{"id":640,"date":"2017-05-05T16:13:56","date_gmt":"2017-05-05T16:13:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/?p=640"},"modified":"2020-10-28T20:02:22","modified_gmt":"2020-10-28T20:02:22","slug":"of-fruit-trees-and-newborn-babes-luther-and-wesley-on-moral-transformation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/of-fruit-trees-and-newborn-babes-luther-and-wesley-on-moral-transformation\/","title":{"rendered":"Of Fruit Trees and Newborn Babes: Luther and Wesley on Moral Transformation"},"content":{"rendered":"

[1] Why do we — that is, those of us who represent Lutheran and Wesleyan1<\/sup><\/a> traditions — talk so differently about transformation and specifically about moral transformation?2<\/sup><\/a> Before tackling such a question, it is important to acknowledge that some may conclude that it rests upon a false premise. If \u201cwe\u201d refers to academically trained ethicists from these traditions, it is not entirely clear that our talk about moral transformation is always so different. To take but one example, in his book The Theory and Practice of Virtue<\/em>, the Lutheran ethicist Gil Meilaender draws constructively upon works written by Stanley Hauerwas in what was arguably his most Wesleyan phase.3<\/sup><\/a> Moreover, the shape of Hauerwas\u2019s work was deeply influenced by George Lindbeck, a Lutheran.4<\/sup><\/a> In turn, each of these thinkers has shaped the work of a rising generation of Lutheran and Wesleyan scholars writing in the area of character ethics. Highlighting the realities of such cross-pollination and convergence, an argument could be made that our traditions are not meaningfully different in their views of transformation.<\/p>\n

[2] Nevertheless, especially when the \u201cwe\u201d of that focal question extends beyond the circle of academic ethicists, I believe one does find consequential differences between our traditions, and I have as a chief authority for this conclusion: a Facebook post. Under the press of family needs, in the summer of 2015 I resigned a professorship at Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary and moved to United Theological Seminary, a United Methodist school in Dayton, Ohio. Following a class on October 25, I posted: \u201cAfter trying to persuade Lutherans, teaching virtue ethics to Methodists feels a bit like shooting fish in a barrel.\u201d Much more than my Lutheran pupils, my Methodist students readily took to the central claims of virtue ethics\u2014that human beings need to be morally transformed and that such transformation happens over time through repeated practice in virtue.<\/p>\n

[3] This observation returns us to our original question: why do Lutherans and Wesleyans think about moral transformation differently? They do so at least in part, I argue, because Lutheranism and Wesleyanism represent distinct traditions shaped powerfully by their respective founders, who diverged not only in their immediate practical aims but even more decisively in their theological visions, particularly in how they envisioned the relationship between divine grace and human free will. Even as Luther and Wesley sought to sing praises to God, the particular scales they sang most often and ardently led them to produce markedly different melodies. And yet, as my conclusion will argue, the convergences one might identify among some academic ethicists are not simply departures from these traditions but amplify notes that, though often muted, are present within each.<\/p>\n

I. Differences in Lutheran and Wesleyan Orientations<\/strong>
\n[4] To claim that all of the contours of the Lutheran and Wesleyan traditions are direct outworkings of the respective visions of Martin Luther and John Wesley would, of course, be hopelessly naive. Indeed, both had trouble bringing into line even their contemporaries who purported to be \u201cfollowers,\u201d witnessed in Luther\u2019s ineffectual admonitions to the Swabian Peasants and Wesley\u2019s fruitless protestations when Francis Asbury assumed the title of \u201cbishop.\u201d5<\/sup><\/a> And yet, each unquestionably left a deep stamp upon these later traditions. For instance, The Book of Concord<\/em> not only contains a number of Luther\u2019s writings but repeatedly refers to his works as reliable explanations of the faith and proclaims that the true teachings of the Christian faith were rediscovered as a result of having been \u201cpurified by Dr. Luther.\u201d6<\/sup><\/a> Similarly, in its Book of Discipline<\/em> the United Methodist Church, the largest Wesleyan denomination, identifies Wesley\u2019s \u201cStandard Sermons\u201d as among its doctrinal standards.7<\/sup><\/a> Hence, even if Luther and Wesley do not account for all later differences between the traditions that claim their names, their elevated positions within those traditions make them natural places to look for some of the impulses that produce major differences.<\/p>\n

[5] When specifically considering why Lutherans and Wesleyans differ on questions of moral transformation, we might begin by acknowledging that a contributing factor is found in the context and aims of their ministries\u2014and perhaps even more significantly, in how their followers commonly narrate these contexts and aims. Luther, for his part, is remembered as the staunch defender of \u201cjustification by grace through faith, apart from works of the law,\u201d the critic of works-righteousness.8<\/sup><\/a> Meanwhile, Wesley and his followers sought to counteract what they saw as a prevailing moral laxity with the promotion of holiness and thus identified themselves as \u201cmessengers of God, to those who are Christians in name, but heathens in heart and life.\u201d9<\/sup><\/a> To illustrate the difference here, we might imagine the Christian faith as existing between two poles that denote its bounds, one marked \u201cworks righteousness\u201d and the other \u201cantinomianism.\u201d Even as each addressed challenges from both poles, then, Luther and Wesley (in our memories and to a considerable degree in actuality) deployed their primary efforts against threats from different directions: Luther against those arising from works-righteousness and Wesley against those arising from antinomianism.<\/p>\n

[6] This difference in orientation contributes in a number of ways to the differences in how we speak of moral transformation. Yet it does not itself constitute those differences. On just what is it that we differ, then? To the extent that we inherit the legacies of our founders, Lutherans and Wesleyans tend to diverge on three key points at which Luther and Wesley routinely sounded significantly different notes. The first is the temporal span generally required for Christian moral transformation; in other words, we offer different accounts of how long<\/em> transformation typically takes. The second concerns the possible extent of sanctification; that is, we diverge over how far<\/em> transformation might extend. Third and, as I will argue, most foundationally, we differ over the role of human agency in moral transformation; put differently, at the center of these disagreements stands a difference over the question of how transformation occurs. These differences emerge with particular clarity when we attend to the themes that Luther and Wesley characteristically stress, those theological notes they sing frequently and in the fortissimo.<\/p>\n

