In November 1890 he organised a conference in the First Methodist Episcopal Church in Chicago. The deliberations at that conference led to the writing of a petition on March 5, 1891, which went down in history as the Blackstone Memorial. That same year Blackstone asked President Benjamin Harrison: “What shall be done for the Russian Jews?” Russia was determined to expel them. “But where shall 2,000,000 of such poor people go? Europe is crowded and has no room for more peasant population. […] Why not give Palestine back to them? According to God’s distribution of nations it is their home – an inalienable possession from which they were expelled by force.”55 Over four hundred people signed the petition, including many Methodist preachers and four bishops: Steven Mason Merrill (1825-1905), Edward Gayer Andrews (1825-1907), Cyrus David Foss (1834-1910) and John Fletcher Hurst (1834-1903). The Methodist Congressman and future President William McKinley (1843-1901) signed it too. In 1916 the same petition was presented to President Woodrow Wilson. It had gained the support of more bishops: John Wesley Robinson (1866-1947), John Edward Robinson (1849-1922), Thomas Nicholson (1863-1944), Luther Barton Wilson (1856-1928), and William Seeley Lewis (1857-1921). The Methodist Ministers’ Meeting of Southern California in session at Los Angeles endorsed the purposes of the petition on May 1, 1916. It urged the General Conference of the MEC, then in session in Saratoga Springs, New York, to secure the adoption of the memorial and to adopt “such measures as may be deemed wise and best for the relief of the Jews and their rights and claims to Palestine as their home.”56 The humanitarian needs of European Jews, the ancient Jewish vision of being “next year in Jerusalem” and the restoration of Jews to the land as spelled out by evangelicals over the previous three centuries clearly had some support among American Methodists.
Professor Ernst Stroeter visited the Holy Land four times. Palestine was for him “the focal point of Jewish Zionist hopes as well as of Christian millenarian beliefs and still of importance to this day.”57 In Jaffa he discussed Zionism and the coming restoration of the Jews with Rev. James Edward Hanauer (1850-1938). On his return journey he observed deliberations at the Second Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland, at the end of August 1898. In his report he noted that many Swiss Christians had opened their homes to the delegates there and Herzl is said to have thanked them for their practical support. Stroeter praised Herzl’s pioneering work Der Judenstaat. 58
Methodists had established Our Hope as a journal where issues affecting the Jewish people were freely discussed. The regathering of Jews from the four corners of the earth was one theme of Our Hope once Allenby had taken Jerusalem.59 In the inter-war years readers’ attention was drawn to the situation in Palestine and the failure of the British state and other nations to welcome and accommodate Jewish refugees.60 As is well known, only the Dominican Republic was willing to accept Jews unconditionally. The democracies of the western world were unwilling to give any assurances in 1938 when there was still time to act.
The editors of Our Hope had speculated that either Germany or Russia would seek to acquire the natural resources of Palestine by military conquest.61 What the Jews were asking for was no more than an area equivalent to one per cent of the geographical area occupied by Arabs. One journalist, John Gunther (1901-1970), is quoted who suggested that the relatively few Arabs in Palestine, most of whom were nomads, be taken in by Iraq or Arabia and, in return, the Jews of Iraq and Yemen could be persuaded perhaps to move to Palestine. The Arabs were not amenable to any population transfer. ‘Nobody wants the Jews’ was the message being broadcast by the nations of the world. Stroeter and Gaebelein remained optimistic, however, that, one day, the Jews would be settled securely in Palestine.62 Sooner or later the British and the Arabs would have to make room for them.63 And at some point, however, the tribulation of Jacob would begin.64
In October 1943 Our Hope reported that two million Jews had already been murdered and a further fve million were in extreme danger of being exterminated too.65 In September 1945 the paper said about six million Jews had been murdered by Germans and their collaborators in Europe.66 “The poor Jews! 6,000,000 died under persecution. Had Palestine
(2025)
been open many of them might have escaped. That they will come back to their land those who believe the Bible know.”67 The hopes expressed for two thousand years, and noticeably in 1918, became reality in 1948.68 Arno Gaebelein never again set foot in his native Germany. His son, Frank Ely Gaebelein (1899-1983), became co-editor of Our Hope in 1922. Critical of modernizing trends within Methodism, he became a member of the Reformed Episcopal Church.
Responses to German Antisemitism
The United States had closed its doors to Jews seeking to fee from persecution in inter-war Europe.69 According to Henry Smith Leiper (18911975), secretary of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America, an average of only 4,584 Germans were allowed to immigrate per year between July 1, 1932, and June 30, 1938.70 Leiper had spent three months in Germany in 1933 and had then concluded that there was little evidence that the 550,000 Jews and 1.5 million Germans of Jewish background were in mortal danger. Most Germans, he wrote, did not entertain ideas about “a general massacre or slow starvation as a means of exterminating the Jews.” The “relative moderation” of the Nazi revolution was “notable,” he wrote. On the other hand, no one knew what the intentions of the new government were.71 During the war it became too clear to Leiper what those intentions had always been. In 1943 he wrote that it was hard to fnd the right words to describe the cold-blooded horrors suffered by “the people of Israel.”72
A number of ordained ministers did call for the United States to at least permit German refugee children to enter the country. On the basis of Matthew 19:14 Rev. Robert H. Dolliver of John Street Methodist Episcopal Church, New York City, supported the introduction of a bill for the admission in 1939 and 1940 of 10,000 German refugee children. The Rev. Asbury Smith of Memorial Methodist Episcopal Church in Baltimore took the same stance.73 Nothing came of the endeavour.
There were Methodist statements criticising National Socialist discriminatory policies. In March 1933 Bishop Ralph S. Cushman (18791960) joined with 1,500 Jews, Catholics and Protestants in Trinity Methodist Episcopal Church in Denver to protest against the “abuses of Jews” and demand that justice be maintained in Germany.74 The Annual Conference of the New Jersey Methodist Episcopal Churches adopted a resolution on September 21, 1935, urging the United States to boycott the 1936 Olympics in Berlin. The National Council of Methodist Youth at its meeting
in Evanston (September 1935) condemned holding the Olympic Games in Nazi Germany and urged the World Olympics Committee, in an open letter dated October 1, 1935, to move the Olympics away from Germany or, if that were not possible, to cancel the event in order to express “moral indignation of civilised people at the return of barbarism of the present terrorist rule in Germany,” hoping thereby to improve the protection of minorities in that country. Charles Claude Selecman (1874-1958), president of Southern Methodist University, also supported a boycott of the Games.75 The First National Quadrennial Methodist Student Conference in St. Louis (December 1937) adopted a resolution strongly protesting against the persecution of Jews in Germany as well as racial and religious discrimination in the United States.76 Individuals raised their voices during the period 1933-1945. Bishop Francis J. McConnell (1871-1953) spoke at protest meetings on 27 March 1933 and 21 July 1942 at Madison Square in March Garden to protest against Nazi persecution of Jews.77 In March 1938 the Christian Advocate published an eye-witness report by Dr George Mecklenburg (1881-1965) of Wesley Methodist Church, Minneapolis, on his visit to Austria in the summer of 1938.78 American Methodists were well informed about Jew-hatred. The New York Times published a protest on 13 November 1938 by Methodist bishops which urged the US government to take action following the wave of riots, arson attacks, and murder of Jews in Germany. At their convention in Atlantic City, the Board of Bishops called on the United States to offcially protest against the “incredibly inhuman and unjustifable deeds” perpetrated against Jews.79 The members of the Board of Foreign Missions expressed their own shock at the “unspeakable persecution.”80 On the same matter Bishop Edwin Holt Hughes (18661950), who had travelled to Germany, presided at a Methodist gathering in Philadelphia in 1938 which adopted a resolution condemning the Nazi persecution of Jews.81 But where could the persecuted fnd asylum? Certainly not in the United States. In March 1939 Bishop Edgar Blake (1869-1943) and other church leaders in the Protestant Pastors’ Union of Greater Detroit, representing over 400 churches in the area, signed a message to British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, calling on Great Britain to “adhere to its pledge of building a Jewish National Home in Palestine.” They hoped that the British Government would “keep Palestine open to Jewish refugees” and “retain it as a homeland for Jewish people.”82 Their wishes were, sadly, not heeded.
(2025)
American society was itself infected by its own native forms of fascism and antisemitism which attracted not a few Methodists and not only those of German ancestry. William Dudley Pelley (1890-1965), an American fascist and admirer of Adolf Hitler, was the son of a minister of the Methodist Episcopal Church. William George Apsey Pelley had studied at Boston Theological Seminary and was called to work as a pastor of a church in North Prescott and, later, in East Templeton, Massachusetts, in 1892. The family home was said to be strictly orthodox Methodist in character. The Pelleys were, according to his biography The Door to Revelation, “devout, clean living, orthodox people, strictly circumscribed by the Puritanic code of ethics and a literal interpretation of the Jewish Holy Scriptures.”83 Bishop Garfeld B. Oxnam (1891-1963) criticised the antisemitic rioting and attacks on Jews on the streets of various American cities as “incipient fascism.” He had observed similar “Fascist ruffanism” during a visit to Germany, he said.84 On the other hand, there were also Methodists who tried to contextualise and justify some of the German policies directed against Jews. Bishop Frederick Bohn Fisher (1882-1938) of the Central Methodist Episcopal Church, Detroit, was not troubled by “Germany’s current excursion into racial extravagances.” He found some commendable trends in National Socialist Germany, echoing the response taken by German Methodists such as their bishop Friedrich Heinrich Otto Melle (1875-1947). Jews who only made up two per cent of Munich’s population had, Fisher argued, gained control of half of all the infuential positions in business, the professions and arts. The ancient antisemitic trope of ‘Jewish power’ was being regurgitated. Fisher argued that protests achieved little and argued for more understanding of the new German rulers as they sought parity among the nations again.85
Some Methodists took action. Rev. Dr. Frank Kingdon (18941972) became chairman of the New York Fight for Freedom Committee and, in 1940, the frst chairman of the Emergency Rescue Committee which procured funds for Varian Fry’s rescue efforts in Vichy France. Ultimately, only fve Americans have to date been named Righteous among the Nations by Yad Vashem, the World Holocaust Remembrance Center, for risking their own lives to save Jews.86 One of these, Roddie Edmonds, had attended the Vestal Methodist Church in South Knoxville, TN, where Rev. Edwin Hugh Ogle (1896-1971) was preacher. Edmonds became a committed Christian. In a prisoner-of-war camp in Ziegehain in 1945 Edmonds defed the orders of the commandant to tell all the Jewish US soldiers to step
forward; otherwise, he would be killed on the spot. “We are all Jews here,” he told the commandant. At a time of increasingly violent antisemitism in United States, and indeed, throughout the western world, following Edmonds’ example in word and deed would seem to be an appropriate response today.
