Comparative Theology: Wesleyan Theology in a Pluralistic Context

“Comparative Theology: Wesleyan Theology in a Pluralistic Context”
By: Wm. Andrew Schwartz
Originally Published in Embracing the Past–Forging the Future: A New Generation of Wesleyan Theology (Pickwick, 2015).

 

The reality of religious diversity is one of the greatest challenges facing Christian theology today. The religions of the world embody diverse practices and at times incompatible beliefs. What does it mean to be Christian in the face of religious plurality? What might it look like to do Wesleyan theology in the pluralistic context of our 21st century world— taking seriously both one’s own faith and the faith of others? Many ways of responding to religious diversity are violent (both physically and socially), and contribute to a world at war. In the midst of division, hate, and marginalization, the need for peace and reconciliation is apparent. We must find ways to connect across our differences. One possibility for constructive and peaceful engagement with religious difference is comparative theology.1

What Is Comparative Theology?

Comparative theology is a new and growing branch of theology (along- side but not exclusive of other theological disciplines such as philosophical theology, systematic theology, historical theology, etc.). Although comparative theology is constitutive of two essential components—comparison and theology—it should not be confused as simply a matter of comparing different theologians (e.g. putting Calvin and Wesley in conversation). In- stead, comparative theology is “the attempt to understand the meaning of Christian faith by exploring it in the light of the teachings of other religious traditions.”2 Put another way, “Comparative theology—comparative and theological beginning to end—marks acts of faith seeking understanding which are rooted in a particular faith tradition but which, from that foundation, venture into learning from one or more other faith traditions.”3 4

While the theological nature of comparative theology is found in faith seeking understanding, the comparative element indicates where this seeking takes place; namely, beyond the borders of one’s own faith tradition. As James Fredericks notes, “Doing theology comparatively, therefore, is theology in the broadest sense of the word: the intellectually rigorous interpretation of the classic texts, doctrines and practices of one tradition.”5 But, instead of simply interpreting the texts, doctrines, and practices of one’s own tradition, the comparative theologian explores the texts, doctrines, and practices of other religions as well. This faith seeking understanding, which takes place within and beyond one’s own religious tradition, leads to a unique transformation involving “fresh theological insights that are indebted to the newly encountered traditions as well as the home tradition.”6

Why Do Comparative Theology?

The reasons for engaging in comparative theology are vast and varied. First, comparative theology, in so far as it is comparative, requires the theologian to learn deeply about those of other religions in a way that engenders a more peaceful and loving understanding of the other. Encountering difference is an inventible fact of life in our world, but not all engagement is positive. Comparative theology is a means of positively engaging religious difference, resulting in a deeper appreciation of the religious other. In so far as doing Christian theology in the 21st Century requires us to take seriously the multiplicity of religious experience and expression, comparative theology becomes as an important method of theological and interreligious engagement.

Second, comparative theology, in so far as it is theological, results in a deeper understanding of oneself and one’s own theological tradition— helping the Christian be a better Christian. While it might be natural to ask, “What can studying non-Christian texts and traditions teach us about Christianity,” the question is misguided and premature. It is premature because we can only answer the question after critically studying non- Christian traditions. After all, how can we know what Buddhism has to offer Christianity until we first do some study of Buddhism? Furthermore, the question is misguided because it implies that we can’t learn from difference. On the contrary, knowledge requires difference. Contrast is that means by which distinctions can be made, and distinctions are the heart of intelligibility. What is left without right? If the whole world was blue, how could we understand color? Otherness is a mirror. In this way, studying non-Christian traditions is a means to better understand ourselves.

By reading the classic texts of another tradition, or entering into dialogue with adherents of another tradition, we face diverse perspectives which challenge us, so that our deeply held truths don’t become obstacles to learning.7 Quite simply, impetus for comparative theology may arise out of a desire to take seriously one’s own theological commitment in a con- text of unparalleled diversity. James Fredericks calls this, the “intellectual grounds,” for doing comparative theology. As Fredericks notes, “Honest thinking does not stop at boundaries, and our minds are always crossing over established borders.”8

Finally, religion often deals in the realm of deep mystery and paradox. As stated in the book of Job, “Can you fathom the mysteries of God? Can you probe the limits of the Almighty? They are higher than the heavens above—what can you do? They are deeper than the depths below—what can you know? Their measure is longer than the earth and wider than the sea” (Job 11:7–9). Using the resources of other faith traditions can expand our understanding of these mysteries and help shed light on our own theological convictions. Comparative theology, as a faith seeking understanding, pushes us beyond our comfort zone, and expands the search radius in our quest to comprehend the deep mysteries of life.