II. The Temporal Span of Transformation<\/strong>
\n[7] Central and salient themes in Luther\u2019s thought suggest that the crucial Christian transformation occurs in the moment of faith. Prominent among these is one of Luther\u2019s favorite metaphors in which he, drawing upon Matthew 7:18, likens the Christian to a fruit tree. For instance, in his Commentary on Galatians<\/em>, Luther writes, \u201cBut after a man is justified by faith, now possesses Christ by faith, and knows that He is his righteousness and life, he will certainly not be idle but, like a sound tree, will bear good fruit.\u201d10<\/sup><\/a> Faith fundamentally transforms us and makes us not only good trees who bear good fruit but indeed holy. Thus, in On the Councils and the Churches<\/em>, Luther writes that \u201cChristian holiness \u2026 is found where the Holy Spirit gives people faith in Christ and thus sanctifies them \u2026 that is, he renews heart, soul, body, work, and conduct, inscribing the commandments of God not on tables of stone, but in hearts of flesh.\u201d11<\/sup><\/a> Faith thus has immediate consequences, effecting both justification and the transformation of life that Wesley typically calls \u201csanctification.\u201d For Luther, then, justification and sanctification frequently appear simply to name different facets of the same reality.12<\/sup><\/a> As Tuomo Mannermaa notes, the distinction between justification and sanctification \u201cis not at all a central or constitutive distinction in the theology of Luther.\u201d13<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

[8] And yet Wesley views this distinction as fundamental. In September of 1739, during a stage in which he was wrestling with such doubts about the comprehensiveness of the transformation he experienced in his heartwarming conversion on Aldersgate Street, Wesley wrote in his journal, \u201cI believe justification to be wholly distinct from sanctification, and necessarily antecedent to it.\u201d14<\/sup><\/a> Wesley publicly elaborated this distinction in a 1760 sermon by introducing a third conceptual category: the new birth. Justification and the new birth are, he maintains, mutually implicating such that \u201c[i]n the moment we are justified by the grace of God through the redemption that is in Jesus, we are also \u2018born of the Spirit.\u2019 \u201d15<\/sup><\/a> And yet new birth, which Wesley also calls \u201cregeneration,\u201d is but the first step in sanctification, for sanctification is \u201ca progressive work\u201d through which we \u201cgradually \u2026 \u2018grow up in [Christ] who is our head.\u2019 \u201d16<\/sup><\/a> Accordingly, perhaps Wesley\u2019s most often used metaphor for the Christian life is as a process of maturation akin to the development through which one grows from infancy into adulthood. This development begins with justification, in which we are born again as \u201cbabes in Christ,\u201d but continues through sanctification in which we grow into Christ\u2019s likeness.17<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

[9] The difference between Wesley\u2019s metaphor of Christian life as maturation and Luther\u2019s as the miraculous and immediate metamorphosis in which one becomes a good tree that bears good fruit underlies Wesley\u2019s 1787 complaint: \u201cWho has wrote more ably than Martin Luther on justification by faith alone? And who was more ignorant of the doctrine of sanctification, or more confused in his conceptions of it?\u201d18<\/sup><\/a> This is because Luther\u2019s intimations that faith brings an immediate transformation elides the distinction between the immediate work of justification and the gradual, transformative work of sanctification that Wesley finds so crucial.<\/p>\n

III. The Ultimate Possibilities of Christian Transformation<\/strong>
\n[10] Not only does Christian transformation take longer in Wesley\u2019s typical view than in Luther\u2019s, but it also extends higher or farther, indeed to the pinnacle of \u201cChristian perfection.\u201d According to Luther\u2019s view, justification makes one a good tree that bears good fruit, yet one is never so good to be freed from all sin, a point classically expressed in the dictum that the Christian is always simul justus et peccator<\/em>.19<\/sup><\/a> Even as one is just or righteous, one also remains a sinner, and \u201cit is impossible for you to become \u2026 as clear and spotless as the sun,\u201d for you will nevertheless \u201cstill have spots and wrinkles.\u201d20<\/sup><\/a> Accordingly, as Luther puts it in his Commentary on Genesis<\/em>, \u201cthis righteousness has merely its beginning in this life, and it cannot attain perfection in this flesh.\u201d21<\/sup><\/a> Although called to perfection, \u201c[s]o long as we live here on earth,\u201d the Christian remains \u201ca work that God has begun, but not yet completed.\u201d22<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

[11] Wesley, on the other hand, strenuously insists that Christians can attain perfection in this life and even suggested that recovery of this teaching is the purpose for which God raised up the Methodists.23<\/sup><\/a> Perfection, as Wesley understands it, refers to one who has \u201cthe mind which was in Christ, and \u2026 so walketh as [Christ] walked; a man that hath clean hands and a pure heart \u2026 one in who there is no occasion for stumbling and who, accordingly, doth not commit sin.\u201d24<\/sup><\/a> Lest the term \u201cperfection\u201d mislead, however, it is important to note three crucial qualifications that define its meaning in Wesley\u2019s thought. First, perfection does not entail faultlessness in all conduct. Rather, Wesley maintains that Christian perfection frees one from sin in the form of voluntary transgressions even as one may still fall prey to involuntary transgressions. While Wesley insists that involuntary transgressions are not sin properly so-called, he nonetheless avoids the term \u201csinless perfection,\u201d so that he should not seem to contradict himself.25<\/sup><\/a> Second, perfection \u201cis capable of being lost\u201d26<\/sup><\/a>; even those who have attained perfection can give way to \u201cbacksliding.\u201d Third, and perhaps most crucially, perfection is not a static ideal but a progressive reality. On earth, Wesley writes, there is no perfection \u201cwhich does not admit of a continual increase.\u201d27<\/sup><\/a> To be perfect in Wesleyan parlance, then, is to will only love, even as it remains ever possible for love to wax, to wane, or to cause harm inadvertently. Nonetheless, Wesley adamantly maintains that central to Christianity is the promise that \u201cthis [perfect] character shall be mine if I will not rest till I attain it.\u201d28<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

IV. Human and Divine Agency in Moral Transformation<\/strong>
\n[12] Wesley\u2019s readiness to speak about the positive role of human effort in moral transformation\u2014witnessed in the previous quotation with his demand that we \u201cnot rest,\u201d elsewhere in his calls for us to \u201cwork out [our] own salvation,\u201d29<\/sup><\/a> and more generally in what Randy Maddox terms his understanding of the \u201ccooperant nature of grace\u201d30<\/sup><\/a>\u2014points to a third difference between him and Luther, and indeed the one that I argue is the foundational theological divergence that gives rise to the previous two. Most simply, Luther and Wesley operate with contrasting conceptions of the relationship between divine grace and human free will and thus with different understandings of how Christian transformation takes place.<\/p>\n