There have always been Methodists concerned about Jewish suffering. The American Rev. John Stanley Grauel (1917-1986) is one such man. Born in Worcester, Massachusetts, he studied for the ministry at Bangor (Maine) Theological Seminary. He gave up his pastoral work in order to work full time at the Philadelphia offce of the Christian Council of Palestine (later named the American Christian Palestine Committee). This group had been working since 1932 for the re-establishment of a Jewish state. In the United States Grauel mingled with freedom fghters of the Haganah based in New York, a group considered by the British colonial occupying power to be terrorists. He was the only Gentile on board the Exodus from Europe 1947 which set sail for the Promised Land in March 1947.87 He helped to break the British blockade and smuggle holocaust survivors into the Holy Land. Grauel strongly sympathised with Zionism and the ship itself became a symbol of the struggle of Jews to immigrate freely into Palestine, something the British colonial regime had sought to prevent. Grauel brought to light the plight of Jewish refugees languishing in British detention camps in Germany. He spoke before the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine about British mistreatment of Jews.88 His plea helped move the representatives to establish a Jewish state.89 For his work he was awarded the Fighter for Israel Medal (with two combat ribbons), the Humanity Medal (shared with Pope Paul VI) and the Medal of Jerusalem as a founder of the State of Israel. “Pacifsm”, he once said at Dalhousie University, “is not the answer to Israel’s problems today. We must stand up and defend Israel. Moses will not be there to part the sea this time.”90 In his last years he worked for the United Jewish Appeal and also spoke out against the oppression of Jews in Muslim states. This didn’t always go down well. Muslim students drowned his speeches with shouts of “Liar” and “Fascist.” As a member of the Haganah he was also accused of participating in genocide.91
His grave is in the American Christian Missionary Alliance Cemetery in Jerusalem. On the gravestone is written in Hebrew ‘John the Priest’. At the top, on the left, can be found the insignia of the Israeli Defence Forces (a sword, David’s shield and an olive branch). A Talmudic
(2025)
dictum was inscribed in English and Hebrew on the stone: He who saves a single life is as if he has saved the entire world. In the Jewish state, which Herzl hoped would be an outpost of culture and civilisation holding back the forces of barbarism,92 Grauel found his fnal resting place. In the United States his involvement in the project to bring Jews to Palestine is, however, not particularly well-known.
Overall, the story of American Methodist responses to German antisemitism is disappointing. They refected the inaction of their government. Like members of other Christian denominations, Methodists, too, can now only remind themselves of missed opportunities and of their indifference and inaction to Jewish suffering on the annual Holocaust Memorial Day.93
The UMC and Israel
In July 1974 the Methodist minister Dr Bernhard E. Olson, national director of Interreligious Affairs for the National Conference of Christians and Jews, expressed his fear that another holocaust was possible. Antisemitism was a continuing problem deeply rooted in American society, he said, which highlighted the failures of the Christian church. “The Jews in the Middle East are afraid,” he reminded his listeners, “that another holocaust will take place right there.” Arab leaders were calling for the obliteration of the State of Israel. Throughout the world he noted that Jewhaters “fnd it more socially acceptable to camoufage their antisemitism by criticism of Zionism or what they call Zionist policies.” Any detailed analysis of their statements, he argued, unveiled the central antisemitic core.94
The call to vigilance from Dr Olson based on his prescient understanding of the nature of much of anti-Zionism was issued against the backdrop of the Yom Kippur War. Rev. Robert W. Huston (associate general secretary of the Methodist Board of Global Ministries), Rev. Dr. Grover C. Bagby (member of the General Board of Christian Social Concerns), Dr John R. Knecht (President of the Methodist United Theological Seminary in Dayton), Bishop Melvin E. Wheatley (the Denver area United Methodist Church), Bishop Don. H. Holter (Nebraska area United Methodist Church), Dr. Franklin H. Littell (professor of religion at Temple University in Philadelphia and a leader of Christians Concerned for Israel) and Rev. A. Roy Eckhardt (professor of religion at Lehigh University and one of the leaders of the Christians Concerned for Israel group) all issued statements of support
for Israel at a time when its very existence seemed threatened. Littell was appalled by the “obscene attack on Israel on the holiest of Jewish religious holidays.” Eckhardt bemoaned the continuing “Christian collaborationism” with the enemies of the Jewish people. “The Christian world was very largely silent and complicitous before the Nazi genocide of Jews. Its silence and “neutralism” and even pro-Arabism, amid the attempted second holocaust of 1967 are well known. With the Yom Kippur war of 1973, Christians and the churches are given the opportunity to collaborate yet a third time in the unceasing effort to annihilate the Jewish people.” The preferred means were demands for “evenhandedness” and “calls for peace.”95
The next test came two years later. The issue was the resolution on anti-Zionism (November 10, 1975) promoted by Arab-Muslim states at the General Assembly of the United Nations. The resolution declared the thought behind the Jewish national liberation movement as “a form of racism and racial discrimination.” It was part of an on-going propagandistic campaign to demonise and delegitimise the existence of a Jewish state in the Middle East. Judith Banki noted that mild criticism by the Council of Bishops of the United Methodist Church in its statement on November 12, 1975, suggested they were far more worried about the potential loss of support for the United Nations among Methodists and Palestinian nationalism than they were with the merit and substance of the resolution. Tellingly, the bishops failed to even mention Israel by name. Bishops Roy C. Nichols of Pittsburgh, John B. Warman of Harrisburg and Melvin E. Wheatley of Denver voted against the bishops’ statement. Bishop W. Ralph Ward, president of the Council of Bishops, declared that Zionism “implies moral and spiritual values characteristic of the Jewish people through the ages. These have to be upheld in the Christian community.” Offcials of the Board of Global Ministries and the Board of Church and Society deplored the “irresponsible and self-defeating” vote in the General Assembly of the UN, deeming it to be “indefensible in historical perspective.” The resolution against Zionism solved nothing. Such “scapegoating activity” would simply further exacerbate the situation. In a letter to the UN General Secretary Kurt Waldheim (a former Nazi and war criminal) the director of the Council of Ministries, J. Irwin Trotter, and the chairperson of the Board of Church and Society, Mildred Hutchinson, wrote: “To resort to anti-Semitism as a weapon… is to let loose demons that no one will be able to control.”96 The United Nations had itself become an instrument of racist prejudice against Jews. In rejecting the UN resolution, a Methodist periodical quoted Karl
(2025)
Barth: “In order to be chosen we must, for good or ill, either be Jews or else be heart and soul on the side of the Jews.”
Modern liberal theology and, more recently, liberation theology have left their mark on the United Methodist Church (UMC). Though replacement theology has been offcially rejected, God’s gift of a land to the Jewish people has not as yet been theologically accepted. The United Methodist Guiding Principles for Christian-Jewish Relations in The Book of Resolutions of The United Methodist Church (2016) noted “the theological signifcance of the Holy Land as central to the worship, historical traditions, hope, and identity of the Jewish people” and committed the church to “respect for the legitimacy of the state of Israel.”97 While the document notes that the gifts (charismata) that God has given to the Jews are irrevocable (Romans 11:29), it fails to truly engage with the theological sigifcance of one specifc gift, namely the land mass delineated by God in scripture. The Guiding Principles recognise that there are disputed political questions of sovereignty and control of the land, yet they specifcally reject any vision of what they call a “Greater Israel.”98 Presumably, this is a rejection of the view that the land between the river of Egypt to the river Euphrates had been promised covenantally to them by God. John Wesley believed, however, that the Turks would one day in the future have to vacate what he called Immanuel’s land.99
Other statements in the Guiding Principles for Christian-Jewish Relations relativise somewhat the intent and eternality of that gift to one particular people. For example, it is stated that the UMC would “seek to work together with other Christians, Jews, and Muslims to honor the religious signifcance of this land.” This opens a Pandora’s box and militates against working to ensure Israel remains intact and safe as a Jewish state. The Guiding Principles also include a section expressing opposition to Israeli settlements on Palestinian land. The resolutions take as granted that Judea and Samaria are solely and legally Palestinian land and that Jews have no legal right to take up their abode in their heartlands. No theological argument is offered.100
It is, then, no surprise, that the political stances taken by the UMC in the USA on Israel and Palestine have long been received by American Jews with incomprehension. Not surprisingly, rabbis have repeatedly expressed vocal criticism of the obsessive, one-sided attacks on the governmental policies of Israel. A moral equivalence is often drawn, they say, between the democratically elected government of Israel and terror organisations
that lack any democratic credibility. Jewish leaders have criticised bishops’ statements while noting at the same time that many rank-and-fle Methodists have no sympathy for, and even reject out of hand, their leaders’ political pronouncements. There were many Methodists in the pews, wrote Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, who chose to stand in solidarity with the “live Jews” in Israel as opposed to many clergy who were “too embarrassed” to express any support. Such clergy were politely told to stay away from ceremonies “memorializing dead ones.”101
Given this background it was, again, hardly surprising that the bishops of the UMC issued not one, but three statements on Israel’s war with Hamas in Gaza within the frst six months after the pogrom.102 The frst statement was issued two days after the massacres on the Sabbath of October 7, 2023, before the Israel Defence Forces began its campaign to free the hostages and defeat the organisation governing Gaza. The statement seemed to draw a moral equivalence between the terrorist organisation Hamas and the democratically elected government of Israel. The Council of Bishops “condemned violence in the Middle East,” the statement began. On the one hand, the “actions” of Hamas “militants” – words like terrorists, murder, rape, burning civilians alive, looting, taking civilians captive are avoided – appalled the bishops, but, on the other, Israel’s declaration of war “is also deeply saddening.” What did they expect? The pogrom, the worst since the holocaust,103 is described simply as “the latest outbreak of violence.”104 All the evidence suggests that a number of “militant” organisations, not only Hamas, took part in the massacres. But so did many civilians. That fact is not recorded.
The second statement from the Council of Bishops (November 10, 2023) spoke of a “centuries-old confict.”105 It is unclear what they meant by this phrase. Rather than quoting a Bible verse to introduce their moral imperatives, a line from an anti-religious John Lennon song (Give Peace A Chance) provided the leitmotif. The bishops do not seem to have read the lyrics of Lennon’s song, which attacks bishops and rabbis for the mess the world is in. The third statement (March 13, 2024) mentioned “starving Palestinians” and “catastrophic levels of starvation.” The bishops claimed that 30,000 people, the majority of them being women and children, had died in “Israel’s bombardment.” For example, Israeli forces had killed over 100 people trying to take food from an aid truck.106 It called three times for an immediate, permanent ceasefre and a two-state solution. The bishops criticised Israel’s military strategy which, they believed, would lead to “the
(2025)
destruction of the entire Gaza Strip” and an “unconscionable death toll.”
A call for the release of hostages appears as an afterthought at the very end of this statement. It was clear where the bishops’ sympathies lay and where they attributed most of the blame for any deaths caused.107
Antisemitism is deeply embedded in Palestinian society. Children are indoctrinated with it in Palestinian schools. This context fnds no mention in the episcopal statements. Nor does the eschatological role played by the Jews in Islamic thought and, specifcally, in Hamas ideology. Given the numerous parallels between Nazi and Islamist Jew-hatred, and the links between the National Socialists and the Muslim Brotherhood from the 1930s, these omissions are striking. Historians have long known of the notorious role played by Hajj Amin al-Husseini (1897-1974), the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and leader of Palestinian nationalism, during the British mandate period. The ideological link between the two movements of Nazism and Islamism are the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Both Nazism and Islamism “posit a Jewish enemy with genocidal intentions vis-à-vis non-Jews.” This understanding of the world supposedly merits “a genocidal response in return.”108 There is one major difference between the two genocidal movement: whereas the Germans kept the preparatory Wannsee Conference (January 20, 1942) secret and sought to cover up their crimes, Hamas made their intentions clear in their Charter and livestreamed their crimes on the internet.
Towards the end of the historic General Conference of April-May 2024 protests against Israel took place in Charlotte. The IDF’s “total war” on the Palestinian people and the resulting “genocide” in Gaza were attacked by Methodists during a demonstration organised by the lobby group United Methodists for Kairos Response. A call was made to boycott Israeli bonds. It would be unconscionable to invest in Israel, they believed. The resolution was accepted and the UMC became the frst Christian denomination to take a “prophetic” stance supporting the “Palestinian struggle” by deciding to divest from the bonds of the State of Israel.109
While the UMC stated in its Guiding Principles for ChristianJewish Relations (2016) that it wished to continue to honour the cries of the tortured and the dead and be faithful to the post-Holocaust maxim of “Never Again,” one wonders why American Methodists did not unequivocally condemn the barbaric acts perpetrated on 7 October by members of the Sunni Islamic Resistance Movement, an organisation committed to the destruction of Israel, supported by Gazan civilians motivated by Jew-hatred.
