Daniel Castelo
I am pleased to respond to Mark Gorman, who has written a fine piece, ‘Emptiness as a Work of the Holy Spirit in the Writings of John and Charles Wesley’. Before I engage his argument, let me make a few broader observations in relation to pneumatology.It largely depends on who one asks as to whether the opinion prevails that pneumatology continues to be woefully neglected among the doctrinal loci of Christian doctrines. On the one hand, recent movements and scholarly works show that it is of significant interest to sectors of the theological scholarly guild. On this score, one thinks of Myk Habets and his work to promote a ‘Third Article Theology’ as well as Simeon Zahl and his important recent monograph on the Holy Spirit and experience.1 On the other hand, dominant narratives die hard, and it continues to be the case that pneumatology is held with significant suspicion by other sectors of this same guild. The suspicion can take many shapes. In terms of ecclesiology, some may be worried about distinguishing (and possibly holding at arm’s length) Pentecostal and charismatic phenomena, which often make their presence known across many denominational traditions in the majority world. In terms of epistemology, others may be worried about the subjective elements involved with pneumatology, elements that make it difficult to identify—and so to know—which reactions and happenings are properly of the Spirit and which ones are properly of humans. Tied to this last point is a broader theo-logical concern: Can one identify what the Spirit of God is doing today? If the operating—even if implicit—assumption is that one cannot, then time-honoured customs and practices may seem ‘safer’ than current events on the global scene. Such are some of the challenges surrounding pneumatology that continue to make it a contested topic.2Despite these mixed opinions, pneumatology is integrally connected to Christian renewal and revival.3 Such is the case because the Spirit is able to press through to the deep registers of the self; the Spirit can open eyes, hearts, and minds to the possibilities of the gospel. In other words, the Spirit is the spirit of life and new life, the One who awakens, stirs, and empowers Christ’s disciples to deeper and broader forms of commitment, witness, and service. This unique connection between pneumatology and renewal is important to highlight because of the challenges ecclesial communities perpetually face. With the passing of time, ecclesial traditions can and do grow staid, inconsistent, or—even worse—lifeless and perhaps even hypocritical. What can appear ‘safe’ to the majority can also uphold the status quo, which itself may be in need of reform. Therefore, the importance of pneumatology for ecclesial revitalization should not be lost on account of worries related to possible excesses. Any doctrinal locus can be misappropriated; any custom or practice can be abused. Pneumatology is not any worse on this score than other doctrinal themes since the issue is not so much the theme itself but rather its interpretation and application.In continuing this logic, one can say that throughout its history, the Wesleyan movement has been an expression and outworking of Christian renewal, and because it is so, it can also be described as a Spirit movement. The movement’s origins in the lives of the Wesleys and others in eighteenth-century England have set a pattern that has been reflected in subsequent developments and changing contexts. This pattern includes the working out of one’s own salvation in the company of others, the search for holiness, and the transformation of the self in the perfect love of God. These and other relevant themes are pneumatological in orientation. The Wesleyan movement would not have originated and developed as it did apart from the presence and work of the Spirit. Some scholars may see this connection more clearly than others, but it is one that is well established in the scholarly literature.4One can further argue that if the Wesleyan movement is a Spirit movement, then it can also be labelled an expression of Christian mysticism. This notion works as an operating assumption in Gorman’s piece, but it is worth justifying at some level, given questions and concerns surrounding the language of mysticism and its relationship to Wesleyanism in particular. At least two sets of concerns must be explored for these associations to be viable.First, what is the connection between pneumatology and mysticism? This question is a broad one that requires significant definitional demarcation. If in this case pneumatology has to do with the doctrine of the Third Person of the Trinity, then mysticism in its Christian forms can mean the transformative encounter with the Triune God of Christian confession. Put another way, the experiential dimensions associated with Christian pneumatology and Christian mysticism can (and should) be grounded in the confession of the Christian