Summer 2005 Quarterly Review - Theological Resources For Ministry

QUARTERLY REVIEW EDITORIAL BOARD
T E D A. C A M P B E L L RUSSELL E. RICIIEY
Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary, Candler School of Theology, Atlanta, GA
Evanston, IL
LINDA E. THOMAS
MINERVA G. C A R C A N O Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago,
Metropolitan District, Portland. OR Chicago, IL
PATRICIA FARRIS TRAGI C. WEST

The Theological School, Drew University.
First United Methodist Church. Santa Monica. CA
Madison, NJ
GRANT HAGIYA
DAVID K. Y E M B A
Los Angeles District Office, Los Angeles, CA
Central Congo Area
J E R O M E KING D E L PINO, CHAIR
Democratic Republic of Congo
General Board of Higher Education and Ministry,
The United Methodist Church, Nashville. TN
MARY ANN MOM A N

General Board of Higher Education and Ministry.
The United Methodist Church. Nashville. TN
THOMAS W. O G L E T R E E
The Divinity School, Yale University,
New Haven. CT
HARRIETT JANE O L S O N
The United Methodist Publishing House,
Nashville, TN
Quarterly Review
^ A JOURNAL O F THEOLOGICAL RESOURCES FOR MINISTRY
Volume 25, Number 2
Summer 2005
A Publication of
the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry
and The United Methodist Publishing House
Quarterly Review (ISSN 0270-9287) provides continuing education resources for scholars, Christian
educators, and lay and professional ministers in The United Methodist Church and other churches.
QR intends to be a forum in which theological issues of significance to Christian ministry can be
raised and debated.
Editorial Offices: 1001 19th Avenue, South, P.O. Box 340007, Nashville, TN 37203-0007. Manuscripts
should be in English and typed double-spaced, including notes.
QR is published four times a year, in March, June, September, and December, by the General Board
of Higher Education and Ministry of The United Methodist Church and The United Methodist
Publishing House. Periodicals postage paid at Nashville, Tennessee.
Subscription rate: $24 for one year; $44 for two years; and $60 for three years. Students: $16 for one year;
$30 for two years. For all subscription orders, single-copy orders, and change-of-address information,
contact Cokesbury toll-free (800) 672-1789. M - F 7:00 A.M.-6:30 P.M. CST and Saturday 8:00 A.M.-4;00 P.M.
CST. Inquiries may also be sent in writing to the Cokesbury Subscription Services, P.O. Box 801,
Nashville, TN 37202-0801.
Postmaster: Address changes should be sent to The United Methodist Publishing House, P.O. Box 801,
Nashville, TN 37202-0801.
QR is printed on acid-free paper.
Lections are taken from Revised Common Lectionary (Nashville: Abingdon, 1992).
Scripture quotations, unless otherwise noted, are from the New Revised Standard Version Common Bible,
copyright 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches of
Christ in the USA, and are used by permission.
Quarterly Review
Summer 2005
Editor: Hendrik R. Pieterse

Email: hpieterse^gbhem.org
Website: http://www.quarterlvreview.org
Copyright 2005 by the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry
and The United Methodist Publishing House
Editorial
Come, Holy Spirit! 115
ISSUE THEME:
D o U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t s Still B e l i e v e in H o l i n e s s ?
The Emerging Holiness Movement

Elaine A. Heath 117
The Theological Significance of the Holiness Movement 126

Samuel M. Powell
"The Arts of Holy Living": Holiness and the Means of Grace 141
Rebekah Miles
How America Got the Holy Ghost: The Uniqueness of

the African-American Experience of Holiness 158
Love Henry Whelchel, Jr.
Outside the Theme
SYMPOSIUM:
Bruce W. Robbins, A World Parish? Hopes and Challenges of The United
Methodist Church in a Global Setting (Nashville: Abingdon, 2004)
Tim McClendon 171
Heinrich Bolleter 176
Rudiger Minor 180
Bruce Robbins Responds 186
T h e C h u r c h in R e v i e w
T h e Key to Renewal in T h e United Methodist Church
Elaine Stanovsky 190

Ronald K. Crandall 190
A Word on The Word
Lectionary Study
John Collett 197
Issues In: Philosophy of Religion