In the months following October 7, 2023, antisemitic outrages exploded everywhere in the world. In effect, the reponse to the slaughter of Jewish children, women and men on that day was very muted and wholly inadequate. Given the wide availability of factual data on the pogrom it is ironic to fnd that the 2016 United Methodist Guiding Principles for Christian-Jewish Relations underline the importance of challenging antiJewish bigotry, of opposing forcefully any contemporary anti-Jewish acts and also of learning from past pogroms against Jews. A biblical critique of Anti-Zionism seems to be particularly necessary in an age of world-wide anti-Semitism and Israelophobia. Many Jews are waiting to see progress on this front.
Concluding Remarks
From the end of the sixteenth century right up to the famous letter from the Presbyterian British Foreign Minister Arthur James Balfour (18481930) to the Zionist Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild (November 2, 1917),110 evangelicals had taken an interest in the fate of the Jews. In the lifetime of the Wesley brothers, during the heated debates about the naturalization of Jews in Britain, one commentator had argued that the British feet were surely the biblical ships of Tarshish, built to bring Jews back to their homeland.111 Another had proposed that the British send an army to liberate Jerusalem from the Turks.112 Only on December 11, 1917, was the idea put into effect. General Edmund Allenby conquered Gaza, Beersheba and Jerusalem. Shortly afterwards a “prominent” Methodist preacher in Cleveland, a “distinguished Bible scholar,” expressed his hope that the embalmed corpse of Jesus would shortly be discovered. It might be under the Rock of Omar, he thought, but “only exploration will determine this.”113 His hopes were dashed. Arno Gaebelein, the editor of Our Hope, wondered whether he had ever read the gospels. Arno’s son Frank Ely Gaebelein (1899-1983) became associate editor and later publisher of Our Hope Critical of modernizing trends within Methodism, he became a member of the Reformed Episcopal Church. Shortly before the Second World War Frank E. Gaebelein bemoaned the state of Methodism: “It is too bad that the Methodist denomination has so little use for teaching of prophecy. Both John and Charles Wesley had much light on the premillennial coming of our Lord. If they were living in these days they would surely repudiate the Modernism so prevalent in Methodism and preach the blessed Hope.”114
There is still little evidence that the study of biblical prophecy, as opposed to socio-political activity, is a major concern of modern Methodists.
The seemingly myopic obsession of some Methodists with the state that was established to provide an asylum and a home for persecuted Jews after the holocaust appears, in Jewish eyes, to be a worrying feature of American Christianity. As most Jews could explain, phrases like ‘genocide’, ‘total war’ and ‘starvation’, with a focus on deliberately killing children, are utilised in offcial pronouncements by legal and ecclesiastical bodies as the twenty-frst century equivalents of the ancient blood libel. Today, ‘Zionists’ rather then ‘Jews’ are the killers of innocent children. It is time for more intense dialogue with Jews, particularly religious Zionist Jews, and more regular visits to synagogue services (something John Wesley is known to have done) would seem to be in order.115 In particular, Israelis could inform people in the West what a ‘ceasefre’ and ‘a two-state solution’ would in all likelihood mean for Jews in the region.
The eschatological hymns of Methodism need to be dusted off and their content rediscovered. One hymn criticises Islam and its murderous imperialism:
The smoke of the infernal cave, Which half the Christian world o’erspread, Disperse, thou heavenly light, and save The souls by that impostor led, That Arab-thief, as Satan bold, Who quite destroyed thy Asian fold.116
Another hymn deals with the future of the Muslim and Jewish peoples:
When Jesus, making wars to cease, Brings in an everlasting peace, To us and all mankind.
Dispersing th’ infernal gloom
His kingdom shall as lightning come, And shine from east to west
The Crescent to the Cross shall yield, The Turks and Heathens be compell’d Their Sovereign to confess, And Jews who pierced His hands and side, Discern Jehovah crucifed, Their true Messiah bless.117
The Wesley brothers could see the day a Jewish state would be reconstituted. In the eighteenth century the view was held by many that the Jews “remain a standing miracle.”118 In the twentieth century, Karl Barth (1886-1968) was wont to point out that the survival of the Jewish people against all odds and the reconstitution of the State of Israel in their ancestral homeland were divine miracles pointing to the existence of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Ultimately, attacks on the existence of the Jews were, in Barth’s opinion, attacks upon the God who had freely chosen them. They would fail. The Jewish people was indestructible.119
Though faced by irrational hostility throughout three millennia the Jewish people, and now their state, are still fghting for their right to exist. Paraphrasing Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945), one should today demand that only those who condemn anti-Semitism and explicitly support the Jewish state’s right to defend itself against – and defeat – its enemies, have the right to sing Methodist hymns.
End Notes
1 Theodore K. Rabb, “The Stirrings of the 1590s and the Return of the Jews to England.” Transactions of the Jewish Historical Society of England 26 (1974-78): 26-33; Franz Kobler, “Sir Henry Finch (1558-1625) and The First English Advocates of the Restoration of the Jews to Palestine.” Transactions of the Jewish Historical Society of England 16 (1951/52): 101-120; N. I. Matar, “The Idea of the Restoration of the Jews in English Protestant Thought: Between the Reformation and 1660”. Dublin University Journal 78 (1985): 23-35; Christopher Hill, “Till the conversion of the Jews,” in: The Collected Essays of Christopher Hill, Vol. 2: Religion and politics in 17th century England. Brighton: Harvester (1986): 269-300; N. I. Matar, “The Idea of the Restoration of the Jews in English Protestant Thought, 1661 – 1701.” Harvard Theological Review 78/ 1–2 (1985): 115-148; David Brown, The Restoration of the Jews: The History, Principles, and Bearings of the Question. Edinburgh: Strahan (1861); Albert M. Hyamson, British Projects for the Restoration of the Jews. The British Palestine Committee No. 1. Leeds: [s.n.] (1917); David S. Katz, Philo-Semitism and the Readmission of the Jews to England 1603 – 1655. Oxford: OUP (1982); Mayir Vreté, “The Restoration of the Jews in English Protestant Thought 1790 – 1840.” Middle Eastern Studies 8: 1 (1972): 3-50; Sarah Kochav, “’Beginning at Jerusalem:’ The Mission to the Jews and English Evangelical Eschatology,” in: Jerusalem in the Mind of the Western World, 1800 – 1948 [With Eyes Toward Zion –V], edited by Yehoshua Ben-Arieh / Moshe Davis, Westport, Conn.-London: Praeger (1997): 91-107.
2 Thomas Brightman, A Revelation of the Revelation that is the Revelation of St. John […]. Amsterdam: [s.n.] (1615): 549. The book was written in Latin about the year 1600 and was frst published in Frankfurt in 1609. Spellings and capitals as in the original.
(2025)
3 Thomas Draxe, An alarum to the last judgement. Or, An exact discourse of the second coming of Christ and of the general and remarkeable signes and fore-runners of it past, present, and to come […]. London: Law (1615): 29, 74-78, 81. Draxe bases his arguments on Rom 11,12:25 and 2 Cor 3:15.
4 Thomas Coke, The Recent Occurrences of Europe considered, in relation to such Prophecies as are either Fulflling or Unfulflled. London: Printed for the Author (1809): 193-302; “Illustration of Psalm cx. 3”. The Methodist Magazine, For August, 1822: 301-302; Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible […] with a Commentary and Critical Notes. vol. 4. New York: Emory and Waugh (1829): 86 (on Jeremiah 31,22), 421-423 (on Amos 9,11-12.15), 427-428 (on Obadiah 17.21), 449 (on Micah 5,3), 484-486 (on Zephaniah 3,9-20), 507-509 (on Zechariah 8,7.13-20), 516-517 (on Zechariah 12,6.1011); Adam Clarke, The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ […] with a Commentary and Critical Notes. vol. 2. New York: Emory and Waugh (1832): 123-129 (on Romans 11,11-33); “Millenarians.” Richard Watson, A Biblical and Theological Dictionary […]. New York: Mason and Lane (1837): 647-653; William Scott, “The Case of the Jews, considered with particular reference to their supposed literal gathering No. I.” The Methodist Magazine and Quarterly Review 10/4 (October 1839): 361-383; William Scott, “The Case of the Jews, considered with particular reference to their supposed literal gathering No. II.” The Methodist Magazine and Quarterly Review 11: 2 (April 1840): 179-202; William Scott, “The Case of the Jews, considered with particular reference to their supposed literal gathering No. III.” The Methodist Magazine and Quarterly Review 11: 4 (October 1840): 411-428; Orange Scott, “Restoration and Conversion of the Twelve Tribes of Israel.” The Pulpit (New York) 1: 11 (November 1846): 233-241; John Brownson, “A Lecture on the Jews.” The Primitive Methodist Magazine (September 1848): 525-531; John Brownson, “A Lecture on the Jews.” The Primitive Methodist Magazine (October 1848): 582-590; “Were the Tribes of Israel ever Lost?” The Methodist Quarterly Review 37 (July 1855): 419-440.
5 John Wesley, A Letter to the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of London; Occasioned by his Late Charge to his clergy. London: Strahan (1747): 28; John Wesley, A Sermon on Numbers xxiii. 23. Preached Monday, April 21, 1777, on Laying the Foundation of the New Chappel [sic]. Near the City Road. London, UK: Fry (1777): 18.
6 Edward Goldney, Epistles to Deists and Jews, In order to convert them to the Christian Religion: And Scriptural Remedies For healing the Divisions in the Church of England; Particularly Of those People called Methodists […]. London: Printed for the Author (1759); A Call to the Jews by A Friend of the Jews. London: Johnson (1783); An Answer to a Pamphlet, entitled Considerations on the Bill to permit Persons professing the Jewish Religion to be naturalized […]. London: Cooke (1753): 27-33.
7 Louis Meyer, “Ludwig S. Jacoby, Founder of German Methodism West of the Missouri.” The Jewish Era 17: 2 (April 15, 1908): 46-51.
8 C. E. Harris, “Siegfried Kristeller.” Minutes of the New York East Annual Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, (Thirty-Sixth Session.) Hanson Place Methodist Episcopal Church, Brooklyn, April 2 to 8, 1884. New York: Phillips and Hunt (1884): 53-54; Minutes of the First Hebrew-Christian Conference of the United States. Held at Mountain Lake Park, Md. July 28-30, 1903. [1903]: 25, 26.
9 “Philadelphia.” The Jewish Chronicle (July 1844): 16; “New England States.” The Jewish Chronicle (September 1844): 66; “The American Society. Quarterly Meeting.” The Jewish Chronicle (December 1844): 140; “Mr. Silian Bonhomme.” The Jewish Chronicle (January 1845): 173; “Mr. Silian Bonhomme.” The Jewish Chronicle (February 1845): 208-209; “Mr. Silian Bonhomme.” The Jewish Chronicle (March 1845): 240; “Mr. Silian Bonhomme.” The Jewish Chronicle (April 1845): 269, 275; “Mr. Silian Bonhomme.” The Jewish Chronicle (May 1845): 304-305; “Abstract of the Twenty-Second Annual Report.” The Jewish Chronicle (June 1845): 338; “Mr. Silian Bonhomme.” The Jewish Chronicle (June 1845): 343; The TwentyFourth Report of the American Society for Meliorating the Condition of the Jews. New York: The Society’s Offce (1847): 31; “Mr. Silian Bonhomme.”