God who is active and at work in the world today. This theo-logical orientation should help alleviate some of the concerns that accompany both themes, especially as they run into excesses associated with anthropologizing impulses that would stress the cultivation of the ‘human spirit’ or mystical experiences that largely draw a person deeper into their own consciousness and being.5Second, whereas it may be viable to call the Wesleyan movement a pneumatological one, it seems a stretch to call it a form of Christian mysticism given the unflattering things Wesley said about mysticism in his own lifetime. Is it appropriate to speak of Wesleyanism as an expression of Christian mysticism when Wesley made it a point to decry and lambast mysticism on many different occasions?As with many cases in the oeuvre of Wesley, receiving him well must involve more than simply proof-texting him. A study that has largely been forgotten in Wesleyan secondary literature stresses a more nuanced way of receiving Wesley on the matter of Christian mysticism. In the preface to his work Mysticism in the Wesleyan Tradition, Robert G. Tuttle Jr catalogues some of the instances of Wesley’s critique of mysticism while noting an alternative dynamic as well:A couple of things should be noted from this extensive quote. First, Tuttle draws a particular distinction in terms of chronology: He remarks that Wesley stressed these points ‘early’ in his ministry. This observation fits within Tuttle’s broader argument that early in his life, Wesley was dealing with a spiritual crisis that was fomented by certain mystical writers and sensibilities (or what Tuttle calls a ‘mystical system’).7 One can argue about Tuttle’s assessment of how Wesley’s early struggles should be best described, but the importance of naming the time frame of those quotes is invaluable for assessing their significance. Clearly, such hyperbolic language surrounding mysticism means that something was personally at stake for Wesley on these themes during certain seasons of his life. Second, whereas Tuttle draws attention to the quotes that inform the general impression that Wesley was against Christian mysticism, he also stresses that Wesley employed certain mystical figures to be paragons of his understanding of Christian perfection, a belief and logic that is often lifted up as a (if not arguably, the) distinguishing feature of Methodism. It is this last point that is often neglected in an assessment of Wesley’s estimation of Christian mysticism. Those figures that Wesley deemed as paragons of Christian perfection include the Marquis de Renty, Gregory Lopez, and others. Such figures (who, interestingly, were typically Roman Catholic) often found their way in abridged form in Wesley’s Christian Library. These claims alongside the personal witness of John Fletcher, who was a kind of mystical figure himself, collectively suggest that Wesley had an appreciation for mystical voices throughout the latter stages of his ministry.8 From these examples, one can see that this appreciation took many forms: It was not simply a nominal gesture, but one that manifested itself in overt and significant ways. On account of this evidence, one can say that the logic of the Wesleyan revival bears important resonances with features of Christian mysticism.This context is important to note so that one can see that Gorman’s instincts in this article are sound and worth highlighting. He both emphasizes pneumatological aspects of Wesley’s witness and moves into the mystical realm for considering more deeply a certain part of Wesley’s noted spiritual journey. Let us now move to some specific features of the article itself.Gorman begins by suggesting a contrast between a familiar Wesley and a less familiar Wesley, the first involving a robust and lively presentation of the Spirit’s work and presence, and the latter involving a sense of the absence or distance of God, what Gorman describes as ‘spiritual emptiness’. I wish to pause here and simply note that at work in Gorman’s framework to his article is a tension related to reception history. Wesley’s familiarity (or lack thereof) is very much a reflection of those who are reading him, interpreting him, invoking him, and so forth. I say this in large part because if it is the case that Wesley is less familiar to us on a theme that can be described as ‘spiritual emptiness’, then the situation is very likely so because we may not want to know this feature of Wesley’s witness (And by ‘we’ I mean those who consider themselves Wesley’s heirs and champions). Casting doubt or questioning features of Wesley’s spiritual development is difficult for those who esteem him so highly. If this difficulty is accurate, we can go on to ask, Why would it be difficult to recognize this part of Wesley’s life?My suspicion is that we may not know or want to know this Wesley because we may not have readily available the categories needed to help us understand him on this