William Hasker 209
B o o k Reviews
Practicing Passion: Youth and the Quest for a Passionate Church by Kenda
Creasy Dean (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004)
Reviewer: Susan H. Hay 216
A Way of Life in the World: Spiritual Practices for United Methodists, by Kenneth
H. Carter, Jr. (Nashville: Abingdon, 2004)
Reviewer: Von W. Unruh 217
Bone to Pick: Of Forgiveness, Reconciliation, Reparation, and Revenge, by

Ellis Cose (New York: Atria Books, 2004)
Reviewer. Youtha Hardman-Cromwell 219
Come, Holy Spirit!
HENDRIK R. P I E T E R S E
T he question "Do United Methodists still believe in holiness?" may

strike some readers as anachronistican exercise in nostalgia that the
church can ill afford in the face of the pressing social, political, economic,
and religious issues of the new century. For others, the question betrays an
ecclesial self-preoccupation typical of a church that believes that retrieving
a stable denominational "identity" will secure its survival in a world in
which, to use Marx's famous depiction of the modern age, "all that is solid
melts into air." Yet other readers may view the question as a welcome and
long-overdue opportunity for United Methodists to mine the riches of their
tradition for a self-understanding that aims not at institutional survival but
at faithful witness precisely in and for these turbulent and uncertain times.
The essays that follow are clear-eyed and unflinching in their analysis and
critique of the neglect of the doctrine and practice of holiness in United
Methodism and some of its sister churches in the Wesleyan tradition. Yet in
different ways they also agree that a critical retrieval of their heritage of
holiness of heart and life will allow United Methodists and their fellow
Wesleyans to be caught up in the transforming winds of God's Spirit
blowing across our world today.
In her article, Elaine Heath laments the fact that for many United
Methodists "the volcanic intensity of Wesley's drive to spread scriptural
holiness across the land has cooled to a lukewarm memory." Yet she detects
a new holiness movement aborning in our day in what is variously known
as the "emerging church," the "missional church," the "convergence move
ment," and the "new monasticism." Instead of dismissing it, United
Methodists should embrace the best of this new movement and so join an
expression of the holy life fit for our postmodern times.
Rebekah Miles agrees that Wesley's vision of holiness of heart and life
QUARTERLY REVIEW 115

VOLUME 25, NUMBER 2, SUMMER 2005
COME, HOLYSPIRITI
has largely lost its centrality and force in the lives of United Methodists.
For Miles, United Methodists today struggle to embrace again Wesley's
vision of the holy life because we live in a culture whose ceaseless busy
ness and compulsion to control militate against the rhythms of love of God
and neighbor. Miles offers a vision of the holy life that is grounded in the
means of grace and she points out fascinating ways in which the "arts of
holy living" speak to the deepest challenges of our times.
Samuel Powell tells a story that most United Methodists likely know
little or nothing about, namely, the Holiness Movement that emerged in
Methodism in the nineteenth century and today is heir to more than
twenty denominations in the United States, including the Church of the
Nazarene and the Salvation Army. The import of Powell's chronicle extends
beyond the need to educate United Methodists about a little-known part of
their history. It reminds us continually to pray for "ears to hear" the voices
in our midst that call us backand not always politely!to our raison d'etre;
for these passionate provocations might just open us to hear anew what
the Spirit is saying to the churches.
Henry Whelchel provides a fascinating and salutary insight into the
experience and practice of holiness among African Americans in the United
States. From early days, Methodism's appeal to African Americans has been
its understanding of holiness as both personal and social. Beginning with
the Spirit-inspired preaching of Jarena Lee, Amanda Berry Smith, Richard
Allen, and others, the message of holiness has held up a holistic vision of
the Christian faith that resonates deeply with the religious experience of
African Americans. And, says Whelchel, today the fastest-growing African-
American Methodist churches are places where a "holy fire of Pentecost"
has been rekindled, giving rise to a vision of holiness as a "religion of the
head, the heart, and the hands."
Come, Holy Spirit!
Hendrik R. Pieterse is the editor of Quarterly Review.
116 QUARTERLY REVIEW

Issue T h e m e
Do United Methodists Still Believe in Holiness?
ELAINE. A. HEATH
D uring an interview concerning his recent appointment to the East