Wesleyan Comparative Theology

As a constructive theological discipline, comparative theology will always reflect the unique characteristics of the tradition in which the comparative theologian is rooted. Since comparative theology is done from within the framework of a particular faith perspective, Wesleyans can provide new contributions to the discipline of comparative theology, just as the practice of comparative theology can provide new insights for Wesleyan theology.

There are several elements in the Wesleyan-Holiness tradition that make it quite amenable to the practice of comparative theology. First, comparative theology requires vulnerability—a venturing out of one’s comfort zone to take seriously even those ideas that run contrary to one’s own. In this way, as Francis Clooney notes, “Comparative theology may purify doctrinal claims by uncovering the cultural and philosophical accretions that inevitably surround truths held over a long period of time, and by showing that most theological expressions of truth have in some form appeared elsewhere too.”9 Such cultural and philosophical accretions, when not confronted, can become crippling prejudices. Similar notions are found in the statements by John Wesley himself, who notes “Who can tell how far invincible ignorance may extend? or (that comes to the same thing) invincible prejudice?—which is often so fixed in tender minds, that it is afterwards impossible to tear up what has taken so deep a root.”10

Second, comparative theology requires humility. We must acknowledge the limitations of our own understanding and, subsequently, our faith tradition—conceding the possibility that there is something we can learn from non-Christian traditions. Such epistemic humility is prescribed by Wesley, who states, “It is an unavoidable consequence of the present weakness and shortness of human understanding, that several men will be of several minds in religion as well as in common life. So it has been from the beginning of the world, and so it will be ‘till the restitution of all things.’”11 Wesley adds, “Yet can no man be assured that all his own opinions, taken together, are true. Nay, every thinking man is assured they are not: seeing humanum est errare et nescire: ‘To be ignorant of many things, and to mistake in some, is the necessary condition of humanity.’”12 While, in one sense, epistemic humility is rooted in the limitations of human existence, it is also grounded in the expansiveness of God.13

In addition to these general principles embraced by the Wesleyan  tradition, there are unique principles within  Wesleyan-Holiness  theol- ogy which, when interpreted in light of religious multiplicity, can provide strong inclination for comparative theological engagement. Some of these principles have been highlighted by Michael Lodahl in his book, Claiming Abraham: Reading the Bible and the Qur’an Side by Side.

Lodahl begins by locating the impetus for comparative engagement in the Bible, citing Leviticus 19:34, “Love your alien as yourself.”14 This call to love the ‘stranger’ is not an easy one. As Lodahl admits, “It is a difficult undertaking, this attempt to engage, appreciate, and even learn from the religious ‘other’ . . . But I [Lodahl], along with many others, have found it to be an undertaking that is inherently rewarding.”15

In reading through the entire Qur’an for the first time, Lodahl shares that he was drawn in by the similarities and intrigued by the differences between the Bible and the Qur’an. Lodahl’s experience reflects Clooney’s claim that comparative theology ordinarily starts with being drawn by resemblances between one’s own tradition and that of another.16 By examining the theological assumptions in the text of the other, we confront our own theological assumptions in such a way that our assumptions and religious commitments may be “challenged, chastened, or even changed.”17 Perhaps the most uniquely Wesleyan resource for engaging in comparative theology is prevenient grace. As Lodahl explains, “The doctrine of prevenient grace . . . may provide the beginning point for a Christian theology of Muhammad’s religious significance.”18 Although in his context prevenient grace is seen as a means of appreciating Muhammad’s religious significance, Lodahl leaves open the possibility of extending prevenient grace to all humans from every religion. For, “Prevenient grace is God’s active presence at work in every human.”19 From a Wesleyan perspective then, the affirmation of prevenient grace allows one to recognize the work of God in the lives of all people, Christian and non-Christian alike. As such, Wesleyans can embrace the possibility of learning from non-Christians, where God is already actively at work.