[13] Significant portions of Luther\u2019s writings suggest that human free will has virtually no role in salvation or more generally in moral transformation. Making this point memorably, in The Bondage of the Will<\/em> Luther likens the human will to \u201ca beast of burden\u201d: \u201cIf God rides it, it wills and goes where God wills\u2026 If Satan rides, it wills and goes where Satan wills\u2026 but the riders themselves contend for the possession and control of it.\u201d31<\/sup><\/a> Metaphors of this sort lead to the rhetorical flourish in which Luther proclaims, \u201cWe must therefore go all out and completely deny free choice, referring everything to God.\u201d32<\/sup><\/a> Similar passages elsewhere suggest that such divine determinism applies not just to the inception of the Christian life but to growth or continuance in it, as when Luther preaches that \u201cit is not for you to work or to begin to be godly, as little as it is to further and complete it.\u201d33<\/sup><\/a> Rather than us working, it is Christ who works in us; grace subsumes the identity of the Christian to the extent that \u201cChrist is speaking, acting, and performing all actions in him.\u201d34<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

[14] Even if human free will is not operant in the Christian life as Luther understands it, however, that does not mean that there is no human effort<\/em>. Indeed, even in The Bondage of the Will<\/em>, Luther writes that God \u201cdoes not work without us, because it is for this very reason that he has recreated and preserves us, that he might work in us and we might cooperate with him.\u201d35<\/sup><\/a> God, then, works in us but we also participate in the operation. And yet Luther consistently casts such participation in negative terms. That is, to the extent that it contributes anything, human effort does not so much empower or enliven good human actions but rather restrains human sinfulness. Thus, one must take care, Luther writes, \u201cto discipline his body by fastings, watchings, labors, and other reasonable discipline to subject it to the Spirit.\u201d15<\/sup><\/a> And this is the lesson that we learn from the saints who, \u201cwith all their works, prayers, fastings, labors and manifold exercises\u201d were \u201cfighting their own flesh, to chastise it, make it subject to the spirit and quench its evil lusts and desires.\u201d37<\/sup><\/a> The role of human labor and strivings appears therefore aimed at suppressing the peccator that unavoidably endures within in order that it may not disrupt the flow of divine grace through oneself and into one\u2019s actions.<\/p>\n

[15] Contrast this tendency with Wesley\u2019s vision. No less than Luther, Wesley strenuously maintains that divine grace has an absolute precedence in the Christian life. \u201c[I]t is \u2026 impossible,\u201d Wesley asserts, \u201cfor us to \u2018come\u2019 out of our sins, yea, or to make the least motion toward it, till he who hath all power in heaven and earth calls our dead souls to life.\u201d38<\/sup><\/a> God extends that power to us in the form that Wesley calls \u201cprevenient\u201d or \u201cpreventing\u201d grace, which \u201cenlightens every man that cometh into the world.\u201d39<\/sup><\/a> But in the Christian life, God\u2019s power takes the further form of \u201cconvincing grace,\u201d which leads to justification, regeneration, and sanctification.40<\/sup><\/a> Regenerated by the grace of God that goes before them, Christians are enabled to cooperate with the continued grace of God that sustains them along the way of salvation. \u201cFirst, God worketh in you; therefore you can work\u2026 Secondly, God worketh in you, therefore you must <\/em>work: you must be \u2018workers together with him\u2019 \u201d41<\/sup><\/a> Even as Wesley acknowledges that it is possible for God to work in us irresistibly \u201cfor a time,\u201d he insists that this is not \u201cGod\u2019s general manner of working.\u201d42<\/sup><\/a> Rather, God characteristically acts in such a way that we maintain \u201cthat liberty which is essential to a moral agent,\u201d43<\/sup><\/a> which includes the possibility of rejecting grace.<\/p>\n

[16] As Wesley\u2019s emphasis upon Christian perfection indicates, humanity\u2019s collaboration with grace has a clear and prominent positive valence. Much like Luther, Wesley routinely calls Christians to restrain their sins. Indeed, one of his most frequent summaries of the Christian life, which also provides the structure for \u201cThe General Rules of the Methodist Church,\u201d begins with the admonition, \u201cCease to do evil.\u201d To this, however, he adds the further words of Isaiah: \u201clearn to do well.\u201d44<\/sup><\/a> In the highest reaches of Christian perfection, such doing is partially propelled by the possession of \u201cthose virtues which were also in Christ Jesus.\u201d45<\/sup><\/a> Moreover, Wesley suggests that one grows towards those reaches through such grace-aided effort. Faith, according to Wesley, is \u201cmade perfect by works,\u201d for \u201c[t]he more we exert our faith, the more it is increased,\u201d46<\/sup><\/a> and it is faith that drives sanctification.47<\/sup><\/a> Yet, however profoundly we may be transformed, we never reach a point where we can stand on our own. Rather, we ever have need of Christ\u2019s grace, for, as Wesley puts it, \u201cour perfection is not like that of a tree, which flourishes by the sap derived from its own root, but \u2026 like that of a branch, which united to the vine, bears fruit, but severed from it, is \u2018dried up and withered.\u2019 \u201d48<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

[17] Not only do Luther and Wesley here differ over how<\/em> moral transformation occurs, but this helps to explain their previously examined divergences on questions of how long <\/em>transformation typically requires and how far<\/em> it might extend. Both Luther and Wesley suggest the foundational position of this theme with the importance they ascribe to their accounts of grace and free will. Without the belief that \u201cGod foreknows all things, not contingently, but necessarily and immutably,\u201d Luther asserts, \u201cChristian faith is entirely extinguished.\u201d49<\/sup><\/a> Meanwhile, Wesley contends that any account that does not include robust human cooperation constitutes \u201ca blow at the root\u2014the root of all holiness, all true religion.\u201d50<\/sup><\/a> In addition to such declarations, we might also recognize Luther\u2019s and Wesley\u2019s respective accounts of grace and free will as the first links in conceptual chains that lead to the other differences in their views on moral transformation. If it is the case, as Luther suggests, that the determinative agency in good works is that of Christ who graciously lives in me, then moral transformation occurs instantaneously in the moment when Christ miraculously indwells the soul and Christ\u2019s supreme agency, while perhaps slightly inhibited, can nonetheless operate even in spite of my many imperfections. Conversely, in Wesley\u2019s account, the cooperative character of divine grace entails a more temporally dilated moral transformation in which grace remakes one\u2019s agency so that one might be a true coworker with God and which extends even to perfection in love.<\/p>\n

V. Convergences<\/strong>
\n[18] To argue that Lutheran and Wesleyan differences on moral transformation trace to contrasting theological views of our founders and to elaborate their divergences nonetheless leaves us with the question of what these differences mean. Most of all, do they render our traditions entirely discordant or might there exist possibilities for some degree of harmony, even if it will remain necessarily polyphonic? I believe such possibilities exist, particularly when we attend to themes that Luther and Wesley invoke less frequently and fervently, theological notes that they sang more rarely and in the pianissimo. Although they will not produce perfect consonance, within both Luther and Wesley there remain scales whose inclusion or amplification could bring our traditions into greater harmony.<\/p>\n