Ohio Conference, Bishop John L. Hopkins was asked to explain his
vision for the church. With prophetic clarity the bishop named the central
truth that seems to have been forgotten by many of us in The United
Methodist Church, namely, that Methodism essentially is a holiness move
ment, not a denomination.
In our Wesleyan heritage, we believe in personal and social holiness, where the
assurance of our justification yields fruit in our sanctification. That is, we not
only affirm Jesus Christ as Savior, but live daily with Jesus Christ as Lord.
John Wesley did not intend to start a new church. He started a holiness move
ment that was both very personal and very social. I came to know God's love
in Jesus Christ through that movement. I joined that movement to share that
love with others. When we work together at the local level we can help the
1
movement of Christ thrive.
Bishop Hopkins's emphasis on our tradition as a holiness movement

excites me. I want to hear more. I want this to be our self-understanding. I
want our orthodoxy and our orthopraxis to ring true to the bishop's words.
Yet life in the average local church tells me that we have "miles to go before
we sleep."
Other than in the ordination liturgy, I have not heard much about holi
ness or perfection when clergy gather for annual conference. We talk about
it in the class on United Methodist doctrine that I teach, especially in
reading Wesley's sermons; but my students and I do not hear much about

THE EMERGING HOLINESS MOVEMENT
it from pulpits. For many contemporary Methodists, the very words perfec
tion, holiness, and entire sanctification seem antiquated. Holiness tends to be
presented and understood either as personal growth in grace through spiri
tual disciplines or as corporate commitments to social justice, such as those
expressed in the Book of Resolutions.
Quite honestly, for too many United Methodist churches the theological
conversationmuch less the activity of the local churchnever gets around
to holiness of heart and life because the focus is on survival. Conflict is the
order of the day, with congregations embroiled in power struggles, worship
wars, and financial crises. Clergy dropout rates are at an all-time high
because of this kind of conflict. Also, many United Methodist clergy who
have a heart for leading declining churches to recapture the Wesleyan vision
of holiness of heart and life experience disillusionment. For even when they
succeed against great odds, navigating the many conflicts and the spiritual
and emotional drain of leading a declining congregation through renewal,
there is no guarantee that the next pastor (who could be appointed the
following year) will have the same vision. When the new pastor does not
(which happens far too often) the inevitable loss of momentum and the
resulting crisis of faith in the congregation are devastating. Congregations
do not rise above or grow beyond the vision of the pastor.
For these and other reasons, I am not convinced that most United
Methodists see ourselves as pilgrims, much less as pioneers, of a holiness
movement. We have read Wesley's sermons; we know the stories of the
circuit riders and the class and band meetings; and we remember the great
names of Asbury, Coke, and others along the way. But where is the fire?
For too many of us the volcanic intensity of Wesley's drive to spread scrip
tural holiness across the land has cooled to a lukewarm memory.
However, something new is on the horizona breath of God that bears
an uncanny resemblance to the original holiness movement. It is organic,
humbling, hard to define, widespread, untamed, ecumenical, subversive,
prophetic, and grass-roots. I believe a new holiness movement is in the
process of being born; and if we are wise and respond with the generosity
2
and teachability of heart that Albert Outler called "the Wesleyan spirit," we
will welcome and not stifle this move of God within The United Methodist
Church. Instead of letting it divide us, we will let it lead us back to the
deepest wisdom of our own theology.
The new movement has the potential to restore to us Wesley's brilliant

ELAINE A. HEATH
vision of personal and social holiness. It could help return to us Wesley's

ecumenical genius, not only in scholarly conversation but also in the reality
of day-to-day life in the local church. The new movement could actually
heal some conflicted churches and assist us in constructively working our
way through thorny ecclesiological and ethical issues facing our church.
A Brief History of Holiness

Just what is this new movement and why haven't more of us heard about it?
And how can it deliver all these fruits? We can best understand the emerging
movement if we first recall the evolution of thought about holiness, from
Wesley's day to our own. There is much to be gained from remembering our
own story.
When John Wesley set out to spread scriptural holiness across the land,
he had specific goals in mind. In his sermon "The New Birth," Wesley
explains:
[G]ospel holiness is no less than the image of God stamped upon the heart. It
is no other than the whole mind which was in Christ Jesus. It consists of all
heavenly affections and tempers mingled together in one. It implies such a
continual, thankful love to him who hath not withheld from us his Son, his
only Son, as makes it natural, and in a manner necessary to us, to love every
child of man; as fills us with 'bowels of mercies, kindness, gentleness, long-
suffering.' It is such a love of God as teaches us to be blameless in all manner
of conversation; as enables us to present our souls and bodies, all we are and
all we have, all our thoughts, words and actions, a continual sacrifice to God,
3
acceptable through Christ Jesus.
Holiness is about loving God and neighbor as fully as possible, which