Comparative theology takes place in the tension between comparison and commitment. As Clooney notes, “Comparison retains a confessional dimension, while confession is disciplined by comparative practice, and in the process the theologian sees beyond the expectations of her tradition and changes accordingly.”20 This transformative tension “pushes us toward wider knowledge, emphasizing a freedom that is more tolerant and objective, less rooted in personal and communal views, while ‘theology’ drives us deeper, into a world of commitment, faith, and encounter with God.”21 Such tension is not resolved in comparative theology, but is the very essence of comparative theology. The Wesleyan comparative theologian must embrace this tension as a sort of purifying fire.

Wesleyan Comparative Theology: A Demonstration

In order to better demonstrate what Wesleyan comparative theology might look like, the following will be a comparative theological exercise between Zen Buddhism and Wesleyan Christianity. This example will explore a Zen understanding of anatta [not-self] and a Wesleyan conception of holiness. The goal of this exercise is a creative synthesis resulting in a transformation of a Wesleyan understanding of holiness. As is typical in comparative theology, one must begin from within a given tradition; in this case, from the Wesleyan tradition.22

From this perspective, we will cross over into Zen Buddhism, exploring a Zen concept of no-self. It is important at this stage to recognize two things: 1) that we are strangers in a foreign land, and 2) as such, we must resist the desire to make hasty conclusions about the religious other. We must live with the Zen tradition a bit, in order to come to a respectful and grounded understanding of anatta from the Zen perspective.

Only after we have such an understanding (to the best of our ability) can we cross back into our own Wesleyan camp. Though it is impossible to shed one’s own tradition in the process of comparative theology, we must do our best to temporarily bracket our own beliefs in order to “live” in the Zen perspective. By “bracketing” beliefs, I simply mean attempting to with- hold judgment about the Zen perspective, in order to first understand the Zen perspective. “Bracketing” in this sense, is not a matter of abandoning one’s own perspective for the sake of ascending to some sort of objectivity—as if to do so where even possible. Withholding judgment, however, is possible, though only temporarily necessary. When we have successfully accomplished this, we are able to reassume our Wesleyan perspective [unbracketing our own beliefs]—again asking Wesleyan questions from within a Wesleyan framework.

What one discovers in comparative theology is that this crossing-over was a journey that brought about a transformation. As a result of traveling across religious borders, the comparative theologian finds that the beliefs that were bracketed in the second stage of comparative theology do not look the same when unbracketed again. Instead, a transformation has occurred, in which the beliefs once held are now seen in a new light. This is not a transformation of the beliefs themselves, so much as a transformation of the one holding the beliefs. That is, the beliefs may remain the same, but they will be seen in a new light.

So, in what follows, I will present a Wesleyan perspective, specifically looking at John Wesley’s doctrine of entire sanctification. I will then attempt to present a Zen perspective regarding anatta. Finally, I will readdress the Wesleyan view of entire sanctification, keeping in mind the Zen perspective of anatta. What results, whatever it may look like, will hopefully be  a deeper Wesleyan understanding of sanctification—enriched by the Zen doctrine of no-self.

Stage 1: Wesleyans Are Wesleyans

In response to the question, “What is Christian perfection?” John Wesley answers, “The loving God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength. This implies that no wrong temper, none contrary to love, remains in the soul; and that all the thoughts, words, and actions, are governed by pure love.”23 In another place he describes being wholly sanctified as to, “Let your

soul be filled with so entire a love to Him, that you may love nothing but for his sake. Have a pure intention of heart, a steadfast regard to his glory in all your actions. For then, and not til then, is that ‘mind in us, which was also in Christ Jesus,’ when in every motion of our heart, in every word of our tongue, in every work of our hands, we ‘pursue nothing but in relation to him, and in subordination to his pleasure . . .’”24

Then, tying his doctrine of holiness to the rest of the Christian tradition by way of biblical sources, Wesley states, “‘I am crucified with Christ; nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me;’—words that manifestly describe a deliverance from inward as well as from outward sin. This is expressed both negatively, ‘I live not’ . . . and positively, ‘Christ liveth in me.’”25 He continues, “Indeed, both these, ‘Christ liveth in me,’ and, ‘I live not,’ are inseparably connected.”26