[19] If it is indeed the case, as I have argued, that one finds the key theological divergence between Luther and Wesley in their respective accounts of grace and free will, then this is also a pivotal place as we search for possibilities for harmony. To begin, one might note that the above presentation, which has stressed the primacy of grace in Wesley\u2019s thought, should exonerate him from the not infrequently leveled charges that Wesley\u2019s Arminianism is but a form of Semi-Pelagianism,51<\/sup><\/a> which The Book of Concord<\/em> explicitly rejects.52<\/sup><\/a> Wesley would have no truck with the claim that one \u201ccould make a beginning of his conversion\u201d but instead views conversion as the addition of grace upon grace as prevenient grace fructifies into convincing grace and ultimately into sanctifying grace.53<\/sup><\/a> This brings Wesley more into tune with Luther than in many renderings.<\/p>\n

[20] Some of the more infrequent and less insistent notes in Luther\u2019s works also nuance his thought in ways that move it closer to Wesley than it might otherwise appear. These receive especially clear expression in the 1519 sermon \u201cTwo Kinds of Righteousness,\u201d in which Luther distinguishes between the \u201calien righteousness,\u201d which is the righteousness of Christ \u201cinstilled from without\u201d and which justifies us, and \u201cour proper righteousness,\u201d by which \u201cwe work with that first and alien righteousness.\u201d54<\/sup><\/a> While Luther again accents the negative role of such righteousness in restraining our sinfulness, he also identifies it with the fruit of the Spirit\u2014love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control\u2014and asserts that through it we are \u201ctransformed into [Christ\u2019s] likeness\u201d and that our own righteousness \u201cgoes on to complete the first.\u201d55<\/sup><\/a> In such passages, Luther suggests that even as they are forever dependent upon the precedence of grace, human beings in fact make a positive contribution in moral transformation. And Meilaender finds similar themes in Luther\u2019s \u201cAgainst Latomus.\u201d Building upon the insight that Luther uses the dictum simul justus et peccator<\/em> in two distinct ways\u2014a first to refer to persons in their totality as entirely justified and entirely sinners and a second in which persons can be seen instead as partially each — Meilaender argues that this second view makes \u201croom for the gradual achievement of moral virtue through effort and discipline,\u201d even as the first must remain the dominant paradigm to which we continually return.56<\/sup><\/a> Such a view, which upholds both the prevenience and accompaniment of grace while also allowing human beings to cooperate in ways that make a positive contribution in moral transformation, hits many of the same chords as does Wesley.<\/p>\n

[21] Even as this gap narrows, however, a significant dissonance still remains on a key question of grace and free will: Does God will all things necessarily or do such necessary divine motions represent the exception rather than the rule\u2014the rule, in Wesley\u2019s view, being that God works in a fashion that allows for the resistance of human free will? Luther, as we have seen, at least in key places sets great store by the former, whereas Wesley sees it as a major threat. <\/p>\n

[22] Nevertheless, as one might expect given the potential for a more nuanced account of Luther\u2019s views on the human ability to grow in virtue and cooperate positively in sanctification, resources also exist for convergence between him and Wesley on the question of how long moral transformation takes. In \u201cTwo Kinds of Righteousness,\u201d for instance, Luther contends that even alien righteousness \u201cis not instilled all at once, but it begins [and] makes progress.\u201d57<\/sup><\/a> Elsewhere, he similarly suggests that neither baptism nor repentance heals us immediately but instead mark \u201ca beginning \u2026 that our healing may proceed from day to day until we are cured.\u201d58<\/sup><\/a> Accentuation of such themes would undercut Wesley\u2019s insinuation that Luther is ignorant of sanctification, for even if Luther does not adhere to a rigid linguistic division between justification and sanctification, one could easily recognize this progressive process of healing as the conceptual analogue of sanctification as Wesley understands it.<\/p>\n

[23] Not only that, but despite defining sanctification as a progressive work, Wesley\u2019s considered view suggests that God can, at least in a key sense and some cases, complete such work instantaneously. In this vein, he writes in \u201cThe Scripture Way of Salvation\u201d that \u201cit is infinitely desirable, were it the will of God\u201d that one should be cleansed of all sin \u201cinstantaneously; that the Lord should destroy sin \u2018by the breath of his mouth\u2019 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye.\u201d59<\/sup><\/a> Moreover, Wesley avers that God works such transformation on the basis of one\u2019s faith. None of this, to be clear, eliminates all progress since, again, even perfection is a progressive reality for Wesley. Nevertheless, his suggestion that the crucial Christian moral transformation may occur immediately symphonically blends with Luther\u2019s most common depictions.<\/p>\n

[24] Finally, the dissonance between Wesley and Luther on Christian perfection could be at least partially diminished. As we have seen, fears that perfection would refer to a state that admits neither improvement nor potential loss are misplaced given Wesley\u2019s insistence on the possibility for progress and \u201cbacksliding.\u201d If this is the case, then Wesley\u2019s view has a deep practical resonance with Luther\u2019s understanding of the Christian as always simul justus et peccator<\/em>, a resonance found in their common insistence upon the need for continual self-examination, a process that will always return us to recognize our ultimate dependence upon grace. Even those \u201cperfect\u201d in the Wesleyan sense are justified, sanctified, and persist in the Christian life only by the grace of God to which they are continually called to testify in their lives.<\/p>\n

[25] And thus, even if we might perform them with slightly different accents, Lutherans and Wesleyans find ourselves called to play in concert key chords that most especially glorify God\u2019s grace not only as providing the basis for the Christian life but also the indispensable power through which all are upheld, endure, and grow in it. <\/p>\n

   
\nWORKS CITED<\/p>\n

Augustine. Augustin: Anti-Pelagian Writings.<\/em> Translated by Peter Holmes and Benjamin B. Warfield. Vol. 5. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Edited by Philip Schaff. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994.<\/p>\n

Bente, Friedrich. Historical Introductions to the Book of Concord.<\/em> St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia Publishing House, 1965.<\/p>\n

The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church.<\/em> Nashville, Tenn.: United Methodist Publishing House, 2012.<\/p>\n

Fackre, Gabriel, and Michael Root. Affirmations and Admonitions: Lutheran Decisions and Dialogue with Reformed, Episcopal, and Roman Catholic Churches.<\/em> Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 1998.<\/p>\n

Granquist, Mark Alan. Lutherans in America: A New History.<\/em> Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2015.<\/p>\n