includes having the power to say no to sin. Wesley's sermon "The Scripture
Way of Salvation" summarizes his vision of Christian perfection. It explains
that perfection is not about freedom from human ignorance, limitations, or
mistakes but rather is about the progressive work of the Holy Spirit within
4
the believer, bringing increasing freedom and power to love as God loves.
Methodist ordinands today still use Wesley's language when they promise
that they are "going on to perfection," "expect to be made perfect in love in
this life," and are "earnestly striving after perfection." For Wesley, holiness
of heart and life is a result of faith and is the fruit of the Holy Spirit living
SUMMER 2005 119

in and through us, leading us to maturity. In other words, holiness is not

works righteousness. Like justification, sanctification comes by faith and is
the gift of God's grace that leads us to maturity.
However, Wesley had scarcely entered glory when Methodism encoun
tered what Outler describes as "the greatest tragedy in Methodist history":
. . . the nineteenth-century conflicts that swirled around Wesley's emphasis

upon "holiness of heart and life" and its alterations and distortions at the
hands of men and women who were seeking to be faithful Wesleyans (on both
sidesl) without having experienced anything close to the theological and spiri
tual struggles out of which his own original synthesis had emerged. The ironic
outcome of this process (especially in America) was that the keystone in the
arch of Wesley's own theological "system" came to be a pebble in the shoes of
standard-brand Methodists, even as a distorted version of Wesley's doctrine of
sanctification (as "a second and separate work of grace subsequent to regenera
tion") was becoming a shibboleth of self-righteous Methodists who professed
5
themselves holier than the rest.
Is Outler's assessment of the second Wesleyan holiness movement accu

rate? Did Holiness Movement leaders such as Phoebe Palmer actually think
of themselves as more righteous than everyone else and were they "the
problem" with their renewal emphasis on holiness of heart and life? Or was
the problem a combination of factors, including a Methodist church that
increasingly accommodated the world, with the resultant drift away from
Wesley's original theological vision? That the keystone became a pebble is
unquestionably true. But how that happened is a question requiring the
prayer of examen on a grand scale for all in the Wesleyan tradition.
It is beyond the limits of this brief essay to explore all the permutations
of the nineteenth-century Holiness Movement, the motivations of its
6
leaders, and its effects on the Methodist church. It is true that language
about "Christian perfection," "going on to perfection," "entire sanctification,"
and "holiness" came to be associated with the program (particularly the
excesses) of the nineteenth-century Holiness Movement. Increasingly, holi
ness became codified and in some ways trivialized as a set of externally
observable rules regarding dress, abstinence from worldly amusements,
avoidance of tobacco and alcohol, and so on. In addition, interpreters of the
first generation of nineteenth-century Holiness leaders tended to be lay

ELAINE A. HEATH
preachers rather than theologians; and the primary venues for teaching the
"new" holiness doctrine were camp meetings and popular publications.
Given these variables, the distortion of Wesley's original doctrine of sanctifi
cation is not surprising. Within a few years after her death, Phoebe Palmer's
"altar theology" was being presented by interpreters as a quick, simple
formula for guaranteed and instant sanctification, something Palmer prob
7
ably never intended,
Between polemic language, increasing asceticism in matters of dress
and lifestyle within the Holiness Movement, and the conflict generated
within Methodist churches by the claims of the Holiness Movement, main
stream Methodism distanced itself from the holiness vocabulary that was
central to Wesley's message. As Outler comments, "That conflict and its
abrasions had the effect of leaving the average Methodist (and many much
above that average) alienated even by the bare terms'holiness,' 'Christian
perfection,' 'sanctification'not to speak of an aversion toward those
8
persons who actually profess such spiritual attainments."
As mainstream Methodism moved into the twentieth century and
beyond, Protestant Liberalism, Fundamentalist controversies, and Neo-
Orthodox trends contributed to further theological divergence among
Methodists, including divergent understandings of holiness. Wesley's
holistic ability to let theology and practice inform and shape each other,
including faith and practice around the doctrine of holiness, has been diffi
cult to maintain. As Langford notes, "Wesley's effort and achievement have
remained a challenge to Methodist theology. He is a theological mentor
who demonstrates the value of holistic theological activity and challenges
9
his tradition to attempt this mode of theological effort." Twentieth-century
theological divergence, combined with the schisms and resultant aversion
to the Holiness Movement, are probably the biggest culprits in our collec
tive marginalization of Wesley's central doctrine.