From a Wesleyan perspective, as demonstrated by the perspective of Wesley himself, there is an inseparable connection between “I live not” and “Christ liveth in me.” These inseparable principles are portrayed by Melvin Dieter, who states, “Negatively, entire sanctification is a cleansing of the heart, which brings healing of the remaining systemic hurts and bruises from Adam’s sin . . . Positively, it is a freedom, a turning of the whole person toward God in love to seek and to know His will, which becomes the soul’s delight.”27 The negative and positive aspects of entire sanctification are not two, but one in the same. That is, the cleansing of the heart is the turning of the whole person toward God in love. But what happens when one’s heart is cleansed? After it is cleansed, what remains? When one dies to self, and is crucified with Christ, how is it that “I” live? In what sense is the perfected self a ‘self ’? How are Wesleyans to reconcile the language of being “brought to completion” and being “fully conformed to the image of the Son,” with “I live not?” If I do not live, then what sort of relationship am I capable of having with God? If I have been completely conformed to the image of the Son, what distinguishes me from the Son?

We might ask, if one dies to self, and is filled with the love of God to the extent that nothing else remains, then what ultimately distinguishes the sanctified from the sanctifier? In short, how are Wesleyans to understand “self ” in the process of entire sanctification? When one is crucified with Christ, and no longer lives, but only Christ lives, what happens to the “me” that Christ now lives in? Is the self transformed? If so, into what? Is the self annihilated? Does something take its place?28

Stage 2: Wesleyans Become Zen

In his book Zen and Western Thought, Masao Abe quotes a famous Zen parable given by a Chinese Zen master. According to Abe, this saying “provides a key by which we may approach Zen philosophy.” It reads as follows:

Thirty years ago, before I began the study of Zen, I said, “Mountains are mountains, waters are waters.” After I got an insight into the truth of Zen through the instruction of a good master, I said, “Mountains are not mountains, waters are not waters.” But now, having attained the abode of final rest [that is, Awakening], I say, “Mountains are really mountains, waters are really waters.” “And then he asks, ‘Do you think these three understandings are the same or different?’”29

This saying portrays three stages. The first stage is the dualistic worldview, where mountains are not waters. This dualism is representative of all dualisms, most significantly, the division between subject and object. The subject-object distinction is found at the heart of empirical experience. I, the knower, the experiencer, the subject, am having an experience of, or knowing about objects, the world. These objects are not me. How can they be? Therefore, insofar as we hold a concept of “self ” as a subject standing over against objects, we are bound to the illusion of dualism, and cannot fully realize sunyata (emptiness). Such distinctions must be overcome in order to realize the true nature of sunyata, which leads to nirvana (the salvific extinguishing of self).

At the second stage, one embraces sunyata in such a way that the differentiation between mountains and waters is overcome by a monistic emptiness in which mountains are not mountains. At this stage, there is  no subject. There is no object. There is only emptiness. Many Western interpreters of Zen make the mistake of stopping here, interpreting Zen as ultimately leading to an empty nihilism. But doing so is to ignore the third stage.

In the third stage, “Emptiness empties itself, becoming non-empti- ness, that is, true Fullness.”30 This non-dualism is a more robust under- standing of sunyata, which recognizes that “the true Self is realized only through the total negation of no-self, which is in turn the total negation of the ego-self.”31 In this way, the Zen doctrine of emptiness (perhaps more properly understood as a doctrine of fullness) is directly tied to the doctrine of anatta (not-self).

Masao Abe uses the concept of ‘Suchness’ to help explain Zen emptiness to a Western audience. He writes,

Buddhists emphasize ‘Emptiness’ and say that everything is empty. Although this is a very important point for Buddhism in general and for Zen in particular, I am afraid that it is quite misleading, or at least very difficult to understand, particularly for the Western mind. So I think that ‘everything is empty’ may be more adequately rendered in this way: ‘Everything is just as it is’ . . . Everything is different from everything else. And yet, while everything and everyone retain their uniqueness and particularity, they are free from conflict because they have no self-nature. This is the meaning of the saying that everything is empty.32

One of the central roadblocks on the path to nirvana is considering the “self ” as a distinct subject. To overcome this obstacle, Zen posits anatta or no-self. For, when the self is emptied of itself, all that remains is sunyata. And when emptiness is emptied of emptiness, what remains is ‘Suchness’, an expansive fullness that embraces the unity of what is differentiated.

