How Should We Speak of Human Nature? A Question for the Global Methodist Church

Photo by PhotoGranary

How can we faithfully describe human nature? That question has been the focus of some discussion of late in the Global Methodist Church (GMC). The question arose with the publication of a document proposing a new set of “Articles of Faith” for consideration at the 2026 General Conference of the GMC. While I was a part of the team that drafted the language for these proposed Articles, I do not now write to defend that language, only to raise a few questions for consideration as the denomination processes the proposal and engages in a time of discernment with regard to the way we articulate our basic doctrinal commitments. Towards the end of this article, I’ll also propose some alternative language that may create space for denominational unity around the doctrine of human nature. I join others who happily welcome proposals from across the denomination for strengthening the language of these Articles of Faith. We can all be grateful for the wisdom of the Discipleship, Doctrine, and Just Ministry Commission in the decision to publish the proposed language now and invite feedback from the broader Church. This will give us ample time to process and reflect on a document of great importance.

Why these new Articles of Faith?

Before jumping into the question of human nature specifically, it’s worth pausing briefly to note the reason the proposed Articles of Faith were drafted in the first place. To understand, there’s a bit of history to get through. In 1968, the United Methodist Church (UMC) was formed through the union of two denominations—the Evangelical United Brethren (EUB) and the Methodist Church (MC). Both predecessor denominations came with their own doctrinal statements. The EUB brought its Confession, and the MC brought the Articles of Religion that John Wesley himself prepared as Methodism spread to the Americas in the late 18th century. By 1972, the UMC would affirm the so-called value of theological pluralism. It shouldn’t surprise us, then, that no single, unified, and coherent doctrinal statement was ever produced. The UMC has two doctrinal statements, neither of which was invested with much authority in those early days of pluralism. 

In contrast, the Global Methodist Church is deeply committed to classical Christian doctrinal orthodoxy and to the coherent articulation of our Wesleyan commitments. Consequently, the 2024 Convening Conference instructed the Discipleship, Doctrine, and Just Ministry Commission to produce a new statement of doctrine that would resolve any tension between the EUB Confession and the Methodist Articles of Religion for consideration by the upcoming General Conference. The proposed Articles of Faith were prepared in obedience to the will of the Convening Conference. 

Beyond the need to resolve any differences between the previous two statements, the Church also bears the missional responsibility to articulate our doctrines in the language of the day. That is not to say we should be constantly revising our doctrinal commitments. It is to recognize that language changes and develops, and our churches need the denomination to provide a statement of faith in contemporary language that individual churches can use on their websites, in their membership classes, and as part of their overall ministry of discipleship. Such a statement should not be produced frequently but at crucial and opportune times. It seems to me that the launch of a new denomination is an appropriate moment to clarify our doctrines in the language of our time.

On Human Nature

Now to the question at hand: how should the GMC articulate its beliefs about what it means to be human? There has been hesitancy in some quarters regarding the language in the proposed draft of the Articles of Faith. Here’s the current wording of Article 5:

We believe that human beings are created in the image and likeness of God and, though fallen, are therefore fundamentally good. By grace human beings are given the moral capacity to distinguish good from evil and to love and choose the good. We are made to love and glorify God in his perfect goodness, to love other creatures, and to desire and work for their good. We are created male and female, and we are designed for family, community, and the stewardship of God’s good creation.

The biggest concern seems to be in the first sentence with the affirmation that human beings are “fundamentally good.” I welcome suggestions for improving that language. And, as we consider those suggestions, a few questions and reflections should be kept in mind. Some reservation has been expressed with the second sentence also, though I would point out that it is a fairly straightforward summary of Wesley’s own view that preventing grace means no person is left solely to his or her fallen nature. “Every one,” Wesley said, “has, sooner or later, good desires,” (“On Working Out Our Salvation”). This is because Jesus is “the true light that gives light to everyone” (John 1:9 NIV). The crucial component in that second sentence of Article 5 is the prefixed prepositional phrase, “By grace.” In Wesleyan theology, preventing grace endows every person on earth with “the moral capacity to distinguish good from evil.” So, while I understand the hesitancy on the part of some that this sentence might be overly optimistic, it remains a basic tenet of Methodism. 