What does this loss mean for United Methodists today? Is it possible for us
to remain Wesleyan without Wesley's overarching vision of holiness of
heart and life? What would it look like for Methodists to reclaim Wesley's
vision in our postmodern context? These are big questions, for which I can
only suggest the beginnings of an answer. While I am deeply interested in
this issue as a theologian, I write here primarily as a pastor.
SUMMER 2005 121

I believe that Wesley's vision of a holiness movement that would renew

the church and impact the world (the holiness movement described by
Bishop Hopkins) is much larger than Methodism. It is at the very heart of
the gospel and thus can never be simply a relic from the past. As long as
there have been people of God a holiness movement of some kind has
existed. The bringing of holiness to the world is central in Abram's call, in
the giving of the Law, in the renewal efforts of Deborah, and in Amos's call
to repentance. The whole story of God is the story of Love spreading holi
ness through the land, renewing God's people and, through them, bringing
renewal and healing to a broken world.
Today God is raising up a holiness movement that is not attached to one
denomination (not even ours) or a particular charismatic leader. We may
properly call it a "new" holiness movement, because we are living in a new
era in human history (postmodernity); but the divine impulse driving the
movement is older than the earth. The seeds of the new movement are
found in what is variously being described as the "emerging church," the
"missional church," the "convergence movement," and the "new monasti-
cism." Like all other great moves of God, this one holds the potential for
excess, errors, bad theology, hype, fraud, and "enthusiasm." Yet the best of
what is emerging is exactly the sort of thing Wesley had in mind, only in
forms appropriate for a postmodern world. Whether The United Methodist
Church will be able to embrace the gifts of the emerging church and have the
courage and vision to join God in what God is doing remains to be seen.
For some time, Leonard Sweet has been prodding United Methodist
leaders to wake up and pay attention to the cataclysmic changes in our
culture. Books such as Post-Modern Pilgrims, SoulTsunami, and Aqua Church
map some of the transitions that have beset the contemporary world as we
moved from modern to postmodern life. If the church ignores these transi
tions and continues to function in a modern paradigm, Sweet argues, we
will become increasingly irrelevant. To carry the vitality of the Wesleyan
vision into the twenty-first century, the church must understand its post
modern context and offer Christ in ways that will reach postmoderns. This
is what the emerging church is all about.
Rather than describe two or three "leading" emerging churches that we
should imitate (something that generally infuriates those with an emergent
church philosophy), I will simply list a few qualities of the emerging church
that sound remarkably like a holiness movement. For a fine introduction to

ELAINE A. HEATH
the emerging church, its philosophies of ministry, and some of the

approaches it takes to theology and praxis, I recommend two books by
10
Brian D. McLaren; A New Kind of Christian and A Generous Orthodoxy.
There are numerous websites that can assist in giving a more comprehen
sive overview, One of the best is www.emergentvillage.com,
In general, the emergent church/missional church/convergence move
ment/new monasticism is a grass-roots phenomenon that is a response to
the widespread hunger for spiritual experience, authentic community, and
engagement in Christ's mission in this world. The use of "monastic" prac
tices such as a communal rule of life, some form of a daily office, a corpo
rate mission of prayer and service for the world, and a return to ancient
forms of prayer and sacramental spirituality is common. However, these
practices are presented in ways that are culturally relevant to postmoderns.
The corporate as well as personal use of disciplines such as silence, fasting,
and financial stewardship is widespread, There is a holistic emphasis on the
interrelationship of mind, body, and spirit, as well as a great appreciation
for creation spirituality, including Celtic Christian spirituality. Leaders in
the emerging church are often bivocational and do not earn a living
through "professional" ministry, The emergent church often is a home-
church network or "web"; it discourages putting resources into owning
buildings and strongly emphasizes resourcing justice ministries and
missional outreach into the community. Egalitarian leadership between
women and men is usually a core value, as are cultural diversity, decentral
ized leadership, and teamwork.
One of the most distinctive features of the emerging church is its
ecumenical commitment, something reflected in the subtitle of McLaren's A
Generous Orthodoxy. Participants in the emerging church generally long for
an experience of Christian community that incarnates the multidenomina-
tionalism of "one holy, catholic, apostolic church." This drive is different
from nondenominationalism, which tends to cultivate amnesia toward
church history and the formation and contributions of various Christian
faith traditions. Instead, the emerging church attempts to bring together
(thus the name "convergence movement") all Christian faith traditions with
their multiplicity of gifts and insights, appreciating each tradition's history
and diversity. Just as most Americans would no longer attempt to describe
American ethnic diversity in terms of "a melting pot," so emergent
Christians prefer the description "multidenominational" to "nondenomina-
SUMMER 2005 123