The Jewish Chronicle (August 1845): 52; “Journal of Mr. S. Bonhomme.” The Jewish Chronicle (September 1845): 89-92; “Journal of Mr. S. Bonhomme.”
The Jewish Chronicle (October 1845): 120-123; “The Occident and the Jewish Chronicle.” The Jewish Chronicle (November 1845): 142; “Journal of Mr. S. Bonhomme.” The Jewish Chronicle (November 1845): 157-159; “Letter from C. van Santvoord, Saugerties, 27 October 1845.” The Jewish Chronicle (December 1845): 188; “Journal of Mr. S. Bonhomme.” The Jewish Chronicle (January 1846): 218-221; “Mr. Silian Bonhomme.” The Jewish Chronicle (February 1846): 247; “Mr. Silian Bonhomme.” The Jewish Chronicle (March 1846): 281-282; “Journal of Mr. S. Bonhomme.” The Jewish Chronicle (April 1846): 310-313; “Letters from Mr. S. Bonhomme.”
The Jewish Chronicle (May 1846): 347-49; “The Twenty-Third Anniversary.” The Jewish Chronicle (May 1846): 361. Bonhomme was born in France. In 1861 he left the Methodist Episcopal Church and became a preacher with the Presbyterian Church. He died on December 30, 1882.
10 Minutes of the First Hebrew-Christian Conference of the United States. Held at Mountain Lake Park, Md. July 28-30, 1903. Pittsburgh: Burgum [n.d.]: 22-23.
11 Enoch Wood, “The Rev. Charles Freshman, D.D.” The Canadian Methodist Magazine 1 (April 1875): 285-300; The Autobiography of the Rev. Charles Freshman […]. Toronto: Wesleyan Book Room (1868): 136; George Cornish, Cyclopædia of Methodism in Canada […]. Toronto: Methodist Book and Publishing House (1881): 87, 91, 357.
12 Sixth Annual Report For The Year 1887. Hebrew-Christian Work. New York City, New York: Knowles (1887): 8, 21-22, 30.
13 “Gleanings from the Jewish Press.” The Peculiar People 3: 7 (October 1890): 152-53; “The Affdavit of John Hoffman against the Rev. Jacob Freshman.” The Peculiar People 3: 9 (December 1890): 200-203; “A Word from John Hoffman.” The Peculiar People. Supplement, no. 12 (March 1891): [no page number].
14 [A.B.K.], “The Hebrew-Christian Church and Mission in New York.” The Christian Union 30: 2 (July 10, 1884): 38; “A Hebrew-Christian Church Dedicated in New York.” The Friends’ Review. A Religious, Literary and Miscellaneous Journal 39: 21 (December 26, 1885): 332; M. B. Chapman, “The Evangelization of the Jews.” Christian Advocate 46: 17 (April 24, 1886): 7; “The Jewish Church in New York.” Ford’s Christian Repository and Home Circle 61: 2 (February 1886): 81-85; A. H. De Haven, “Mr. Lewis H. Williams, New York, and the Hebrew Christian Church.” The Cambrian 7: 11 (November 1887): 346-347; “Hebrew-Christian Church.” The Church at Home and Abroad (July 1888): 9-10; Joseph S. Taylor (ed.), A Romance of Providence: Being A History of the Church of the Strangers, in the City of New York. New York: Ketcham (1887): 147-148; “The Hebrew-Christian Church.” The Sunday School Journal for Teachers and Young People 20: 10 (October 1888): 361-362; “Christian Festival at a Hebrew-Christian Church.” The Ann Arbor Baptist 1: 6 (February 1889): 15; “Hebrew-Christian Church Work.” New Amsterdam Gazette 7: 2 (May 15, 1891): 12; “Hebrew-Mission Work New York.” The Union Seminary Magazine, no. 3 (January-February 1893): 202-205; “Signifcance of the Jewish Gathering in New York.” The Methodist Review 75 (March 1893): 290-298; Bernhard Angel, “American Hebrew Christian Mission, 17 St. Mark’s Place, New York, Dec. 1, 1895.” The Jewish Era 5: 1 (January 1896): 10-11. At the Presbyterian Ursinus College, Pennsylvania, Jacob Freshman was awarded a doctorate in theology.
15 John B. Devins, “The Northfeld Conference.” The Christian Union. A Family Paper 46: 8 (August 20, 1892): 355.
16 Prophetic Studies of the International Prophetic Conference (Chicago, November, 1886) […]. New York-Chicago: Fleming H. Revell (1886): 41.
17 “Editorial Notes.” The Independent 42: 2166 (June 5, 1890): 12.
18 “Religious News.” The Herald and Presbyter. A Presbyterian Family Paper 54: 36 (May 9, 1894): 16.
19 “Rev. Jacob Freshman, D.D.” The Jewish Era 7: 2 (April 1898): 47-49. Along with William E. Blackstone, Freshman is here described as the co-founder of the Chicago Hebrew Mission.
20 “Jewish Missions in New York.” The Independent 47: 2433 (July 18, 1895): 11; The Peculiar People 8: 6 (September 1895): 121-124.
21 The Jewish Era 16: 3 (July 15, 1907): 97.
22 On Wallfsch see J. H. Wallfsch, “Unsere Bewahrung” and “Christliche Gedichte eines bekehrten Israeliten.” Wegweiser zur Heiligung (March 1887): 54-56, 72. Wallfsch worked as a local preacher and town missionary in La Crosse, Wisc., J.H. Wallfsch, “An die SonntagsschulLehrer und –Lehrerinnen!.” Haus und Herd. Ein illustrirtes Familienblatt 14: 6 (June 1886): 325.
23 Otto Hauser, Geschichte des Judentums. Weimar: Duncker 1935: 203.
24 William C. Daland, “Our Work for Jews.” Jubilee Papers. Historical Papers Commemorating the Fiftieth Anniversary of the SeventhDay Baptist Missionary Society […]. New York: American Sabbath Tract Society (1892): 85-91; J. H. Wallfsch, “Who Is The Proselyte.” The Peculiar People 3: 6 (September 1890): 126-28.
25 “The Mildmay Mission to the Jews.” Service for the King. A Record of Mildmay Missions 12: 12 (December 1891): 234-36.
26 Friedrich Ernst von Langen, Das jüdische Geheimgesetz und Die deutschen Landesvertretungen. Ein Handbüchlein für Politiker. Leipzig: Beyer (1895): 16; “Prediger Dr. Wallfsch.” Die Waffen nieder! Monatsschrift zur Förderung der Friedensbewegung 3: 4 (April 1894): 144.
27 “Georgia and the South.” The Jewish Era 17: 1 (January 15, 1908): 11-12.
28 Hermann L. Strack (ed.), Yearbook of the Evangelical Missions among the Jews. vol. 1. Leipzig: Hinrichs (1906): 118; The Jewish Era 17: 1 (January 15, 1908): 12-13; M. B. Chapman, “The Evangelization of the Jews.” Christian Advocate 46: 17 (April 24, 1886): 7.
29 “Um Zions willen will ich nicht schweigen.” Dibre Emeth oder Stimmen der Wahrheit an Israeliten und Freunde Israels 43: 3 (1887): 2223; “Die methodistische Juden-Missions-Gesellschaft zu Galena” and “Die wesleyanische Judenmission.” Rundschau über die Diaspora der Juden und die Judenmission der Kirche. Beiblatt zu “Saat auf Hoffnung 2: 2-3 (1888): 36-37, 68; J. F. A. de le Roi, Die evangelische Christenheit und die Juden unter dem Gesichtspunkte der Mission geschichtlich betrachtet. vol. 3, Berlin: Reuther (1892): 320-321, 384-386; Edwin Munsell Bliss (ed.), The Encyclopædia of Missions. Descriptive, Historical, Biographical, Statistical vol. 1, New York: Funk and Wagnalls (1891): 514.
30 The Jewish Era 16: 3 (July 15, 1907): 99; Hermann L. Strack (ed.), Yearbook of the Evangelical Missions among the Jews. vol. 1, Leipzig: Hinrichs (1906): 118. Ehrlich was an evangelist and became superintendent of the Jewish Christian Mission in Atlanta. His autobiography is titled How a Jew Found Jesus (1904).
31 Gaebelein served the New York East Conference of the MEC. David A. Rausch, “Arno C. Gaebelein (1861-1945): Fundamentalist Protestant Zionist.” American Jewish History 68: 1 (September 1978): 4356.
32 Wilhelm (William) Schwartz (1826-1875) had emigrated to the United States in 1845, was converted in the Second Street German Church in New York and joined the MEC. In December 1846 he was licensed to preach. He worked for the German Mission before returning with his wife to Germany as a missionary in 1858. In 1874 he returned to the United
States and died the following year. “Foreign German Mission.” FortySecond Annual Report of the Missionary Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church. New York: Printed for the Society (1861): 52; “William Schwarz [sic].” Minutes of the Annual Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church for the Year 1875. New York: Nelson and Phillips (1875): 45.
33 Six Methodists took part in the important conference on prophecy in New York in 1878: Rev. John Parker (Brooklyn), Rev. Jesse L. Gilbert (Newark, N.J.), George Hall (Clifton Springs, N.Y.), T. W. Harvey (Chicago, Ill.), Dr Henry Foster (Clifton Springs, N.Y.), William E. Blackstone (Oak Park, Ill.) and Professor H. Lummis (Monson, Mass.). After his return to Germany Stroeter organized Prophetic Conferences in Berlin (1919, 1920, 1921).
34 Ernst Stroeter, “The Millennium.” The Methodist Review 75 (January 1894): 127-129. In 1903 the German Methodist publishing house published Stroeter’s study on the eleventh chapter of Romans: Die Judenfrage und ihre göttliche Lösung nach Römer Kapitel 11. Bremen: Verlag des Traktathauses.
35 A. C. Gaebelein, “Methodist Mission to Jews in New York City.” Gospel in All Lands (July 1895): 374-375.
36 [A.C.G.], “Jewish Societies for the Colonization of Palestine.” Our Hope 1: 1 (July 1894): 12-15.
37 “Report of Secretary North.” Our Hope 1: 1 (July 1894): 18.
38 “Our Assistants.” Our Hope 1: 1 (July 1894): 22; “Dr. H. Zeckhausen.” Our Hope 5: 2-3 (August-September 1898): 43; “Dr. Zeckhausen’s Trip to Russia.” Our Hope 5: 4 (October 1898): 136-139; Hermann L. Strack (ed.), Yearbook of the Evangelical Missions among the Jews. vol. 1, Leipzig: Hinrichs (1906): 114; The Jewish Era 17: 1 (January 15, 1908): 14; The Jewish Era 17: 3 (July 15, 1908): 101; The Bible Society Record 65: 10 (October 1920): 158.
39 Hermann L. Strack (ed.), Yearbook of the Evangelical Missions among the Jews. vol. 1, Leipzig: Hinrichs 1906: 120.
40 Minutes of the First Hebrew-Christian Conference of the United States. Held at Mountain Lake Park, Md. July 28-30, 1903 [n.d, n.p.]: v, vii, 1, 3, 31-39.
