World of Wesley
What Do the Beastie Boys, Beatles, and John Wesley Have in Common?
I was writing an essay to expand out the idea of journey in the Church year. But I had an idea that has taken me on a detour. Every year in my church we do a Wednesday evening series in which we listen to popular songs and look for God in the songs. It’s an idea I “stole” from Brian Zahnd who does a sermon series annually on Finding God in the Music. As I was working out which songs to include this year, I had a thought about music, genius, and spiritual successors. As with most ideas like this, it quickly expanded and had me excited to work out some connections. So here goes, from the Beatles to the Beastie Boys and Wesley to the Relational Theologians.
If you’ve know me for any length of time you know that my favorite band is U2. But there is band who transcends all other bands and that is The Beatles. I have believed that since I was a young teenager and my thoughts on this have never shifted. I believe The Beatles to be the greatest band of all time. My evidence is that The Beatles were a band who were greater than the sum of the individuals part of the band. There was a special blend of talent, storytelling, and beautiful harmonies. The genius of Lennon/McCartney songs is that many of them told deep stories in less than three minutes. But the Beatles sound evolved as constraints lessened. They experimented with sound, instruments, words, and recording techniques. The Beatles were always creating and even recognized how changes were natural in artistry. The Peter Jackson documentary Get Back on Disney+ is a good example of how their creativity and relationship shaped their music. I’ll place a link to that trailer here.
There is a genius to telling complex and compelling stories in less than three minutes. Ask any preacher how hard that would be. (Laughing at myself.) But The Beatles accomplished this. The song Yesterday is only two minutes and nine seconds. But in that short song, a tale of loss, nostalgia, and the desire to go back to fix a bad decision is clear. Or listen to I’m Looking Through You. A Two minute and nineteen second song about the evolution of a relationship and the change in human beings.
But The Beatles were not content to just tell good stories. They also experimented with sound and created fascinating soundscapes to go along with those stories. The album Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band hit like an alien invasion. I remember seeing an interview with Brian Wilson form the Beach Boys speaking about how proud they were of the direction they took with the album Pet Sounds; until they heard Sgt. Pepper. The Beatles never stopped exploring and finding new sounds and stories to tell. After their breakup, none of them experienced the same level of success or creativity as when they were The Beatles. George Harrison did have the best solo project of all former Beatles in All Things Must Pass. But that released in 1970 and reflects music he wrote when he was a Beatle. All of the Beatles had success and some great albums, but they were never quite as good as when they were The Beatles.
After the breakup of the Beatles may have been looking for “the next Beatles.” Of course there will never be another Beatles, but that doesn’t mean that creativity, etc. ceases to happen. While there will never be another of any band, we can see spiritual successors. One such successor to the Beatles is The Beastie Boys. True, the genres of music are totally different, but the approaches are similar. The Beatsie Boys are a trio so they have one fewer member, but their greatness comes in the whole of the band itself. Their lyrics have depth and tell stories within the constraints of their time. The Beatles have more albums and had a shorter lifespan. The Beastie Boys have a longer period of time of recording, but they have fewer studio albums. The Beatles broke up; while the Beastie Boys stopped when MCA (Adam Yauch) passed away from cancer. But the Beastie Boys experimented with sound and recording methods very much like the Beatles. Here’s a trailer for a Beastie Boys documentary on AppleTV:
You can see some of this experimentation throughout their music, but here is Tadlock’s Glasses which does some interesting things through tape manipulation.
The Beastie Boys even recorded an instrumental album right before their final album. The instrumental was named The Mix-Up and is definitely a genre bender in that it sounds like funky hip-hop jazz. All of these point to a very creative and boundry pushing band. IN that, the Beastie Boys were spiritual successors to The Beatles. Albeit kids from Brooklyn, NY rather than Liverpool, UK. But greatness knows no bounds. Yes, we could include additional bands like Duran Duran, but to keep this from becoming a book I’ll stop with the Beastie Boys. So why do I bring up the Beatles and Beastie Boys? Because I see a connection with how we see John Wesley and his spiritual successors.
To understand a bit about how I see Wesley. I will first put a bit from an unpublished manuscript of mine.
John Wesley can be enigmatic for those attempting to study his theology in traditionally systematic ways. Wesley’s own writings can even be seen as contradictory because Wesley is like all good and thorough theologians and Bible students and his ideas progressed and took more substance as time passed. In short, Wesley’s theology matured and deepened.
John Wesley’s theological genius was in seeing connections in disparate theological ideas and traditions. Within the theology known as Wesleyan, we find ideas from the East, West, high church, and low church. Wesley forged a middle way between many of these theologies and doctrines, which often appeared to have wide chasms between them. Yet Wesley’s theology is both coherent and connected to the orthodoxy of Christian thought throughout two millennia. Wesley was driven to forge this middle way by his understanding of God as a God of holy love; a love which pushes all others out.