tional." Many who are attracted to the emerging church are under age thirty.
Virtually all the core values and the drive behind the emerging church
are consonant with Wesley's original vision for spreading scriptural holi
ness. Wesley's ecumenism; commitment to justice; use of class and band
meetings for spiritual formation; development of authentic community;
attentiveness to the means of grace, both corporately and privately; use of
lay circuit riders and lay class leaders rather than professional clergy to lead
the movement; and unique blend of practical theologyall are present, in
postmodern forms, in the emerging church.
It is clear that the emerging church has much to teach United
Methodists who have forgotten Wesley's central theological vision. Yet the
process of learning will not come without cost or pain. The emerging
church, with its commitment to authentic community, liturgical fluidity,
emphasis on justice and evangelism, and de-emphasis on buildings and
programs is prophetic; for so many of the habits, methods, programs, and
structures that we have come to regard as necessary in Methodism are no
longer effective. Are we willing to let go of old wineskins?
There is also the matter of ecumenism. What will a truly ecumenical holi
ness movement look like when expressed in a United Methodist congrega
tion? What will stay the same and what will need to change? And what
about worship? Can we get over the tragedy of "worship wars" and learn to
appreciate and incorporate ancient liturgy, prayer practices, creeds, and the
sacraments in ways that make sense and are culturally relevant to postmod-
erns? Are our seminaries equipping our pastors to lead our church to
participate in this kind of holiness movement? Is our bureaucratic structure
capable of handling the paradigm shifts necessary for all of this to happen?
These are questions for which only the passage of time will hold the
answers. What I do know is that Wesley's original vision for holiness of
heart and life is the reason I am a Wesleyan Christian. I do not believe that
we can be truly Methodist without Wesley's vision of holiness. With Ted
Campbell, I believe that the goal of Methodist doctrine is not Methodism
at all but rather a movement that should contribute to the renewal and
unification of the "one holy, catholic, apostolic church."
The end or goal of Methodist teaching is not the advancement of Methodism.

Our heritage has been used by God for a much greater end: the coming of God's
reign or kingdom. So we should pray fervently for the day when Methodism

ELAINE A. HEATH
ceases to exist, for that great day when, our historic mission having been accom
plished by divine grace, the Wesleyan heritage finally dissolves into the glory of
the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church." In the words of Charles Wesley,
11
"Names and sects and parties fall; thou, O Christ, art all in all."
Elaine A, Heath is an elder in the East Ohio Annual Conference and holds a Ph.D,
in Systematic Theology from Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Endnotes
1. John L. Hopkins, "Meet Bishop John Hopkins," Joining Hands 5 (October
2004): 3.
2. Albert C. Outler, Evangelism and Theology in the Wesleyan Spirit (Nashville:
Discipleship Resources, 1996), 85-87.
3. John Wesley, Sermon 45, "The New Birth," 111.1, in The Works of John Wesley,
ed. by Frank Baker (Nashville: Abingdon, 1987), 2:194 (hereafter Works).
4. John Wesley, Sermon 43, "The Scripture Way of Salvation," in Works, 2:153-69.
5. Outler, Evangelism and Theology in the Wesleyan Spirit, 118.
6. For a good overview, see Melvin Dieter, The 19th Century Holiness Movement,
vol. 4, Great Holiness Classics (Kansas City: Beacon Hill, 1998).
7. See Elaine A. Heath, "Becoming a Bible Christian: Toward a New Reading of
Phoebe Palmer's Sanctification Theology in Light of Roman Catholic Mystical
Traditions, with Implications for Ecumenical and Interdisciplinary Dialogue
between Theology and Spirituality" (Ph.D. diss., Duquesne University, 2002).
8. Outler, Evangelism and Theology in the Wesleyan Spirit, 118.
9. Thomas A. Langford, "John Wesley and Theological Method," in Rethinking
Wesley's Theology for Contemporary Methodism, ed. Randy L. Maddox (Nashville;
Kingswood Books, 1998), 47. Langford gives a good overview of the divergence
of theological method in Methodism.
10. Brian D. McLaren, A New Kind of Christian (San Francisco: Jossey Bass,
2001), and A Generous Orthodoxy: Why I Am A missional + evangelical +
post/protestant + liberal/ conservative + mystical/poetic + biblical +
charismatic/contemplative + fundamentalist/calvinist + anabaptist/angjican +
methodist + catholic + green + incarnational + depressed-yet-hopeful + emergent +
unfinished Christian (Grand Rapids, MI: Youth Specialities, 2004).
11. Ted A. Campbell, Methodist Doctrine: The Essentials (Nashville: Abingdon,
1999), 31.
SUMMER 2005 125