41 Report of the New York City Church Extension and Missionary Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church For the Year ending December 31, 1881. New York: Oliver (1882): 37; The Methodist Year-Book for 1891. Edited by A. B. Sanford. New York: Hunt and Eaton [n.d.]: 64; “Missionary Societies.” The Jewish Era 2: 3 (July 1893): 196; “Hebrew. Commenced 1893.” Seventy-Sixth Annual Report of the Missionary Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church For the Year 1894. New York: Printed for the Society (1895): 359; New York Charities Directory. A Classifed and Descriptive Directory. New York: Charity Organization Society (1895):
248-249, 359; The Peculiar People 8: 5 (August 1895): 97-98; SeventySeventh Annual Report of the Missionary Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church For the Year 1895. New York: Printed for the Society (1896): 321; Delevan L. Pierson, “Syria and Palestine, the Jews.” The Missionary Review of the World 20: 12 (December 1897): 933-935; Hermann L. Strack (ed.), Yearbook of Evangelical Missions among the Jews. vol. 1, Leipzig: Hinrichs (1906): 114, 115.
42 Stroeter worked as a travelling preacher and an “Evangelist in Israel.” His missionary efforts were often described as “Methodist” but he apparently worked without support from a denomination or a society. The Jewish Era 9: 2 (April 15, 1900): 46.
43 Rev. Leopold Cohn headed up the Brownsville and Williamsburg Mission to the Jews, which was non-denominational in character, but was fnancially supported by the American Baptist Home Missionary Society and the Brooklyn Baptist Church Extension Society. Hermann L. Strack (ed.), Yearbook of the Evangelical Missions among the Jews. vol. 1. (1906): 116.
44 Our Hope 5: (July 1, 1899): 33-34.
45 Ernst F. Stroeter, “Does the Jew in Christ Cease to Be a Jew? The Argument from the New Testament History.” The Peculiar People. A Christian Monthly devoted to Jewish Interests, Political, Social, Literary, and Religious 9: 5 (August 1896): 103-109; [Part 2] 9: 6 (September 1896): 130-134.
46 Arno Clemens Gaebelein, The Confict of the Ages. The Mystery of Lawlessness: Its Origin, Historic Development and Coming Defeat. New York: Publication Offce “Our Hope” (1933): 99-102, 157-158.
47 Hermann L. Strack (ed.), Yearbook of the Evangelical Missions among the Jews. vol. 1: 115.
48 “Judges III.” Our Hope. A Christian Monthly, Devoted to Bible Study, Especially the Prophetic Word, and Gospel Work among the Jews 6: 10 (April 1900): 298; [A.C.G.], “Some Thoughts on Romans ix, x, and xi.” Our Hope 6: 11 (May 1900): 329-335.
49 David A. Rausch, “Arno C. Gaebelein (1861-1945): Fundamentalist Protestant Zionist”: 50-51.
50 “Bible Doubts Stir Methodists. The Rev. S. P. Cadman’s Bold Remarks Evoke Diverse Criticisms.” The New York Journal (March 8, 1899): 2.
51 Minutes of the First Hebrew-Christian Conference of the United States. Held at Mountain Lake Park, Md. July 28-30, 1903. [Pittsburgh] (1903): V-VI, 1-3, 12-13, 28.
(2025)
52 Minutes of the First Hebrew-Christian Conference of the United States. Held at Mountain Lake Park, Md. July 28-30 (1903): 51. Theodor Herzl (1860-1904) was the main founder of political Zionism. Max Nordau (1849-1923) helped establish the Zionist Organisation.
53 Papers, Addresses and Proceedings of the Second General Conference Held in the Chambers-Whylie Presbyterian Church Philadelphia, Pa. USA, Published by the Hebrew Christian Alliance of America [May 2-5, 1916]. [n.d, n.p.]: 110-111.
54 “Hebrew Christians to Conference.” The Missionary Review of the World 41: 5 (May 1918): 393-394.
55 Jew and Gentile. A Report of a Conference of Israelites and Christians, regarding Their Mutual Relations and Welfare. ChicagoCincinnati: Bloch [1890]; George F. Magoun, “The Chicago Jewish Christian Conference.” Our Day. A Record and Review of Current Reform 7: 40 (April 1891): 266-277; “The Chicago Conference.” The Peculiar People 3: 10 (January 1891): 240; “Jew and Gentile Meet.” The Saints’ Herald 37: 49 (December 6, 1890): 797-98; “The Blackstone Memorial.” The Peculiar People. A Christian Monthly devoted to Jewish Interests, Political, Social, Literary, and Religious 4: 1 (April 1891): 16-21; “Memorial in Behalf of the Russian Jews.” The Gospel in All Lands. Ed. The Missionary Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church (April 1891): 183; Palestine for the Jews. Memorial to President Woodrow Wilson October, 1918 and A Copy of the Memorial Presented to President Harrison March 6, 1891 [n.d., n.p.]; “The Re-Establishment of Palestine.” The Jewish Era 5: 2 (April 1896): 6063; Jonathan Moorhead, “The Father of Zionism: William E. Blackstone?” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 53:4 (December 2010): 787800.
56 Palestine for the Jews, v.
57 Ekkehard Hirschfeld, Ernst Ferdinand Ströter. Eine Einführung in sein Leben und Denken. PhD dissertation, University of Greifswald (2010): 446. Stroeter’s daughter, Luella Elizabeth Stroeter, married John Louis Nuelsen (1867-1946) in 1896. He would later become a bishop of the MEC. Roland Blaich, “A Tale of Two Leaders: German Methodists and the Nazi State.” Church History 70: 2 (June 2001): 199-225
58 E. F. Stroeter, “Editorial Correspondence.” Our Hope. A Christian Monthly Devoted to the Study of Prophecy and Organ of the Hope of Israel Movement 4: 9 (March 1898): 291-294; 4: 10 (April 1898): 329-334; 4: 11 (May 1898): 371-374; 4: 12 (June 1898): 412, 414-419; 5: 1 (July 1898): 3- 9, 35, 38; 5: 2-3 (August-September 1898): 41-42; 5: 4 (October 1898): 102-108; “The Second Zionist Congress.” 5: 4 (October 1898): 112118; 5: 5 (November 1898): 143-149; 5: 6 (December 1898): 182-187; 5: 7 (January 1899): 223-229; 5: 9 (March 1899): 301-308; 5: 10 (April 1899): 338-342; 5: 12 (June 1899): 410-414. Wherever he stayed in Europe he preached on the promises of Romans 11, relating them to Zionism and a critique of anti-Semitism.
59 “And the Jews!” Our Hope 24: 7 (January 1918): 437-438; “Very Interesting Oriental Superstition.” Our Hope 24: 8 (February 1918): 492; “When It Will Be.” Our Hope 24: 9 (March 1918): 518-519; “Jewish Hope Revived.” Our Hope 24: 9 (March 1918): 563-564; “The Future of Palestine.” Our Hope 25: 12 (June 1918): 749-750; “Palestine for the Jews.” Our Hope 26: 1 (July 1919): 34; “Zion’s Rebirth?” Our Hope 26: 7 (February 1920): 505-507; “The Preparation for the Coming Exodus.” Our Hope 26: 8 (March 1920): 542-543; “The Restoration of the Jews in Unbelief has Begun.” Our Hope 26: 10 (May 1920): 680-681; Basil C. Mowll, Bible Light on Present Events. London: Protestant Truth Society [n.d.]: 60; W. D. McCrackan, The New Palestine. London: Jonathan Cape 1922: 305.
60 “The Jewish State Dream of Zionism Has Been Shattered.” Our Hope 46: 1 (July 1939): 41-43; “That Ship At Sea.” Our Hope 46: 2 (August 1939): 115-116; “Will Britain’s White Paper Keep the Jews Out of Palestine?” Our Hope 46: 3 (September 1939): 177-179; “Encouragement for the Zionists.” Our Hope 46: 4 (October 1939): 255-256; “Zionists Open Fresh Campaign.” Our Hope 46: 4 (October 1939): 260; “United Front in Palestine.” Our Hope 46: 6 (December 1939): 397; “Where Shall They Go?” Our Hope 46: 11 (May 1940): 755; “A Blow to Jewish Refugees.” Our Hope 48: 3 (September 1941): 199; “The Jewish Question.” Our Hope 48: 4 (October 1941): 258-62; “The Jewish Question.” Our Hope 48: 5 (November 1941): 326-330; “The Whole World is Waiting.” Our Hope 48: 6 (December 1941): 364-372; “Current News About Palestine and the Jews.” Our Hope 48: 6 (December 1941): 399-400; “Proposed JewishArab State in Palestine.” Our Hope 49: 4 (October 1942): 262-263; “The Palestine Enigma.” Our Hope 50: 6 (December 1943): 415; Anton Darms, “Zion in History and Prophecy.” Our Hope 50: 7 (January 1944): 477-483; “Tribulation Temple.” Our Hope 50: 8 (February 1944): 547-548.
61 “The Pattern is Taking Shape.” Our Hope 46: 2 (August 1939): 111-112.
62 “Will Britain’s White Paper Keep the Jews Out of Palestine.” Our Hope 46: 3 (September 1939): 179.
63 W. W. Fereday, “Jerusalem Today; in the Last Crisis; and in the Kingdom.” Our Hope 46: 7 (January 1940): 459-463; E. Schuyler, “Current Events in the Light of the Bible.” Our Hope 46: 7 (January 1940): 482-485.
64 “More Persecution for Israel.” Our Hope 46: 6 (December 1939): 296-297.
65 “The Jewish Problem.” Our Hope 50: 1 (October 1943): 248251.
66 “Zionist Demand to Atlee.” Our Hope 52: 3 (September 1945): 189.
67 Ibid.
68 “And the Jews!” Our Hope 24: 7 (January 1918): 437-438; “Very Interesting Oriental Superstition.” Our Hope 24: 8 (February 1918):
492; “When It Will Be.” Our Hope 24: 9 (March 1918): 518-519; “Jewish Hope Revived.” Our Hope 24: 9 (March 1918): 563-564; “The Future of Palestine.” Our Hope 25: 12 (June 1918): 749-750; “Palestine for the Jews.” Our Hope 26: 1 (July 1919): 34; “Zion’s Rebirth?’” Our Hope 26: 7 (February 1920): 505-507; “The Preparation for the Coming Exodus.” Our Hope 26: 8 (March 1920): 542-543; “The Restoration of the Jews in Unbelief has Begun.” Our Hope 26: 10 (May 1920): 680-681.
69 Arthur D. Morse, While Six Million Died. A Chronicle of American Apathy. Woodstock, NY: The Overlook Press (1983).
70 “German Refugees Have Aided Business and Given Many Jobs Here.” The Jewish Veteran 8: 8 (May 1939): 8.
71 Henry Smith Leiper, Personal View of the German Churches Under the Revolution. A confdential report based on intimate personal contact with the leaders on both sides of the Church and State controversy in the Third Reich. New York 1933: 7, 11.
72 “Rev. Henry Smith Leiper.” The Ghetto Speaks No. 23 (April 1, 1943): 7. The paper was issued by the American Representation of the General Jewish Workers’ Union of Poland, New York.
73 Admission of German Refugee Children. Joint Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Immigration United States Senate […] Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Offce 1939: 178, 180.
74 “Hitler scored heavily as Denver religious groups protest persecutions against Jews”. The Rocky Mountain News 74: 86 (March 27, 1933): 1-2.
75 Preserve the Olympic Ideal. A Statement of the Case Against American Participation in the Olympic Games at Berlin. New York: The Committee on Fair Play in Sports (n.d.): 38-39, 47-49.
76 “Methodist Students Hit Persecution of Jews in Reich, Racial Bias in U.S.” JTA News 3: 128 (January 4, 1938): 7.
77 “Nazi Massacres of Europe’s Jews to be protested at New York Meeting Today.” JTA Daily News Bulletin 9: 166 (July 21, 1942): 2.