score. Readers of Wesley may have a kind of grammar that does not allow for something like ‘spiritual emptiness’ because such an idea would bring with it the connotation of regression or perhaps even apostasy. That connotation does not need to be the case, but again, different categories and sensibilities are required so as to have an alternative assessment available. The mystical traditions of Christianity can provide Wesleyanism with such a resource. Such is the gist of Gorman’s analysis, and I agree with its usage in this particular case. The goal here is not to make Wesley something that he was not. Wesley was not a figure in the vein of Gregory of Nyssa or pseudo-Dionysius. He was even quite different from William Law and Madame Guyon. The realm of Christian mysticism, however, is significantly varied; it has fluctuated over the years in many important ways.9 Those fluctuations persist within a larger set of general themes, ones that can include the value of apophaticism, the conceptual purchase of paradox, the logic of the mystical ‘steps’ or ‘stages’, and so on. Taken as a whole, these general themes contribute to a kind of sensibility that is in some contrast with revivalist sensibilities that stress conversion experiences that involve clear demarcations of before and after states of Christian existence. In other words, if the latter logic is prominent in the reception tendencies of Wesley’s interpreters, then they would find it difficult to appreciate a ‘spiritual emptiness’ feature to Wesley’s spiritual life; but if the former logic is operative, then the idea is not just possible but quite germane: Mystics often stress the importance and value of something like ‘spiritual emptiness’. If the goal is to understand Wesley well, then it is crucial that his linguistic tendencies be located within frameworks that help us attend to what he is experiencing and where he is in the Christian spiritual journey.Gorman believes the Wesleys connect emptiness to a number of moments in the spiritual life. For instance, emptiness can involve a sense of conviction that the Spirit makes available. In this case, the Spirit provides an awareness of how sinners are both empty without God and distant from God on account of their sin. It is this awareness brought about by the Spirit’s work that prompts sinners to confess, repent, and respond properly and fittingly to the grace that is made available to them. Gorman also delves into other circumstances in which the language of emptiness could apply. Such cases would include those who experienced justifying faith in such a rapid way that a process of self-knowledge was circumvented, so that it made itself all the more pressing in a justified state. On this point, Gorman mentions Wesley’s own reflections on his struggles immediately after Aldersgate. Could the language of emptiness and/or withdrawal apply here as well?I would say yes, it could, but it would do so in a qualified way. My sense of what Gorman is after is to speak of the Spirit’s work in those deep recesses of the human soul, work that helps prompt a person to ongoing growth and maturity. Therefore, just as one has different qualifiers to grace in the Wesleyan vision so as to account for different places or markers along the way of a person’s ongoing conformity to God—these being prevenient, convicting, justifying, regenerating, and sanctifying grace (among others)—perhaps what is also needed are qualifiers to the notion of emptiness or distance: convicting emptiness, justifying emptiness, perfecting emptiness, and so forth. The goal with these designations is not to be cute. The goal is to account for the multifaceted work of the Spirit, both in terms of what happens outside of the person or what the person responds to, and what happens deeply within the person. It is the kind of pneumatological pattern that dovetails nicely with Jesus’s words in the Johannine Farewell Discourses: Jesus promises us in John 14:17 that the Spirit will be with us (which has an external dimension of grace that we respond to) and in us (which has an internal dimension that can include promptings and distances, all of which are meant to stir the person to deeper self-awareness and deeper commitment and love toward God).In my reading, Gorman is attempting to stress the Spirit’s active role in how we go about living out a favourite New Testament passage of the Wesleys, namely that the Spirit plays an active role in how we work out our own salvation with fear and trembling (Phil 2:12). It is fitting that each of the brothers thinks of the role of the Spirit in slightly different ways on some of these points, and my inclination is to stress that these differences are likely due to the different ways each brother spiritually developed over the course of their lives. Gorman helps us to appreciate that the Wesleys serve as examples of how the Spirit meets us where we are and prompts us to the growth we need, every step of the way.