The Quest for Love Divine: Select Essays in Wesleyan Theology and Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Paul Wesley Chilcote is one of the world’s leading scholars of Wesleyan history and theology, perhaps best known for his groundbreaking study John Wesley and the Women Preachers of Early Methodism (1991). The present collection gathers eighteen essays and papers, some hitherto unpublished, and presents them in six sections, each with three chapters: Charles Wesley’s Lyrical Theology; John and Charles Wesley’s Practical Divinity; Early Methodist Women; Wesleyan Spiritual Practices; Worship, Sacraments, and Leadership; and Missional Ecclesiology and God’s Rule. Some of the papers have appeared in multi-author volumes or in journals; the earliest dates from 1996 and the most recent from 2020. Inevitably there is some variation in length and style, guided by the original readership: the shortest chapter, ‘Rethinking the Wesleyan Quadrilateral’, first published in Good News Magazine in 2005, is just three pages long, although it includes first-person testimony to Albert Outler’s regret at coining the phrase ‘Wesleyan quadrilateral’ and offers two helpful dynamic models to express the relationship between scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. In the introduction, Chilcote offers a summary of ‘salient themes’ in the form of fourteen bullet points that themselves repay careful reflection—for instance, ‘How the Wesleys did theology is as important as the theology that they did’ and ‘The golden thread that has stood the test of time in the Methodist heritage is the deep conviction that you must translate your faith into action.’Four significant themes emerge from this rich collection, two principally historical and two bearing directly on present-day concerns. The first historical theme is the retrieval of the influence and importance of Charles Wesley, ‘the neglected brother’ (240). Most of the chapters here are either explicitly about Charles Wesley or, if they consider Wesleyan theology or spirituality more generally, they draw heavily on Charles Wesley’s hymns for source material. This includes careful word studies of the language of belief and faith in the corpus of hymns. It is not surprising that five of the papers have previously appeared in the Proceedings of the Charles Wesley Society, nor that the second salient observation in the introduction is that ‘The early Methodist people learned their theology by singing it.’ For the present reviewer, this poses two questions about contemporary Methodism: given the drastic reduction in Wesley hymns in recent hymnals, how are twenty-first-century Methodist people learning their theology, and what theology are they learning from what they sing?The second historical theme concerns the place of women in early Methodism, with case studies of preaching, spirituality, and community, and an exploration of the influence of medieval Beguine models on Mary Bosanquet’s household at Leytonstone. It may be asked whether the implications of Chilcote’s observation that ‘Early Methodism, for all intents and purposes, was a movement of women’ have been absorbed, particularly when the iconography and literature of Methodism continue to privilege two men.The themes with present-day resonance are theological and missiological. Chilcote draws out the centrality of grace both to the Wesleyan experience and to the Wesleyan articulation of faith. The contemporary implications of grace—prevenient, justifying, sanctifying—are demonstrated in an appendix, ‘A World Methodist Affirmation’ (325–7). Chilcote also captures the dynamic of the Wesleys’ missional vision, ‘centred in Jesus Christ, but spun out into the life of the world in mission and in service’ (xxii). Chilcote draws on the Wesleyan tradition to weave together evangelism, renewal, and inclusivity, expressing this in ‘A Progressive Wesleyan Declaration’ (328–9). For Chilcote, fidelity to the tradition, a commitment to intentional and accountable discipleship, a passion for the renewal of the church, and dedication to evangelism not only fit with a generous inclusivity but are most aptly expressed in such inclusivity.This is an example of fine and accessible scholarship, enhanced by its introduction and extensive bibliography. My only regret is that the publisher was not prepared to include an index, which would greatly assist quick reference, especially to the core themes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".