78 Robert W. Ross, So It Was True. The American Protestant Press and the Nazi Persecution of the Jews. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press 1981: 141-142. Mecklenburg was banned from the radio station WTCN in 1938 after claiming in a sermon that Jews controlled Minneapolis. Anne J. Aby (ed.), The North Star State. A Minnesota History Reader. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press 2002: 397.
79 “Indignation sweeps America.” JTA News 4: 186 (November 14, 1938): 5.
80 Night of Pogroms “Kristallnacht” November 9 – 10, 1938. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council (1988): 64.
81 “Seventh Lynch Victim Innocent, Report Indicates.” The Crisis. A Record of the Darker Races 46: 1 (January 1939): 22.
82 “Britain adamant on plan for independent state in Palestine; Protestant Pastors’ Union in Detroit cables a strong protest.” The Jewish Chronicle 40: 43 (March 17, 1939): 1.
83 William Dudley Pelley, The Door to Revelation. An Intimate Biography. Asheville, N.C.: The Foundation Fellowship (1936): 8. In 1919 Pelley worked for the Methodist Centenary movement, ibid. 60-62, 100101. William D. Pelley established the Silver Legion of America (19331941) and the Christian Party (1935-1939).
84 “Anti-Semitic Riots in East Called ‘Incipient Fascism’.” The Jewish Review. A Weekly Review of Jewish Events 4: 8 (November 12, 1943): 7; “Americans who discriminate against Jews are Nazis, Bishop Oxnam says; condemns bigotry.” JTA Daily News Bulletin 12: 200 (August 31, 1945): 3.
85 “Detroit Pastor Defends Hitler, Angers Jews.” Jewish Daily Bulletin (Philadelphia Edition) 11: 2794 (October 17, 1934): 6.
86 The names of the fve deserve to be far better known: the Presbyterian Varian Fry (1907-1967), the Unitarians Martha Sharp (19051999) and Waitstill Sharp (1902-1983), the Mennonite Lois Gunden (19152005) and the Methodist Master Sergeant Roddie Edmonds (1919-1985).
87 Grauel. Reverend John Stanley Grauel. An Autobiography As Told To Eleanor Elfenbein. Freehold, N.J.: Ivory House (1982).
88 “Grauel’s Report on Exodus Jews Captivates Overfow Audience.” The Detroit Jewish News October 24, 1947: 8. https://digital. bentley.umich.edu/djnews/djn.1947.10.24.001/8 (accessed on October 5, 2024); “Community Solicitations Unit To Hear ‘Exodus’ Crewman.” The Rhode Island Herald 49: 29 (September 17, 1965): 1. http://www.rijha. org/wp-content/uploads/voiceandherald/1972/1965-9-17.pdf (accessed on October 4, 2024).
89 “John Grauel buried in Jerusalem.” Daily News Bulletin of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency 64: 181 (September 19, 1986): 2. http://pdfs.jta. org/1986/1986-09-19_181.pdf (accessed on October 4, 2024).
90 Ann David, “Revered Grauel speaks in Halifax.” Shalom, ed Atlantic Jewish Council 7: 4 (March-April 1982): 13. https://theajc.ca/wpcontent/uploads/2018/10/Shalom-vol.-7-no.-4.pdf (accessed on October 4, 2024).
91 “Shouts of ‘liar’ hit Rev. Grauel.” The Spartan Daily (February 27, 1973): 1. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/145715184.pdf (accessed on October 4, 2024).
(2025)
92 Theodor Herzl, Der Judenstaat. Versuch einer modernen Lösung der Judenfrage. 2nd. edition, Leipzig-Vienna: Breitenstein (1896): 29.
93 “Holocaust Memorial Day.” The Book of Resolutions of The United Methodist Church 2016. Nashville, TN: The United Methodist Publishing House (2016): 200-201.
94 “Methodist leader believes another holocaust is possible.” JTA Daily News Bulletin 41: 145 (July 30, 1974): 4.
95 Judith Hershcopf Banki, Christian Reponses to the Yom Kippur War. Implications for Christian-Jewish Relations. New York: The American Jewish Committee (n.d.): 52-55.
96 Judith Hershcopf Banki, The UN’s Anti-Zionism Resolution: Christian Responses. New York: The American Jewish Committee (n.d.): 1921, 27-28, 31, 50-51.
97 “United Methodist Guiding Principles for Christian-Jewish Relations.“ The Book of Resolutions of The United Methodist Church 2016 Nashville, TN: The United Methodist Publishing House (2016): 297-304.
98 The Book of Resolutions of The United Methodist Church 2016. Nashville, TN: The United Methodist Publishing House 2016: 604.
99 John Wesley, Explanatory Notes upon The Old Testament. Bristol (1765). 1: 46 (on Gen 10,15), 64 (on Gen 15,18), 69-70 (on Gen 17,7-8), 642 (on Deut 19,9), 663 (on Deut 27,3); John Wesley, Explanatory Notes upon The New Testament. 2nd edition. London (1757): 726 (on Rev 12,1516).
100 The Book of Resolutions of The United Methodist Church 2016 Nashville, TN: The United Methodist Publishing House (2016): 602-610. On the legal arguments against the bishops’ position see Abraham Bell and Eugene Kontorovich, “Palestine, Uti Possidetis Juris, and the Borders of Israel.” Arizona Law Review 58 (2016): 633-692; Eugene Kontorovich, “Unsettled: A Global Study of Settlements in Occupied Territories.” Journal of Legal Analysis 9: 2 (Winter 2018): 285-350.
101 Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein, “Methodist Leaders to Jews: In the Name of Peace, Forget Your Collective Memory of the Holocaust.” Huffngton Post (May 2, 2011), https://www.huffpost.com/entry/methodistleaders-to-jews_b_854638 , (accessed on November 9, 2023); Mark Tooley, “A Methodist Boycott of the Holocaust Museum?” The American Spectator (May 23, 2015), https://juicyecumenism.com/2015/05/26/amethodist-boycott-of-the-holocaust-museum/ (accessed on November 9, 2023); “United Methodist Church Drops the Ball on Anti-Semitism.” Juicy Ecumenism (December 6, 2016), https://juicyecumenism.com/2016/12/06/ united-methodist-church-drops-ball-anti-semitism/ (accessed on November 9, 2023).
102 For a similar expression of dismay at the shortsightedness of Christian leaders see Jenni Frazer, “South Africa’s Chief Rabbi criticises UK
archbishop and the Pope.” Jewish News (August 28, 2024), https://www. jewishnews.co.uk/south-africa-chief-rabbi-slams-uk-archbishop-and-pope/ (accessed on September 4, 2024).
103 About 400 Jews were murdered or driven to suicide during the 9 November 1938 Nazi pogrom (the Night of Broken Glass, a term invented to sanitize and mock Jewish suffering) in Germany. On 7 October 2023, the last day of the Jewish holiday of Sukkot, Palestinians murdered about 1,200 Jewish men, women and children. The methods used by Palestinians on 7 October have no parallel in pre-war Germany.
104 <https://www.umc.org/en/content/umc-bishops-condemnviolence-in-the-middle-east-call-for-prayer-and-action> [accessed on November 15, 2023]. See the response by John Lomperis, “United Methodist Leaders: Long Soft on Hamas, Increasingly Anti-Israel.” Juicy Ecumenism (November 7, 2023), https://juicyecumenism.com/2023/11/07/ united-methodist-leaders-soft-on-hamas-increasingly-anti-israel/ [accessed on December 1, 2023]; John Lomperis, “Muddled United Methodist Messaging on the Middle East.” Juicy Ecumenism (November 8, 2023), https://juicyecumenism.com/2023/11/08/muddled-united-methodistmessaging-on-the-middle-east/ (accessed on December 1, 2023).
105 https://www.unitedmethodistbishops.org/newsdetail/umcbishops-call-for-peace-in-middle-east-18135691 (accessed on November 15, 2023).
106 For an alternative account of what happened on 29 February, see “Dozens of Gaza civilians reportedly killed during aid riot.” Jewish News Syndicate (February 29, 2024), https://www.jns.org/dozens-ofgazans-reportedly-killed-during-aid-riot/. The numbers and descriptions used by the bishops all came ultimately from Hamas-run authorities. None of the data could at the time be independently verifed. The exact number of French civilians killed during the bombardments prior to the Normandy landings in 1944 is still uncertain. In the fog of war it is very unwise to give credence to the statistics produced by one side or the other. Andrew Fox, Questionable Counting: Analysing the Death Toll from the Hamas-Run Ministry of Health in Gaza. London: The Henry Jackson Society 2024. On the biased reporting of the war in Gaza by the BBC, see Trevor Asserson, The Asserson Report. The Israel-Hamas war and the BBC. September 2024. Available at: https://asserson.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/assersonreport.pdf
107https://www.unitedmethodistbishops.org/newsdetail/unitedmethodist-bishops-call-for-ceasefre-in-gaza-18303396 (accessed on April 1, 2024).
108 Joseph S. Spoerl, “Parallels between Nazi and Islamist AntiSemitism.” Jewish Political Studies Review 26:1/2 (Spring 2014): 210.
109 Bethany Moy, “Liberal Methodists Lobby Against ‘Genocidal’ Israel for General Conference.” Juicy Ecumenism (February 28, 2024), https:// juicyecumenism.com/2024/02/28/liberal-methodists-israel/ (accessed on
(2025)
April 26, 2024); “Bishops, delegates join rally for Palestine.” UM News (April 26, 2024), https://www.umnews.org/en/news/bishops-delegates-joinrally-for-palestine; Neill Caldwell und Sam Hodges, “Resolution opposes investment in Israeli bonds.” UM News (May 3, 2024). https://www. umnews.org/en/news/resolution-opposes-investment-in-israeli-bonds (accessed on May 27, 2024).
110 Hearings before the Committee on Foreign Affairs House of Representatives. Sixty-Seventh Congress Second Session on H. Con. Res. 52 Expressing Satisfaction at the Re-creation of Palestine as the National Home of the Jewish Race. April 18, 19, 20, and 21, 1922. Washington: Government Printing Offce (1922).
111 The Full and Final Restoration of the Jews and Israelites, Evidently set forth to be Nigh At Hand: With their Happy Settlement in their own Land, When the Messiah Will establish his Glorious Kingdom upon Earth And begin the Millennium: With Some Hints, that the late Act for the Naturalization of the Jews, may contribute towards their more easy and speedy Departure. London: Cooper (1753): 14-15.
112 “The Craftsman, July 7, 1753.” A Collection of the Best Pieces in Prose and Verse, Against the Naturalization of Jews. London: Cooper (1753): 57.
113 “Resurrection Denied.” Our Hope 26: 10 (April 1918): 589; “The Resurrection Denied.” Trust 17: 3 (May 1918): 14. Trust, an Elim Pentecostal periodical, quotes from an article in the Boston American The article had appeared on January 6, 1918. The distinguished Methodist appears to have been W. C. Endley.
114 “Wesley on the Antichrist.” Our Hope 46: 1 (July 1939): 18-19.
115 The Journal of the Rev. John Wesley, A.M., Sometime Fellow of Lincoln College, Oxford. Standard Edition. Ed. Nehemiah Curnock, London: Kelly (n.d.): 2: 63 (September 4, 1738); 5: 147-148 (February 6, 1756), 354 (February 23, 1770).
116 “Hymn CCCCXXXI. For the Mahometans.” A Collection of Hymns, For the Use of the People called Methodists. 3rd ed. London: Paramore (1782): 416.
117 “Hope in the End.” The Poetical Works of John and Charles Wesley […]. Collected and arranged by G. Osborn, D.D. London: WesleyanMethodist Conference Offce (1870): 8: 486-487. Italics and capitals as in the original.