Hauerwas, Stanley. Against the Nations: War and Survival in a Liberal Society.<\/em> Minneapolis, Minn.: Winston Press, 1985.<\/p>\n

________. The State of the University: Academic Knowledges and the Knowledge of God.<\/em> Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishing, 2007.<\/p>\n

________. Hannah’s Child: A Theologian’s Memoir.<\/em> Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010.<\/p>\n

Luther, Martin. The Career of the Reformer I<\/em>. Vol. 31. 55 vols. American edition ed. Luther’s Works, Edited by Helmut T. Lehmann and Harold Grimm. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1957.<\/p>\n

________. Career of the Reformer II<\/em>. Vol. 32. 55 vols. American edition ed. Luther’s Works, Edited by Helmut T. Lehmann and George W. Forell. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1958.<\/p>\n

________. Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 1-5<\/em>. Vol. 1. 55 vols. American edition ed. Luther’s Works, Edited by Jaroslav Pelikan. Saint Louis, Mo.: Concordia Publishing House, 1958.<\/p>\n

________. Church and Ministry III<\/em>. Vol. 35. 55 vols. American Edition ed. Luther’s Works, Edited by Eric W. Gritsch. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960.<\/p>\n

________. The Christian in Society II<\/em>. Vol. 45. 55 vols. American edition ed. Luther’s Works, Edited by Helmut T. Lehmann and Walther I. Brandt. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1962.<\/p>\n

________. Lectures on Galatians 1535: Chapters 1-4<\/em>. Vol. 26. 55 vols. American edition ed. Luther’s Works, Edited by Jaroslav Pelikan and Walter A. Hansen. Saint Louis, Mo.: Concordia Publishing House, 1964.<\/p>\n

________. Lectures on Galatians 1535: Chapters 5-6 and Lectures on Galatians 1519: Chapters 1-6<\/em>. Vol. 27. 55 vols. American edition ed. Luther’s Works, Edited by Jaroslav Pelikan and Walter A. Hansen. Saint Louis, Mo.: Concordia Publishing House, 1964.<\/p>\n

________. Church and Ministry III.<\/em> Vol. 41. 55 vols. American edition ed. Luther’s Works, Edited by Helmut T. Lehmann and Eric W. Gritsch. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966.<\/p>\n

________. Career of the Reformer III<\/em>. Vol. 33. 55 vols. American edition ed. Luther’s Works, Edited by Helmut T. Lehmann and Philip S. Watson. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972.<\/p>\n

________. Sermons of Martin Luther<\/em>. Vol. 1. 8 vols., Edited by John Nicholas Lenker. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1995.<\/p>\n

Maddox, Randy. Responsible Grace: John Wesley’s Practical Theology<\/em>. Nashville, Tenn.: Kingswood Books, 1994.<\/p>\n

Mannermaa, Tuomo. Christ Present in Faith: Luther’s View of Justification.<\/em> Translated by Kirsi Irmeli Stjerna. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005.<\/p>\n

Meilaender, Gilbert. The Theory and Practice of Virtue.<\/em> Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984.<\/p>\n

Pelagius. Pelagius’s Commentary on St Paul’s Epistle to the Romans: Translated with Introduction and Notes.<\/em> Translated by Theodore De Bruyn. Oxford Early Christian Studies; Oxford Early Christian Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.<\/p>\n

Tappert, Theodore G., ed. The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.<\/em> Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959.<\/p>\n

Wesley, John. Reasons against a Separation from the Church of England.<\/em> London: W. Strahan, 1758.<\/p>\n

________. The Letters of John Wesley. Vol. 8.<\/em> 8 vols., Edited by John Telford. London: Epworth Press, 1960.<\/p>\n

________. The Appeals to Men of Reason and Religion and Certain Related Open Letters. Vol. 11. The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley<\/em>, Edited by Frank Baker. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1975.<\/p>\n

________. The Works of John Wesley. Vol. 8.<\/em> 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1978.<\/p>\n

________. John Wesley,<\/em> Edited by Albert C. Outler. New York: Oxford University Press, 1980.<\/p>\n

________. Sermons I. Vol. 1. The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley,<\/em> Edited by Albert C. Outler. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1984.<\/p>\n

________. Sermons II. Vol. 2. The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley<\/em>, Edited by Albert C. Outler. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1985.<\/p>\n

________. Sermons III. Vol. 3. The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley<\/em>, Edited by Albert C. Outler. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1985.<\/p>\n

________. Journals and Diaries II: 1739-1743. Vol. 19. The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley,<\/em> Edited by Albert C. Outler. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1990.<\/p>\n

________. Doctrinal and Controversial Treatises II. Vol. 13. The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley<\/em>, Edited by Richard P. Heitzenrater. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2013.<\/p>\n

   
\nNOTES<\/p>\n

1<\/sup><\/a>For facility of expression, throughout this paper I utilize the term \u201cWesleyan\u201d to encompass those from denominations that trace themselves to the work of John Wesley.<\/p>\n

2<\/sup><\/a> This paper has been improved by generous feedback from Brach Jennings, Justus Hunter, and Presian Burroughs. Of course, however, all remaining mistakes or infelicities remain the responsibility of the author.<\/p>\n

3<\/sup><\/a> Gilbert Meilaender, The Theory and Practice of Virtue<\/em> (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984), see especially 104 and also 9, 13, 54.<\/p>\n

4<\/sup><\/a> See, for instance, Stanley Hauerwas, Against the Nations: War and Survival in a Liberal Society<\/em> (Minneapolis, Minn.: Winston Press, 1985), 2. Also Stanley Hauerwas, Hannah’s Child: A Theologian’s Memoir<\/em> (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010), 193; Stanley Hauerwas, The State of the University: Academic Knowledges and the Knowledge of God<\/em> (Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishing, 2007), 118.<\/p>\n

5<\/sup><\/a> John Wesley, The Letters of John Wesley<\/em>, ed. John Telford, 8 vols., vol. 8 (London: Epworth Press, 1960), 91.<\/p>\n

6<\/sup><\/a> \u201cSolid Declaration of the Formula of Concord,\u201d in The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church<\/em>, ed. Theodore G. Tappert (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959), 501.<\/p>\n

7<\/sup><\/a> The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church,<\/em> (Nashville, Tenn.: United Methodist Publishing House, 2012), 75.<\/p>\n

8<\/sup><\/a> See for instance Mark Alan Granquist, Lutherans in America: A New History<\/em> (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2015), 10.<\/p>\n

9<\/sup><\/a> John Wesley, Reasons against a Separation from the Church of England<\/em> (London: W. Strahan, 1758), \u00b67.<\/p>\n