Wesley’s primary concern was a pastoral concern. He is sometimes called a folk theologian in a derogatory way. Instead, Wesleyan was a theologian of the immanent plight of human beings often discarded by the systems of this world. I label Wesley’s approach an improvisational one. When I use improvisational, I use it in the context of jazz improvisation in which a rooted core holds the improvised music together. In other words, Wesley is improvisational but he is not McGuyver. Wesley desired that the human beings who encountered his sermons, writings, and other interactions would come to know the transforming love of God. Wesley took some contradictory positions because of this emphasis, but I also see that as an improvisational choice. He was also a man of his time which shaped his assumptions and decisions. But Wesley was definitely consistent when it came to proclaiming God as a God of love.
So who are Wesley’s spiritual successors? My claim here is that Wesleyan Open and Relational Theologians (ORT) are the spiritual successors to John Wesley. A few reasons why include the centerpiece of God as love, the interest in how our discussions of God impact human beings, a cooperative response between God and humanity, and the openness of human choice. Wesleyanism itself is a very broad theology, but when we whittle down the important doctrines and theological decision, ORT is the branch which can claim a close tie to Wesley’s method and concerns. I also include those who are not explicitly open and relational as they have a tremendous influence upon ORT. So let’s look at some theologians who model this spiritual succession.
The OG, at least in the Church of the Nazarene (COTN) is Mildred Bangs Wynkoop. In terms of course correction, Wynkoop’s A Theology of Love called the COTN back to our Wesleyan roots. Wynkoop also leaned heavily into relational theology as the vehicle for understanding Wesley. Critics rightly point out that Wynkoop was friendly toward Process Theology, but I do not see that as a valid criticism against orthodoxy or Wesleyanism. It is a valid criticism if you believe Wesleyanism to be compatible with fundamentalism and its like. Wynkoop had this to say in her Preface to the second edition of A Theology of Love.
“Process Theology” makes a much-needed correction to the dualisms of a former day. It is my considered opinion that, though the metaphysical foundation of process thought is not the only solution to theological problems, its insights are inescapable in a biblical theology. The dynamic emphasis in relation to God, man, love, grace, nature, and salvation and interpersonal relations is crucial to the Christian faith. (Wynkoop)
In reaching back to Wesley, Wynkoop embraced an improvisational method of theologizing with Wesley, This allowed Wynkoop to see the compatibility of Wesley within process theology. Of course, not all open and relational theologians are process oriented, but this still fits within Wesleyanism.
Randy Maddox is another successor and his Responsible Grace links the openness of God with Wesley’s belief that human beings respond to the grace of God. This makes grace responsible in an active way. You see, we respond to grace and that allows us to transform our hearts. Maddox echoes others in the relational space when he points out Wesley’s concern for a proper understanding of God.
He was much more worried about the impact of false understandings of God on the Christian formation of his people; e.g., understandings that resulted from pernicious doctrines like divine reprobation and from the deistic implications of moderate Enlightenment thought. Interestingly, recent advocates of recovering a more practical theology agree with this implicit assessment that issues of God’s character are more crucial to actual Christian praxis than the theoretical question of God’s existence. (Maddox)
My contemporaries who insist upon penal substitutionary atonement might want to go back and examine Wesley a bit more closely. Or, at a minimum, read Maddox.
Thomas Jay Oord is another spiritual successor to Wesley. Even though he was expelled from the COTN, that does not place him outside Wesleyanism or Christianity. We can have disagreements and still recognize overall orthodoxy. Oord’s Open and Relational Theology is a wonderful introduction to its namesake. Tom Oord is a prolific writer who shares his work freely with those who have questions. He also shares the stage metaphorically speaking with voices within compilations. Even including those who disagree with his theses. But relational theology is open to engaging voices in disagreement because that is a path to growth and learning. Oord is currently working on a systematic theology of love which is an ambitious undertaking, but one which is important as a successor to Wesley’s theological methods of improvisation.
H Ray Dunning, who counts Randy Maddox as a student is also in the stream of relational theologians in the stream of Wesley. His Grace, Faith, and Holiness is an opus level work in which he explains and engages the Wesleeyan theological framework. My favorite part of the book is that Dunning shows rather than tells. Of course, this makes it more difficult for the student as they begin the journey, but it is totally worth it on the road to growth. I am thankful that I have had an opportunity to be in the room with Randy Maddox and H Ray Dunning as Maddox presented in his own work and how it fits within the Wesleyan-Holiness world.
There are so many others who engage a Wesleyan heritage but there is only so much room. The greater point is that Wesley’s spiritual successors are many and diverse. Like the Beastie Boys carrying on the beauty of the Beatles, the latter Wesleyans carry on the deeply pastoral and immanent theology revealing a God of love.
Maddox, Randy L. Responsible Grace : John Wesley’s Practical Theology. Kingswood Books, 1994. 3487778.
Wynkoop, Mildred Bangs. A Theology of Love : The Dynamic of Wesleyanism. Second edition. Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 2015. 18487659.