Stage 3: Wesleyans Are Really Wesleyan

In light of this encounter (albeit brief) with the Zen doctrine of anatta, how might the Wesleyan understand entire sanctification more deeply? I believe the clearest area of enrichment is in rediscovering entire sanctification as a matter of emptying oneself of self, as to become a perfected self. Not that this notion is absent from Wesleyan thought without an encounter with Buddhism. Rather, an encounter with Buddhism can enrich this understanding, especially helping Wesleyans avoid the pitfall of interpreting “no-self” or dying to self, as emptiness instead of fullness. By understanding Zen anatta [the process of becoming less, which is to become more] Wesleyans can rediscover the special logic of entire sanctification—one attains fullness by becoming empty.

A Wesleyan understanding of holiness, enriched by an encounter with Zen Buddhism, no longer sees the process of dying to self and being “filled” with Christ as a something akin to cleaning the garage so the car fits. Rather, to die to self is to be filled with Christ. This is so, both in the sense that to die to self is to emulate the path of the crucified Christ, and in the sense that the pure nature of humanity is one created in the perfect image of God. In this way, the division between the human self and God (the dualism of stage 1) is overcome by dying to self so that there is only God (the monism of stage 2) which is overcome by the union of the self and Christ (the non-dualism of stage 3).

By crossing back over, being Wesleyan but shaped by Zen, we see that another way of interpreting Wesley’s doctrine of entire sanctification is as “suchness.” As Wesley proclaimed, the image of God is within humanity, though it has been distorted by sinfulness, and therefore needs to be re- stored. By restoring humanity to its original state, humans are really humans. They are, just as they are. In this way, to be entirely sanctified is to be fully human. Sinfulness is not a mark of human nature, but the corruption of it. Wesley’s description of sanctification as the cleansing of the heart, begs the question, cleansed of what? The answer—sinfulness. But in what sense?

If Mildred Bangs Wynkoop is right, and self-centeredness is sinfulness, while God-centeredness is holiness, then to be cleansed of sinfulness is to be cleansed of self-centeredness.33 But if sanctification is the process of being cleansed of sinful nature, which is the self-nature, then to be sanctified from this perspective, is to be emptied of self-nature. Or, in the words of Amos Yong, to be empty is to be without self-substantiality.34 Now, since, as Masao Abe astutely notes, emptiness is more accurately understood as suchness, to be empty is not (as in the nihilistic understanding) to have a negative ontological status, but to be just as you are. So, if in being just as you are there is no self-nature, what remains? From a Wesleyan perspective, the positive articulation of emptiness, in which there is no self-nature—the fullness of perfect love, Christ-likeness, and holiness. This understanding of the relationship between emptiness and holiness directly opposes the claim of James L. Fredericks, who argues that emptiness is the “negation of holiness.”35 Instead, emptiness is the fullness of holiness!

With the marks of Zen on the comparative traveler, the Wesleyan now sees entire sanctification as a matter of emptying oneself of self—which is the fullness of the love of God. In doing so, it is not I but Christ that lives within me—which is me. The sanctified believer is brought into a union with Christ, such that Christ living in me is truly me. To be entirely sanctified, from this new Wesleyan perspective, is to be Such—to be emptied in a way that can only be described as all fullness. While we should be careful not to conflate entire sanctification with anatta, or sunyata, by engaging Zen, we Wesleyans can see our own doctrine of holiness in a new light. And perhaps this new understanding of entire sanctification is a deeper understanding—perhaps now, Wesleyans are really Wesleyans.36

 