10<\/sup><\/a> Martin Luther, Lectures on Galatians 1535: Chapters 1-4, Luther’s Works<\/em>, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Walter A. Hansen, American edition ed., 55 vols., vol. 26 (Saint Louis, Mo.: Concordia Publishing House, 1964), 154-55. For other uses of this metaphor, see ibid., 126. Martin Luther, Lectures on Galatians 1535: Chapters 5-6<\/em> and Lectures on Galatians 1519: Chapters 1-6, Luther’s Works<\/em>, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Walter A. Hansen, American edition ed., 55 vols., vol. 27 (Saint Louis, Mo.: Concordia Publishing House, 1964), 74, 79. \u201cThe Freedom of a Christian\u201d in Martin Luther, The Career of the Reformer I, Luther’s Works,<\/em> ed. Helmut T. Lehmann and Harold Grimm, American edition ed., 55 vols., vol. 31 (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1957), 361. \u201cOn Temporal Authority\u201d in Martin Luther, The Christian in Society II, Luther’s Works,<\/em> ed. Helmut T. Lehmann and Walther I. Brandt, American edition ed., 55 vols., vol. 45 (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1962), 89. Making a similar point elsewhere, Luther writes, \u201cThus it is impossible to separate works from faith, quite as impossible as to separate heat and light from fire.\u201d Here again, the natural\u2014and indeed immediate and inexorable\u2014connection that the metaphor posits suggests an immediacy of transformation, certainly in one\u2019s behavior and quite presumably in the agent herself. \u201cPreface to the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans\u201d in Martin Luther, Church and Ministry III, Luther’s Works<\/em>, ed. Eric W. Gritsch, American Edition ed., 55 vols., vol. 35 (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960), 371. While the full bibliographic information is provided in the initial citation of each volume of Luther\u2019s Works, subsequent citations will be abbreviated LW <\/em>followed by the volume number and page.<\/p>\n

11<\/sup><\/a> \u201cOn the Councils and the Churches\u201d in Martin Luther, Church and Ministry III, Luther’s Works<\/em>, ed. Helmut T. Lehmann and Eric W. Gritsch, American edition ed., 55 vols., vol. 41 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), 145.<\/p>\n

12<\/sup><\/a> Gabriel Fackre make similar observation about Gerhard Forde\u2019s account of justification and sanctification, writing that in his presentation \u201c[t]he new self does not need to be told what to do \u2026 for it does spontaneously (sanctification) what its new state (justification) entails.\u201d Gabriel Fackre and Michael Root, Affirmations and Admonitions: Lutheran Decisions and Dialogue with Reformed, Episcopal, and Roman Catholic Churches<\/em> (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 1998), 35.<\/p>\n

13<\/sup><\/a> Tuomo Mannermaa, Christ Present in Faith: Luther’s View of Justification<\/em>, trans., Kirsi Irmeli Stjerna (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005), 49.<\/p>\n

14<\/sup><\/a> \u201cJournal: September 13, 1739\u201d in John Wesley, Journals and Diaries II: 1739-1743, The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley,<\/em> ed. Albert C. Outler, vol. 19 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1990), 96. While the full bibliographic information is provided in the initial citation of each volume of the Works of John Wesley, subsequent citations will be abbreviated WJW<\/em> followed by the volume number and page.<\/p>\n

15<\/sup><\/a> John Wesley, Sermons II, The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley,<\/em> ed. Albert C. Outler, vol. 2 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1985), intro.1.<\/p>\n

16<\/sup><\/a> Ibid., IV.3.<\/p>\n

17<\/sup><\/a> For prominent uses of this metaphor, see \u201cThe New Birth\u201d in John Wesley, Sermons I, The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley<\/em>, ed. Albert C. Outler, vol. 1 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1984), II.7. \u201cOn Sin in Believers\u201d in ibid., IV.13. \u201cChristian Perfection\u201d in Wesley, WJW 2, II.21.<\/p>\n

18<\/sup><\/a> \u201cOn God\u2019s Vineyard\u201d in John Wesley, Sermons III, The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley<\/em>, ed. Albert C. Outler, vol. 3 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1985), I.5.<\/p>\n

19<\/sup><\/a> For one of the most often cited examples of this insight, see Luther, LW <\/em>26, 232.<\/p>\n

20<\/sup><\/a> Ibid<\/em>., 233.<\/p>\n

21<\/sup><\/a> Martin Luther, Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 1-5, Luther’s Works<\/em>, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan, American edition ed., 55 vols., vol. 1 (Saint Louis, Mo.: Concordia Publishing House, 1958), 64.<\/p>\n

22<\/sup><\/a> \u201cDefense and Explanation of All the Articles, 1521\u201d in Martin Luther, Career of the Reformer II, Luther’s Works<\/em>, ed. Helmut T. Lehmann and George W. Forell, American edition ed., 55 vols., vol. 32 (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1958), 24.<\/p>\n

23<\/sup><\/a> Randy Maddox, Responsible Grace: John Wesley’s Practical Theology<\/em> (Nashville, Tenn.: Kingswood Books, 1994), 180.<\/p>\n

24<\/sup><\/a> \u201cA Plain Account of Christian Perfection\u201d in John Wesley, Doctrinal and Controversial Treatises II, The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley<\/em>, ed. Richard P. Heitzenrater, vol. 13 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2013), \u00b615.4.<\/p>\n

25<\/sup><\/a> Ibid<\/em>., \u00b619.<\/p>\n

26<\/sup><\/a> Ibid<\/em>., \u00b626.9.<\/p>\n

27<\/sup><\/a> \u201cChristian Perfection\u201d in Wesley, WJW <\/em>2, I.9.<\/p>\n

28<\/sup><\/a> \u201cA Plain Account of Genuine Christianity\u201d in John Wesley, John Wesley, <\/em>ed. Albert C. Outler (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), II.3.<\/p>\n

29<\/sup><\/a> See especially \u201cOn Working Out Our Own Salvation\u201d in Wesley, WJW <\/em>3.<\/p>\n

30<\/sup><\/a> Maddox, Responsible Grace,<\/em> 316.<\/p>\n

31<\/sup><\/a> \u201cThe Bondage of the Will\u201d in Martin Luther, Career of the Reformer III, Luther’s Works<\/em>, ed. Helmut T. Lehmann and Philip S. Watson, American edition ed., 55 vols., vol. 33 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972), 65-66.<\/p>\n

32<\/sup><\/a> Ibid<\/em>., 245.<\/p>\n

33<\/sup><\/a> \u201cFirst Sunday in Advent\u201d in Martin Luther, Sermons of Martin Luther<\/em>, ed. John Nicholas Lenker, 8 vols., vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1995), \u00b621.<\/p>\n

