Imago Dei W (for Wesley)

When John Wesley was 27 years old (how old I am now), he preached his first sermon at the university church at Oxford. The sermon’s title: ‘The Image of God.’ Wesley did go on to live another 60 years after he wrote this sermon so one could say this doesn’t reflect his mature understanding of the Imago Dei (as one could probably say of my ramblings here if I live to be some 87 years old), but he does address it in detail and at length here, which I don’t think he does elsewhere; nor do I think his later developments in theology would negate or put primary emphasis elsewhere on what he believed regarding humanity as made in ‘God’s image,’ but there is development, I think. Let me explain. Wesley here uses the word ‘perfect’ to describe humanity prior to the ‘fall.’ That’s a word Irenaeus, among others, did not use…Irenaues points out that Genesis says all of creation, including humanity, are ‘good,’ but nowhere does it say ‘perfect.’ Irenaues actually calls Adam and Eve ‘infants,’ suggesting that though ‘very good’ and innocent, there was much room for our parents to grow in obedience and ‘likeness’ to God (see the difference between ‘image’ and ‘likeness’?). So much hinges on what one (like Wesley) means when he or she uses the word ‘perfect’ in a given occasion. When I use the word in one realm, I may mean something entirely different than another.

When Wesley was 27 and wrote this sermon, he had not yet fully developed his mature view of ‘Christian perfection’ or ‘sanctification.’ And while I think Wesley did not have Irenaeus’ understanding of original humanity in view here, I don’t think he would deny it in his later theological development. As it would come out later in Wesley’s theological journey, ‘perfection’ that is attainable/enjoyed in this life is not a static goal…it’s not the end! If one reaches what he calls ‘entire sanctification’ or ‘Christian perfection,’ which has a lot to do with purity of intent, there is still room for growth because of the limitations of our mental and bodily capacities, etc. We are simply not aware of all of the outcomes of all of our actions. Something I do that may come completely out of love for God with all of myself and love for neighbor as myself and for the right care of creation may somewhere have a negative consequence that was not intended. While this action may be called a ‘mistake’ of sorts, it is not appropriately a ‘sin’ (note that in the sacrificial system, the types of ‘sins’ that needed the Day of Atonement of Lev. 16 were those of ‘rebellion’ [pesha – ‘sins with a “high” hand’]) because the heart was pure in loving intent in the action. So with mistakes, there is still room for growth. I think the 'latter Wesley' would have seen Adam and Eve enjoying this type of perfection…so the ultimate goal in Wesley (beyond ‘sanctification’ to ‘glorification,’ experienced beyond this earthly existence) is one of greater ‘holiness’ and ‘happiness’ than what our first parents experienced prior to the ‘fall’ (see his sermon ‘The New Creation,’ which he wrote in 1785…6 years before he died…that’s more of a ‘mature view of Wesley’ I’d think).

Jeff, who cares? What did Wesley say about what the ‘image of God’ entails? I thought it important to address his development in how he understood the components of the ‘image of God’ developed. In the sermon ‘The Image of God’ (27 year old Wesley), he says that humans were originally made in God’s image with regard to: understanding, will, liberty, and happiness. While I would not deny these are characteristics humans are especially endowed with, I don’t see them as intricately linked to the ‘image of God,’ especially as seems most implicit in Genesis. I actually think these four (I especially favor the last 3) faculties (if that’s what you want to call them), are aspects of what comes in properly relating to the Triune God. What Wesley means when he says ‘will’ is a ‘perfect’ will: ‘man was what God is: Love. Love filled the whole expansion of his soul; it possessed him without a rival. Every movement of his heart was love: it knew no other fervour…’ (Aside: I just saw images of Chris Kattan and Will Ferrell doing their ‘Night at the Roxbury’ thing to ‘What is Love?’.) I think ‘liberty’ or ‘freedom’ is an implied reality of a genuine relationship of love. And ‘happiness’ is actually a good emphasis that many other theologians miss, I think. Many will call this ‘emotion’ or the capacity for that, but not the essence of ‘happiness.’ Wesley is not referring to his latter equation of happiness=holiness, though one could argue this could be the beginnings of that synonymous usage he later employs; he is talking here, rather, about pure enjoyment and pleasure of the Creator, one another, and the creation. These are definitely emphasized Genesis 1 &2!