Endnotes

  1. Please note that comparative theology need not be a uniquely Christian practice. There can also be Muslim comparative theologians, or Hindu comparative theologians. Insofar as a tradition is capable of theology, it is capable of comparative Throughout this chapter, however, I will use the phrase “comparative theology” to mean Christian comparative theology. This is done for the sake of simplicity, not imperialism.
  2. Fredericks, Faith among Faiths, 169.
  3. Clooney, Comparative Theology, 10.
  4. It is important to note that this “definition” of comparative theology does not represent the depth and diversity of dialogue concerning the discipline There are those who would challenge the notion that comparative theology must be done from within the confines of a given theological tradition or that it is a matter of “faith seeking understanding.” Nevertheless, the definition of comparative theology being used in this chapter borrows from the dominant position exemplified by Francis Clooney and what is sometimes referred to as the “Boston School.” My goal is not to reify this definition, but (for the sake of simplicity) to use this as a starting point for introducing comparative theology to Wesleyans.
  5. Fredericks, “Introduction,”  xii.
  6. Clooney, Comparative Theology, 10.
  7. Ibid., 13.
  8. Fredericks, “Introduction,” xii.
  9. Clooney, Comparative Theology, 113.
  10. Wesley, “Catholic Spirit,” 495.
  11. Ibid., 494.
  12. Ibid., 495.
  13. “Can you fathom the mysteries of God? Can you probe the limits of the Almighty? They are higher than the heavens above—what can you do? They are deeper than the depths below—what can you know? Their measure is longer than the earth and wider than the sea” (Job 11:7–9).
  14. Lodahl, Claiming Abraham, 2.
  15. Ibid.
  16. Clooney, Comparative Theology, 11
  17. Lodahl, Claiming Abraham, 18. Ibid., 183.
  18. Ibid., 183.
  19. Ibid.
  20. Clooney, Comparative Theology, 45.
  21. Ibid., 57.
  22. As an example within the context of this chapter, this exercise in Wesleyan Comparative Theology may feel both brief and If you are not familiar with Wesleyan- Holiness theology or Zen Buddhism, you may be uncomfortable and rightly feel as if certainly leaps are being taken without proper explanation or analysis. Unfortunately, the location and function of the present exercise requires certain leaps to be taken. Please keep in mind, however, that doing comparative theology should involve a serious study of both one’s home tradition as well as the foreign tradition.
  23. Wesley, “A Plain Account of Christian Perfection,” 329.
  24. Ibid., 368.
  25. Ibid., 377.
  26. Ibid.
  27. Dieter, “The Wesleyan Perspective,” 18.
  28. I realize that these questions are extremely leading and seem to presuppose an encounter with Zen before that encounter takes place. However, to cover the Wesleyan doctrine of holiness and transition into a Zen interpretation of anatta in only two pages is inevitably rushed and slightly Please keep in mind that this is simply a brief demonstration of comparative theology. For more complete examples of comparative theology see: Hyo-Dong Lee, Spirit, Qi, and the Multitude (2013); and Michelle Voss Roberts, Tastes of the Divine (2014).
  29. Abe, Zen and Western Thought, 4.
  30. Ibid., 10.
  31. Ibid.
  32. Ibid., 223.
  33. Wynkoop, A Theology of Love, 25.
  34. Yong, The Cosmic Breath, 100.
  35. Fredericks, Buddhist and Christians, 85.
  36. Please note that this “new” understanding of holiness is not altogether different than interpretations of holiness already found, in some form, in the Wesleyan tradition. Remember, the goal of comparative theology is not to inject foreign elements into Christian theology, but to draw out and expand existing elements by tapping into outside resources. In doing so, we get the added benefit of having a constructive encounter with the religious other, resulting in a peaceful appreciation of religious difference.

 

Bibliography

Abe, Masao. Zen and Western Thought. Edited by William R. LaFleur. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1985.

Clooney, Francis X. Comparative Theology: Deep Learning across Religious Borders. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.

Dieter, Melvin E. “The Wesleyan Perspective.” In Five Views on Sanctification, by Melvin Dieter et al., 9-46. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987.

Fredericks, James. Faith among Faiths: Christian Theology and Non-Christian Religions. New York: Paulist, 1999.

———. “Introduction.” In The New Comparative Theology: Interreligious Insights from the Next Generation, edited by Francis X. Clooney, ix–xix. New York: Continuum, 2010.

Lee, Hyo-Dong. Spirit, Qi, and the Multitude: A Comparative Theology for the Democracy of Creation. New York: Fordham University Press, 2013.

Lodahl, Michael. Claiming Abraham: Reading the Bible and the Qur’an Side by Side. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2010.

Voss Roberts, Michelle. Tastes of the Divine: Hindu and Christian Theologies of Emotion. New York: Fordham University Press, 2014.

Wesley, John. “A Plain Account of Christian Perfection.” In vol 11 of The Works of John Wesley. Edited by Thomas Jackson. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007.

———. “Sermon 39: Catholic Spirit.” In vol. 6 of The Works of John Wesley. Edited by Thomas Jackson. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996.

Wynkoop, Mildred Bangs. A Theology of Love. Kansas City: Beacon Hill, 1972.

Yong, Amos. The Cosmic Breath: Spirit and Nature in the Christianity-Buddhism-Science Trialogue. Boston: Brill, 2012.