118 Jacob Bryant, A Treatise Upon the Authenticity of the Scriptures, and the Truth of the Christian Religion. London: Cadell and Elmsly (1792): 29-30.
119 Karl Barth, Die Kirche Jesu Christi. Munich: Chr. Kaiser (1933): 14-15; “Introduction to Theology; Questions to and Discussion with Dr. Karl
Barth.“ Criterion. A Publication of the Divinity School of the University of Chicago 2/ 1 (Winter 1963): 22.
Works Cited
Anonymous
1753 An Answer to a Pamphlet, entitled Considerations on the Bill to permit Persons professing the Jewish Religion to be naturalized […]. London, UK: Cooke.
1753 The Full and Final Restoration of the Jews and Israelites, Evidently set forth to be Nigh At Hand: With their Happy Settlement in their own Land, When the Messiah Will establish his Glorious Kingdom upon Earth And begin the Millennium: With Some Hints, that the late Act for the Naturalization of the Jews, may contribute towards their more easy and speedy Departure. London, UK: Cooper.
1753 A Collection of the Best Pieces in Prose and Verse, Against the Naturalization of Jews. London, UK: Cooper.
1861 “Foreign German Mission.” Forty-Second Annual Report of the Missionary Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church. New York, NY: Printed for the Society.
1875 “William Schwarz [sic].” Minutes of the Annual Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church for the Year 1875. New York, NY: Nelson and Phillips.
1887 Sixth Annual Report For The Year 1887. Hebrew-Christian Work. New York, NY: Knowles.
1886 “The Jewish Church in New York.” Ford’s Christian Repository and Home Circle 61: 81-85.
1886 Prophetic Studies of the International Prophetic Conference (Chicago, November, 1886) […]. New York, NY: Fleming H. Revell.
1888 “Die methodistische Juden-Missions-Gesellschaft zu Galena”; “Die wesleyanische Judenmission.” Rundschau über die Diaspora der Juden und die Judenmission der Kirche. Beiblatt zu “Saat auf Hoffnung 2: 36-37, 68.
1890 “The Affdavit of John Hoffman against the Rev Jacob Freshman.” The Peculiar People 3: 200-203.
1890 Jew and Gentile. A Report of a Conference of Israelites and Christians, regarding Their Mutual Relations and Welfare. Chicago, IL: Bloch.
1890 “Jew and Gentile Meet.” The Saints’ Herald 37: 797-98.
1891 “The Blackstone Memorial.” The Peculiar People. A Christian Monthly devoted to Jewish Interests, Political, Social, Literary, and Religious 4: 16-21.
1891 “Memorial in Behalf of the Russian Jews.” The Gospel in All Lands. Ed. The Missionary Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church (April): 183.
1891 Palestine for the Jews. Memorial to President Woodrow Wilson October, 1918 and A Copy of the Memorial Presented to President Harrison March 6, 1891 [n.d., n.p.].
1891 “The Chicago Conference.” The Peculiar People 3: 240.
1894 “Prediger Dr. Wallfsch.” Die Waffen nieder! Monatsschrift zur Förderung der Friedensbewegung 3: 144.
1895 New York Charities Directory. A Classifed and Descriptive Directory. New York, NY: Charity Organization Society.
1896 “The Re-Establishment of Palestine.” The Jewish Era 5: 60-63.
1898 “Rev. Jacob Freshman, D.D.” The Jewish Era 7: 47-49.
1898 “Dr. H. Zeckhausen.” Our Hope 5: 43.
1898 “Dr. Zeckhausen’s Trip to Russia.” Our Hope 5: 136139.
1898 “Georgia and the South.” The Jewish Era 17: 11-12.
1899 “Bible Doubts Stir Methodists. The Rev. S. P. Cadman’s Bold Remarks Evoke Diverse Criticisms.” The New York Journal
1900 “Some Thoughts on Romans ix, x, and xi.” Our Hope 6: 329-335.
1903 Minutes of the First Hebrew-Christian Conference of the United States. Held at Mountain Lake Park, Md. July 2830, 1903
1916 Papers, Addresses and Proceedings of the Second General Conference Held in the Chambers-Whylie Presbyterian Church Philadelphia, Pa. USA, Published by the Hebrew Christian Alliance of America [May 2-5, 1916]. [n.d, n.p.].
1918 “Resurrection Denied.” Our Hope 26: 589.
1933 “Hitler scored heavily as Denver religious groups protest persecutions against Jews”. The Rocky Mountain News 74: 1-2.
1934 “Detroit Pastor Defends Hitler, Angers Jews.” Jewish Daily Bulletin (Philadelphia Edition) 11: 6.
1938 “Methodist Students Hit Persecution of Jews in Reich, Racial Bias in U.S.” JTA News 3: 7.
1938 “Indignation sweeps America.” JTA News 4: 5.
1939 “Seventh Lynch Victim Innocent, Report Indicates.” The Crisis. A Record of the Darker Races 46: 22.
1939 “Britain adamant on plan for independent state in Palestine; Protestant Pastors’ Union in Detroit cables a strong protest.” The Jewish Chronicle 40: 1.
1939 “German Refugees Have Aided Business and Given Many Jobs Here”. The Jewish Veteran 8: 8.
1939 “Wesley on the Antichrist.” Our Hope 46: 18-19.
1942 “Nazi Massacres of Europe’s Jews to be protested at New York Meeting Today.” JTA Daily News Bulletin 9: 2.
1943 “Anti-Semitic Riots in East Called ‘Incipient Fascism’.” The Jewish Review. A Weekly Review of Jewish Events 4: 7.
1945 “Americans who discriminate against Jews are Nazis, Bishop Oxnam says; condemns bigotry.” JTA Daily News Bulletin 12: 3.
1947 “Grauel’s Report on Exodus Jews Captivates Overfow Audience.” The Detroit Jewish News October 24, 1947: 8. https://digital.bentley.umich.edu/djnews/djn.1947. 10.24.001/8.
1965 “Community Solicitations Unit To Hear ‘Exodus’ Crewman.” The Rhode Island Herald 49: 1. http://www. rijha.org/wp-content/uploads/voiceandherald/1972/19 65-9-17.pdf .
548 The Asbury Journal 80/2 (2025)
1973 “Shouts of ‘liar’ hit Rev. Grauel.” The Spartan Daily (February): 1. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/1457151 84.pdf.
1974 “Methodist leader believes another holocaust is possible.” JTA Daily News Bulletin 41: 4.
1986 “John Grauel buried in Jerusalem.” Daily News Bulletin of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency 64: 2. http://pdfs.jta. org/1986/1986-09-19_181.pdf.
1988 Night of Pogroms “Kristallnacht” November 9 – 10, 1938. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council.
2024 “Dozens of Gaza civilians reportedly killed during aid riot.” Jewish News Syndicate (February 29, 2024), https:// www.jns.org/dozens-of-gazans-reportedly-killedduring-aid-riot/.
Aby, Anne J.
2002 The North Star State. A Minnesota History Reader. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press.
Adlerstein, Yitzchok
2011 “Methodist Leaders to Jews: In the Name of Peace, Forget Your Collective Memory of the Holocaust.” Huffngton Post (May 2, 2011), https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ methodist-leaders-to-jews_b_854638.
Asserson, Trevor
2024 The Asserson Report. The Israel-Hamas war and the BBC. September 2024. https://asserson.co.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2024/09/asserson-report.pdf .
Banki, Judith Hershcopf
1974
Christian Reponses to the Yom Kippur War. Implications for Christian-Jewish Relations. New York, NY: The American Jewish Committee.
Banki, Judith Hershcopf
1976 The UN’s Anti-Zionism Resolution: Christian Responses. New York, NY: The American Jewish Committee.
Barth, Karl
1933 Die Kirche Jesu Christi. Munich, Germany: Chr. Kaiser.
1963 “Introduction to Theology; Questions to and Discussion with Dr. Karl Barth.“ Criterion. A Publication of the Divinity School of the University of Chicago 2/ 1 (Winter 1963): 22.
“we
Bell, Abraham Bell and Eugene Kontorovich
2016 “Palestine, Uti Possidetis Juris, and the Borders of Israel.” Arizona Law Review 58: 633-692
Blaich, Roland
2001 “A Tale of Two Leaders: German Methodists and the Nazi State.” Church History 70: 199-225.
Bliss, Edwin Munsell
1891 The Encyclopædia of Missions. Descriptive, Historical, Biographical, Statistical. vol. 1, New York, NY: Funk and Wagnalls.
Brightman, Thomas 1615 A Revelation of the Revelation that is the Revelation of St. John […]. Amsterdam, Netherlands: [s.n.].
Bryant, Jacob 1792 A Treatise Upon the Authenticity of the Scriptures, and the Truth of the Christian Religion. London, UK: Cadell and Elmsly.
Caldwell, Neill
2024 “Bishops, delegates join rally for Palestine.” UM News (April 26, 2024),https://www.umnews.org/en/news/ bishops-delegates-join-rally-for-palestine.
Caldwell, Neill und Sam Hodges, 2024 “Resolution opposes investment in Israeli bonds.” UM News (May 3, 2024). https://www.umnews.org/en/news/ resolution-opposes-investment-in-israeli-bonds.
Curnock, Nehemiah
1911 The Journal of the Rev. John Wesley, A.M., Sometime Fellow of Lincoln College, Oxford. Standard Edition. Ed. Nehemiah Curnock, London, UK: Kelly.
Committee on Fair Play in Sports
1935 Preserve the Olympic Ideal. A Statement of the Case Against American Participation in the Olympic Games at Berlin. New York, NY: The Committee on Fair Play in Sports.
Cornish, George 1881 Cyclopædia of Methodism in Canada […]. Toronto, Canada: Methodist Book and Publishing House.
David, Ann
1982 “Revered Grauel speaks in Halifax.” Shalom, ed Atlantic Jewish Council 7: 13. /https://theajc.ca/wp-content/ uploads/2018/10/Shalom-vol.-7-no.-4.pdf.
De le Roi, J. F. A.
1892 Die evangelische Christenheit und die Juden unter dem Gesichtspunkte der Mission geschichtlich betrachtet. vol. 3, Berlin, Germany: Reuther.
Draxe, Thomas 1615 An alarum to the last judgement. Or, An exact discourse of the second coming of Christ and of the general and remarkeable signes and fore-runners of it past, present, and to come […]. London, UK: Law.
Elfenbein, Eleanor 1982
Grauel. Reverend John Stanley Grauel. An Autobiography As Told To Eleanor Elfenbein. Freehold, N.J.: Ivory House.
Fox, Andrew
2024
Frazer, Jenni
Questionable Counting: Analysing the Death Toll from the Hamas-Run Ministry of Health in Gaza. London, UK: The Henry Jackson Society.
2024 “South Africa’s Chief Rabbi criticises UK archbishop and the Pope.” Jewish News (August 28, 2024), https://www. jewishnews.co.uk/south-africa-chief-rabbi-slams-ukarchbishop-and-pope/
Freshman, Charles 1868
The Autobiography of the Rev. Charles Freshman […]. Toronto, Canada: Wesleyan Book Room.
Gaebelein, Arno C. 1895 “Methodist Mission to Jews in New York City.” Gospel in All Lands. 374-375.
1933 The Confict of the Ages. The Mystery of Lawlessness: Its Origin, Historic Development and Coming Defeat. New York, NY: Publication Offce “Our Hope.”
Goldney, Edward 1759
Epistles to Deists and Jews, In order to convert them to the Christian Religion: And Scriptural Remedies For healing the Divisions in the Church of England; Particularly Of those People called Methodists […]. London, UK: Printed for the Author.