34<\/sup><\/a> Luther, LW <\/em>26, 170.Mannermaa comments: \u201cChrist is, thus, the true agent of good works in the Christian.\u201d Mannermaa, Christ Present in Faith, 50.<\/p>\n

35<\/sup><\/a> \u201cThe Bondage of the Will\u201d in Luther, LW <\/em>33, 243.<\/p>\n

36<\/sup><\/a> \u201cThe Freedom of a Christian\u201d in Luther, LW <\/em>31, 358.<\/p>\n

37<\/sup><\/a> \u201cDefense and Explanation\u201d in Luther, LW <\/em>32, 21.<\/p>\n

38<\/sup><\/a> \u201cOn Working Out Our Own Salvation\u201d in Wesley, WJW <\/em>3, III.3.<\/p>\n

39<\/sup><\/a> Ibid<\/em>., III.4.<\/p>\n

40<\/sup><\/a> See, for instance, ibid<\/em>., II.1.<\/p>\n

41<\/sup><\/a> Ibid<\/em>., III.3 and III.7.<\/p>\n

42<\/sup><\/a> \u201cThe General Spread of the Gospel\u201d in Wesley, WJW <\/em>2, \u00b612.<\/p>\n

43<\/sup><\/a> Ibid<\/em>., \u00b611.<\/p>\n

44<\/sup><\/a> \u201cOn Working Out Our Own Salvation\u201d in Wesley, WJW <\/em>3, II.4.<\/p>\n

45<\/sup><\/a> \u201cThe Circumcision of the Heart\u201d in Wesley, WJW <\/em>1, I.1. Elsewhere, Wesley identifies salvation more generally with the possession of \u201call holy and heavenly tempers, and by consequence all holiness of conversation.\u201d See \u201cA Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion, Part I\u201d in John Wesley, The Appeals to Men of Reason and Religion and Certain Related Open Letters, The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley<\/em>, ed. Frank Baker, vol. 11 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1975), 106.<\/p>\n

46<\/sup><\/a> \u201cMinutes of Some Late Conversations Between the Rev. Mr. Wesleys and Others\u201d in John Wesley, The Works of John Wesley, 3rd ed., vol. 8 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1978), 277.<\/p>\n

47<\/sup><\/a> In \u201cThe Scripture Way of Salvation\u201d Wesley writes, \u201cExactly as we are justified by faith, so we are sanctified by faith. Faith is the condition, and the only condition, of sanctification.\u201d See \u201cThe Scripture Way of Salvation\u201d in Wesley, WJW <\/em>2, III.3.<\/p>\n

48<\/sup><\/a> \u201cThoughts on Christian Perfection\u201d in Wesley, WJW <\/em>13, Q5.<\/p>\n

49<\/sup><\/a> \u201cBondage of the Will\u201d in Luther, LW <\/em>33, 42-3.<\/p>\n

50<\/sup><\/a> \u201cThe Menace of Antinomianism\u201d in Wesley, John Wesley<\/em>, 380.<\/p>\n

51<\/sup><\/a> For one instance of the claim that Arminianism represents an outworking of semi-Pelagian principles, see Friedrich Bente, Historical Introductions to the Book of Concord <\/em>(St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia Publishing House, 1965), \u00b6225.<\/p>\n

52<\/sup><\/a> \u201cEpitome of the Formula of Concord\u201d in The Book of Concord<\/em>, ed. Tappert, 471.<\/p>\n

53<\/sup><\/a> For the relationship of prevenient and convincing grace, see \u201cOn Working Out Our Own Salvation\u201d in Wesley, WJW <\/em>3, II.1. On sanctifying grace, see \u201cThe Means of Grace\u201d in Wesley, WJW <\/em>1, II.1ff. Additionally, one might note that the charge of semi-Pelagianism fails to stick for another reason. Contrary to the caricature often rendered and despite the fact that it took Augustine years to identify it precisely, the crux of his controversy with the Pelagians lay not in their denial of grace. Instead, it was to be found in the fact that the Pelagians operated with what Augustine considered an insufficient understanding of grace. For Pelagius and his followers, grace was to be found in Christ, who \u201cforgave sins freely and gave us an example of righteousness\u201d [Pelagius, Pelagius’s Commentary on St Paul’s Epistle to the Romans:<\/em> Translated with Introduction and Notes, Oxford Early Christian Studies; Oxford Early Christian Studies., trans., Theodore De Bruyn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 95.] Augustine, however, insisted that grace operated not only in such external forms but also as God \u201cworks in us,\u201d first so that we may will and then to cooperate with us. [Augustine, \u201cOn Grace and Free Will,\u201d xxxiii in Augustine, Augustin: Anti-Pelagian Writings, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,<\/em> ed. Philip Schaff, trans., Peter Holmes and Benjamin B. Warfield, vol. 5 (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994).] On such a theological map, Wesley\u2019s stands unambiguously in Augustinian territory. <\/p>\n

54<\/sup><\/a> \u201cTwo Kinds of Righteousness\u201d in Luther, LW <\/em>31, 297 and 299.<\/p>\n

55<\/sup><\/a> Ibid<\/em>., 300.<\/p>\n

56<\/sup><\/a> Meilaender, The Theory and Practice of Virtue<\/em>, 111; see also 120.<\/p>\n

57<\/sup><\/a> \u201cTwo Kinds of Righteousness\u201d in Luther, LW <\/em>31, 299.<\/p>\n