A Starting Point for the Conversation

As I read the discussion surrounding the “fundamentally good” language in the proposed Articles, my thoughts returned to this basic point: whatever we say about human nature must be true of Jesus’ human nature. In fact, I’m inclined to think that whatever can be said about Jesus’ human nature should be the starting point for articulating our doctrine of human nature. One of the most fundamental and basic doctrines of the Christian faith is that both the divine nature and human nature are perfectly united in the one person of Jesus Christ. Jesus is fully human. Jesus has a fully human nature. Jesus has a fully human nature that is without sin (Hebrews 4:15). Does that line of argument justify the language that human nature is fundamentally good? Certainly, it is true that Jesus’ human nature is indeed fundamentally good. 

Let’s clarify why this is of particular importance. If Jesus does not have exactly the same human nature we have, then he cannot save us. The Incarnation did not involve Jesus having a higher-order human nature while we have a lower-order human nature. And Jesus did not cease to have the same human nature as us after his resurrection or at his ascension. William Burt Pope, the 19th-century Methodist theologian, responded to those sorts of errors by arguing, “The same necessity…which required Him to be made like unto His brethren, required him also to continue like them to the end.” Pope recognized the common temptation to guard Jesus’ own “holy manhood from the taint of sin.” Nevertheless, the Scriptures reveal, “that the incarnation which puts on man’s nature infinite honor has not a whit altered the elements of its character” (The Person of Christ, 24). The point here is that the human nature of Jesus is the exact same human nature that we have. This is what makes him capable of being both our sympathetic high priest and our elder brother (Hebrews 2:10–18). Jesus is fully human. Jesus defines what it means to be fully human. This is basic Christian orthodoxy, and it is basic to classical Methodist doctrine. 

What does Jesus save?

The necessity that Jesus be fully human in order to be our savior raises another line of questions. From what does Jesus save us? Does he save us from our human nature? Or does he save our human nature from sin? 

Think about it this way: if Jesus has a fully human nature (and he does), then human nature is neither necessarily sinful nor essentially sinful. Put differently, human nature doesn’t have to be sinful. Neither is human nature sinful in terms of essence. Again, we know this to be true because Jesus has a fully human nature that is exactly the same as our human nature. That we are fallen and Jesus is not fallen does not mean that our human being is different in kind from his human being. The difference is that, in our case, human nature has been corrupted by sin, made captive to sin, and, consequently, has become complicit in sin. None of that is true of Jesus’ human nature, even though he has the same human nature that we have. And it clarifies the point. Sin is not essential to human nature. Sin degrades human nature.

This puts us in position to answer the question: from what does Jesus save us? Jesus does not save us from our nature. Rather, Jesus saves our human nature from sin. Human beings were created originally righteous and good. Our originally righteous and good nature was then corrupted by transgression. In the Incarnation, the eternal Son of God assumed our human nature and brought it into perfect union with his divine nature in order to bring our human nature back from the corruption that was the consequence of our rebellion. Jesus doesn’t save us from our humanity. He saves our humanity from sin.

A Path Forward

Even as I write, I recognize the language of “fundamentally good” may be unlikely to gain consensus, and documents like the “Articles of Faith” are nothing if not consensus documents. I wonder, therefore, whether we might say something like this instead: “We believe that human beings are created in the image and likeness of God and, though now fallen, were therefore originally good.” The language of goodness runs throughout the creation narrative of Genesis 1, even affirming that God’s whole work of creation––including human beings–– was indeed “very good” (Genesis 1:31). Perhaps that shift in wording moves us toward a position that affirms the created dignity and goodness of human beings made in the image of God in balance with the reality of our now desperate state apart from God’s grace. Perhaps some of you have thought of an even better way to put it. 

Allow me to conclude by saying how encouraging it is to me that our Global Methodist Church is engaging in a robust and constructive discussion about our theology and doctrine. That is a good thing that has been absent for far too long. My only hope now is that we will be able to proceed with rigor of thought and charity of tone. No one involved in this process has any ill will or malevolent agenda. So, let’s assume the best about one another as we engage in this important discussion. 

Dr. Matt O’Reilly is lead pastor of Christ Church Birmingham in Alabama, Director of Research at Wesley Biblical Seminary, and a senior fellow of the Center for Pastor Theologians. Connect at theologyproject.online.