Harris, C. E. 1884 “Siegfried Kristeller.” Minutes of the New York East Annual Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, (Thirty-Sixth Session.) Hanson Place Methodist Episcopal Church, Brooklyn, April 2 to 8, 1884. 53-54. New York, UK: Phillips and Hunt.
Herzl, Theodor
1896 Der Judenstaat. Versuch einer modernen Lösung der Judenfrage. 2nd edition, Leipzig-Vienna, Austria: Breitenstein.
Hirschfeld, Ekkehard
2010 Ernst Ferdinand Ströter. Eine Einführung in sein Leben und Denken. PhD dissertation, University of Greifswald, Germany.
Kontorovich, Eugene
2018 “Unsettled: A Global Study of Settlements in Occupied Territories.” Journal of Legal Analysis 9: 285-350.
Leiper, Henry Smith
1933 Personal View of the German Churches Under the Revolution. A confdential report based on intimate personal contact with the leaders on both sides of the Church and State controversy in the Third Reich. New York, NY: [s.n.].
1943 “Rev. Henry Smith Leiper.” The Ghetto Speaks No. 23 (April 1, 1943): 7.
Lomperis, John
2016 “United Methodist Church Drops the Ball on AntiSemitism.” Juicy Ecumenism (December 6, 2016), https:// juicyecumenism.com/2016/12/06/united-methodistchurch-drops-ball-anti-semitism/.
2023 Lomperis, “United Methodist Leaders: Long Soft on Hamas, Increasingly Anti-Israel.” Juicy Ecumenism (November 7, 2023), https://juicyecumenism. com/2023/11/07/united-methodist-leaders-soft-onhamas-increasingly-anti-israel/.
2023 “Muddled United Methodist Messaging on the Middle East.” Juicy Ecumenism (November 8, 2023), https:// juicyecumenism.com/2023/11/08/muddled-unitedmethodist-messaging-on-the-middle-east/.
Magoun, George F.
1891 “The Chicago Jewish Christian Conference.” Our Day. A Record and Review of Current Reform 7: 266-277.
McCrackan, W. D.
1922 The New Palestine. London, UK: Jonathan Cape.
Meyer, Louis
1908 “Ludwig S. Jacoby, Founder of German Methodism West of the Missouri.” The Jewish Era 17: 2 (April 15, 1908): 46-51.
552 The Asbury Journal 80/2 (2025)
Missionary Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church
1895 “Hebrew. Commenced 1893.” Seventy-Sixth Annual Report of the Missionary Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church For the Year 1894. New York, NY: Printed for the Society.
1896 Seventy-Seventh Annual Report of the Missionary Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church For the Year 1895. New York, NY: Printed for the Society.
Moorhead, Jonathan
2010 “The Father of Zionism: William E. Blackstone?.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 53: 787-800.
Morse, Arthur D.
1983 While Six Million Died. A Chronicle of American Apathy. Woodstock, NY: The Overlook Press.
Mowll, Basil C.
1950 Bible Light on Present Events. London, UK: Protestant Truth Society [n.d.].
Moy, Bethany
2024 “Liberal Methodists Lobby Against ‘Genocidal’ Israel for General Conference.” Juicy Ecumenism (February 28, 2024), https://juicyecumenism.com/2024/02/28/liberalmethodists-israel/.
New York City Church Extension and Missionary Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church
1882 Report of the New York City Church Extension and Missionary Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church For the Year ending December 31, 1881. New York, UK: Oliver.
Osborn, George
1870 The Poetical Works of John and Charles Wesley […]. Collected and arranged by G. Osborn, D.D. London, UK: Wesleyan-Methodist Conference Offce.
Pelley, William Dudley
1936 The Door to Revelation. An Intimate Biography. Asheville, N.C.: The Foundation Fellowship.
Pierson, Delevan L.
1897 “Syria and Palestine, the Jews.” The Missionary Review of the World 20: 933-935.
Rausch, David A.
1978 “Arno C. Gaebelein (1861-1945): Fundamentalist Protestant Zionist.” American Jewish History 68: 43-56.
: “we Are All Jews here” 553
Ross, Robert W.
1981 So It Was True. The American Protestant Press and the Nazi Persecution of the Jews. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Sanford, A. B.
1891 The Methodist Year-Book for 1891. New York, NY: Hunt and Eaton.
Spoerl, Joseph S.
2014 “Parallels between Nazi and Islamist Anti-Semitism.” Jewish Political Studies Review 26: 210.
Strack, Hermann L.
1906 Yearbook of the Evangelical Missions among the Jews. vol. 1. Leipzig, Germany: Hinrichs.
Stroeter, Ernst 1894 “The Millennium.” The Methodist Review 75: 127-129.
1896 “Does the Jew in Christ Cease to Be a Jew? The Argument from the New Testament History.” The Peculiar People. A Christian Monthly devoted to Jewish Interests, Political, Social, Literary, and Religious 9: 103-109, 130-134.
1898 “Editorial Correspondence.” Our Hope. A Christian Monthly Devoted to the Study of Prophecy and Organ of the Hope of Israel Movement 4: 291-294; 329-334; 371-374; 412, 414-419; 5: 3- 9, 35, 38; 41-42; 102-108;
1898 “The Second Zionist Congress.” 5: 112-118; 143-149; 182-187; 223-229; 301-308; 338-342; 410-414.
Tooley, Mark
2015 “A Methodist Boycott of the Holocaust Museum?” The American Spectator (May 23, 2015), https:// juicyecumenism.com/2015/05/26/a-methodist-boycottof-the-holocaust-museum/.
United Methodist Church
2016 The Book of Resolutions of The United Methodist Church 2016. Nashville, TN: The United Methodist Publishing House.
United States Government
1922 Hearings before the Committee on Foreign Affairs House of Representatives. Sixty-Seventh Congress Second Session on H. Con. Res. 52 Expressing Satisfaction at the Re-creation of Palestine as the National Home of the Jewish Race. April 18, 19, 20, and 21, 1922. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Offce.
(2025)
1939 Admission of German Refugee Children. Joint Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Immigration United States Senate […]. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Offce.
Wallfsch, J.H.
1886 “An die Sonntagsschul-Lehrer und –Lehrerinnen!.” Haus und Herd. Ein illustrirtes Familienblatt 14: 6 (June 1886): 325.
1887 “Unsere Bewahrung” and “Christliche Gedichte eines bekehrten Israeliten.” Wegweiser zur Heiligung (March): 54-56, 72.
1890 “Who Is The Proselyte.” The Peculiar People 3: 126-28.
Wesley, John
1747 A Letter to the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of London; Occasioned by his Late Charge to his clergy. London, UK: Strahan.
1757 Explanatory Notes upon The New Testament. 2nd edition. London, UK.
1765 Explanatory Notes upon The Old Testament. Bristol, UK.
1777 A Sermon on Numbers xxiii. 23. Preached Monday, April 21, 1777, on Laying the Foundation of the New Chappel [sic]. Near the City Road. London, UK: Fry.
1782 A Collection of Hymns, For the Use of the People called Methodists. 3rd. ed. London, UK: Paramore.
Wood, Enoch
1875 “The Rev. Charles Freshman, D.D.” The Canadian Methodist Magazine 1 (April 1875): 285-300.
The Asbury Journal 80/2: 555-573
© 2025 Asbury Theological Seminary DOI: 10.7252/Journal.02.2025F.11
From the Archives: Basketball and Holiness at Asbury Theological Seminary1
In November of 2023, Asbury Theological Seminary was in the process of renovating the bottom foor of the Crary-McPheeters Building, one of the older campus edifces. The workmen in the women’s restroom on the frst foor removed a mirror from the wall and discovered beneath it two small pieces of paper. One was an unused season ticket for the 19501951 season of Seminary basketball games, and the second was the 19511952 schedule for Asbury Theological Seminary’s intercollegiate team, The Circuit Riders. These papers were passed on to the archives, where they landed on my desk, while I tried to fgure out the story behind them. The story is more interesting than one might frst realize, and it speaks to the spiritual life of the Seminary as well as its student life.
ASBURY THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
1 gso-s I SEAsoN TicKET Se11iina1·y Basketball Games
A Season Ticket for the 1950-51 Season of Seminary Basketball Games Found During Remodeling in the Crary-McPheeters Building in 2023.
According to a bit of background information written by Frank Davenport in the 1948 Seminarian yearbook,2 the Seminary did have competitions with Asbury College in basketball and other sports, often with the Seniors, Middlers, and Juniors having their own teams. In leading up to the 1947-48 year, the Seminary appears to have done quite well, with the Seniors coming in second in basketball and track and being unbeaten in softball. With this level of success locally, some of the students seemed to want to expand their horizons. The success of the Seminary was reported in The Asbury Collegian for October 25, 1947, which congratulated the Seminary’s athletic manager, Lloyd Wake, and noted,
In a school where the emphasis is defnitely not on athletics and one is discouraged on every turn in thinking of such (a waste of time?), it is doubly commendable that we should be so splendidly represented on the diamond and court. Our players are capable, our spirit on the team is high, our sportsmanship is worthy, and it gives us a thrill (we few who see our fellows in action) to see our team on top. You fellows on the college teams have been good opponents and we have enjoyed this season with you very much. Better luck next time.3
But despite their success with Asbury College students, the Seminary athletes wanted to aim for playing other schools in a true intercollegiate competition. The story of how intercollegiate basketball unfolded at Asbury Theological Seminary is best relayed in quoting the 1947 Minutes of the Board of Trustees Meeting from October 28, 19474 which recorded,
Dr. McPheeters next spoke of his meeting with an athletic group of the Seminary, and of their desire to participate in Intercollegiate basketball games. This group of students, consisting of William Davis, William Key, Lloyd Wake, Huey Jones, Walter Jessup and Frank Davenport were invited into the meeting.
Mr. Davenport spoke for the group seeking permission for the Seminary basketball team to engage in Intercollegiate basketball contests only, referring frst to two games played with Centre College under the approval of our faculty; 5 that the Nazarene Theological Seminary and Free Methodist Colleges have intercollegiate sports. The athletic group agreed to use the Wilmore High School gymnasium to fnance their
games; to only play basketball; ask for one game a week and to play games with certain selected seminaries and colleges.
The student committee retired from the meeting.
Dr. McPheeters mentioned some possible reactions and objections from alumni, constituency and friends of the Seminary.
Dr. Shuler spoke in support of intercollegiate basketball and suggested that we present our action as a temporary trial for one season and await the reaction upon Asbury College.
Dr. Don Morris then made the following motion:
That permission be granted to play certain intercollegiate basketball games for the school year 1947-48 subject to strict joint supervision of the Board of Trustees and the faculty and that permission must be secured for each individual game and that arrangement for intercollegiate contest be temporary and an experiment for the school year of 1947-48. Motion was seconded by Mr. Savage.
Some discussion followed. Motion was passed.
Dr. Morris offered further the following resolution which was seconded by Dr. Newton:
That a letter be directed to the Board of Trustees of Asbury College sending them an exact copy of this resolution and asking them, if granting permanent permission to Asbury Theological Seminary basketball team to play such games would be an embarrassment to Asbury College and to its Board of Trustees.
And that we assure them if their action shall be unfavorable this board would give due consideration to their position in the matters, making a fnal decision as to the policy of Asbury Theological Seminary.
Dr. Shuler then made the following resolution, which was seconded by Mr. Savage:
That two members of the board who are residents here, Messers Crary and Savage serve with two members of the faculty in the matter of supervision of such games as may be played.
Attention is called to the need of an athletic feld and place to practice and play games.6
1951-52 Baskethall