58<\/sup><\/a> Luther, LW <\/em>32, 24.<\/p>\n

59<\/sup><\/a> \u201cThe Scripture Way of Salvation\u201d in Wesley, WJW <\/em>2, III.18.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Taken from a lecture delivered to a meeting of Lutheran and Wesleyan ethicists, Burroughs’ article explores how and why Lutheran and Methodist understandings of moral transformation differ. Burroughs skillfully analyzes Luther and Wesley’s writings, along with theologians of their traditions who have been influenced from both. With this laid out, he then addresses the question, “What do these differences mean for us today?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[12,22,36],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-640","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-economics","category-ecumenical-or-interreligious","category-sanctification"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nOf Fruit Trees and Newborn Babes: Luther and Wesley on Moral Transformation - Journal of Lutheran Ethics<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/of-fruit-trees-and-newborn-babes-luther-and-wesley-on-moral-transformation\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Of Fruit Trees and Newborn Babes: Luther and Wesley on Moral Transformation - Journal of Lutheran Ethics\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Taken from a lecture delivered to a meeting of Lutheran and Wesleyan ethicists, Burroughs' article explores how and why Lutheran and Methodist understandings of moral transformation differ. Burroughs skillfully analyzes Luther and Wesley's writings, along with theologians of their traditions who have been influenced from both. With this laid out, he then addresses the question, "What do these differences mean for us today?\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/of-fruit-trees-and-newborn-babes-luther-and-wesley-on-moral-transformation\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Journal of Lutheran Ethics\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2017-05-05T16:13:56+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2020-10-28T20:02:22+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2021\/01\/Journal_of_Lutheran_Ethics_Logo.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"250\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"250\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Denise Rector\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Denise Rector\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"32 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/of-fruit-trees-and-newborn-babes-luther-and-wesley-on-moral-transformation\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/of-fruit-trees-and-newborn-babes-luther-and-wesley-on-moral-transformation\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Denise Rector\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#\/schema\/person\/1d1a38a7727af6291bbff14ba363351c\"},\"headline\":\"Of Fruit Trees and Newborn Babes: Luther and Wesley on Moral Transformation\",\"datePublished\":\"2017-05-05T16:13:56+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-10-28T20:02:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/of-fruit-trees-and-newborn-babes-luther-and-wesley-on-moral-transformation\/\"},\"wordCount\":6526,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Economics\",\"Ecumenical and\/or Inter-religious\",\"Sanctification\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/of-fruit-trees-and-newborn-babes-luther-and-wesley-on-moral-transformation\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/of-fruit-trees-and-newborn-babes-luther-and-wesley-on-moral-transformation\/\",\"name\":\"Of Fruit Trees and Newborn Babes: Luther and Wesley on Moral Transformation - Journal of Lutheran Ethics\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2017-05-05T16:13:56+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-10-28T20:02:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/of-fruit-trees-and-newborn-babes-luther-and-wesley-on-moral-transformation\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/of-fruit-trees-and-newborn-babes-luther-and-wesley-on-moral-transformation\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/of-fruit-trees-and-newborn-babes-luther-and-wesley-on-moral-transformation\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Of Fruit Trees and Newborn Babes: Luther and Wesley on Moral Transformation\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/\",\"name\":\"Journal of Lutheran Ethics\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#organization\",\"name\":\"ELCA - Journal of Lutheran Ethics\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2021\/01\/Journal_of_Lutheran_Ethics_Logo.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2021\/01\/Journal_of_Lutheran_Ethics_Logo.jpg\",\"width\":250,\"height\":250,\"caption\":\"ELCA - Journal of Lutheran Ethics\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#\/schema\/person\/1d1a38a7727af6291bbff14ba363351c\",\"name\":\"Denise Rector\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/1cd6b17eb57a1d89f3baef8305d701c7443492f28eb7b50b711980b582f26385?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/1cd6b17eb57a1d89f3baef8305d701c7443492f28eb7b50b711980b582f26385?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/1cd6b17eb57a1d89f3baef8305d701c7443492f28eb7b50b711980b582f26385?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Denise Rector\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/author\/drector\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Of Fruit Trees and Newborn Babes: Luther and Wesley on Moral Transformation - Journal of Lutheran Ethics","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/of-fruit-trees-and-newborn-babes-luther-and-wesley-on-moral-transformation\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Of Fruit Trees and Newborn Babes: Luther and Wesley on Moral Transformation - Journal of Lutheran Ethics","og_description":"Taken from a lecture delivered to a meeting of Lutheran and Wesleyan ethicists, Burroughs' article explores how and why Lutheran and Methodist understandings of moral transformation differ. Burroughs skillfully analyzes Luther and Wesley's writings, along with theologians of their traditions who have been influenced from both. With this laid out, he then addresses the question, \"What do these differences mean for us today?","og_url":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/of-fruit-trees-and-newborn-babes-luther-and-wesley-on-moral-transformation\/","og_site_name":"Journal of Lutheran Ethics","article_published_time":"2017-05-05T16:13:56+00:00","article_modified_time":"2020-10-28T20:02:22+00:00","og_image":[{"width":250,"height":250,"url":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2021\/01\/Journal_of_Lutheran_Ethics_Logo.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Denise Rector","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Denise Rector","Est. reading time":"32 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/of-fruit-trees-and-newborn-babes-luther-and-wesley-on-moral-transformation\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/of-fruit-trees-and-newborn-babes-luther-and-wesley-on-moral-transformation\/"},"author":{"name":"Denise Rector","@id":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#\/schema\/person\/1d1a38a7727af6291bbff14ba363351c"},"headline":"Of Fruit Trees and Newborn Babes: Luther and Wesley on Moral Transformation","datePublished":"2017-05-05T16:13:56+00:00","dateModified":"2020-10-28T20:02:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/of-fruit-trees-and-newborn-babes-luther-and-wesley-on-moral-transformation\/"},"wordCount":6526,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Economics","Ecumenical and\/or Inter-religious","Sanctification"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/of-fruit-trees-and-newborn-babes-luther-and-wesley-on-moral-transformation\/","url":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/of-fruit-trees-and-newborn-babes-luther-and-wesley-on-moral-transformation\/","name":"Of Fruit Trees and Newborn Babes: Luther and Wesley on Moral Transformation - Journal of Lutheran Ethics","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#website"},"datePublished":"2017-05-05T16:13:56+00:00","dateModified":"2020-10-28T20:02:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/of-fruit-trees-and-newborn-babes-luther-and-wesley-on-moral-transformation\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/of-fruit-trees-and-newborn-babes-luther-and-wesley-on-moral-transformation\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/of-fruit-trees-and-newborn-babes-luther-and-wesley-on-moral-transformation\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Of Fruit Trees and Newborn Babes: Luther and Wesley on Moral Transformation"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#website","url":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/","name":"Journal of Lutheran Ethics","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#organization","name":"ELCA - Journal of Lutheran Ethics","url":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2021\/01\/Journal_of_Lutheran_Ethics_Logo.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2021\/01\/Journal_of_Lutheran_Ethics_Logo.jpg","width":250,"height":250,"caption":"ELCA - Journal of Lutheran Ethics"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#\/schema\/person\/1d1a38a7727af6291bbff14ba363351c","name":"Denise Rector","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/1cd6b17eb57a1d89f3baef8305d701c7443492f28eb7b50b711980b582f26385?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/1cd6b17eb57a1d89f3baef8305d701c7443492f28eb7b50b711980b582f26385?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/1cd6b17eb57a1d89f3baef8305d701c7443492f28eb7b50b711980b582f26385?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Denise Rector"},"url":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/author\/drector\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/640","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=640"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/640\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":784,"href":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/640\/revisions\/784"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=640"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=640"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=640"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}