The Theological Significance of the
Holiness Movement
SAMUEL M. POWELL
M y task in this essay is to explain some of the theological issues that

the Holiness Movement faces today and to discuss their theological
significance. The first step is to get clear about what the Holiness
Movement is. The Christian Holiness Partnership (formerly the Christian
Holiness Association) is one of the main organizational forms that the
Holiness Movement has taken. As such, it provides us with a way of seeing
what comprised the movement. The Partnership includes twenty-one
1
denominations and associated colleges and seminaries, publishing houses,
and camp meetings. Although individually comparatively small, put
together these denominations, with their associated educational and other
institutions, are a considerable part of the American church landscape.
Nonetheless, their small size and the fact that traditionally their member
ship has been drawn from those who are not a part of the cultural main
stream in the United States mean that Holiness churches have often failed
to register in the chronicles of the country's religious history.
The next step is to understand what the movement was about. Briefly
put, the movement stood for the doctrine and experience of holiness, also
known (from its roots in John Wesley's theology) as "Christian perfection"
and "entire sanctification." It also stood for practices related to holiness and
regarded as essential to it. But it is not enough to state the matter this way.
In some sense, every Christian church stands for the doctrine, experience,
and practice of holiness. The Holiness Movement stood for a particular
understanding, experience, and practice of holiness. The particular under
standing and the theology in which it was embedded were the raison d'etre
of the Holiness Movement.
A Historical Prelude
On that premise, let us have a closer look at the defining doctrine, experi
ence, and practices of the Holiness Movement. How did this doctrine and

SAMUEL M. POWELL
experience and these practices come to be and what was their relation to
the Methodist tradition in America? The most effective way of obtaining
this look is to rehearse the history of the Holiness Movement and to allow
its distinctive emphases to emerge from that history.
The history of the Holiness Movement may be divided into four phases.
The first phase began roughly in the 1830s, when some influential members
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, notably Nathan Bangs, Timothy Merritt,
and Phoebe Palmer, began promoting the doctrine of Christian perfection
through publications, speaking, and organizational endeavors. They were
responding to the fact that the emphasis of American Methodism in the
early decades of the nineteenth century had necessarily been on securing
conversions. Consequently, John Wesley's teaching about Christian perfec
tion had become a matter to be pursued in the future, after the work of
converting the nation was under way. By the 1830s, Methodists such as
Palmer and Bangs were convinced that the time was right for a revival of
interest in Christian perfection. Judging from the subsequent facts, their
assessment was correct, for the Methodist church witnessed increasing
interest in the doctrine of holiness; and those at the forefront of its revival
saw their influence within the denomination increase.
Although this resurgence of interest was regarded as a revival of John
Wesley's teaching, there were some important alterations in the under
2
standing of holiness, introduced mainly by Palmer. As is well known, Wesley
taught that sanctification begins at conversion and continues by degrees until
completed. For him, sanctification consists in the replacing of inward sin (evil
thoughts and tempers) with perfect love. It is accomplished by disciplines
such as self-denial, prayer, and other classical forms of Christian exertion, as
well as the exercise of faith in God. With diligence, Wesley believed, one could
come to a state in which perfect love had completely replaced inward sin.
Moreover, he was convinced that many had arrived at this point and had testi
fied to it. Palmer made an important contribution to the Holiness Movement
by introducing an alternative way of obtaining Christian perfectiona way
that she expressly called "the shorter way." Instead of a possibly quite long
period of self-denial and other disciplines, the shorter way involved an act of
consecration whereby one devoted the sum-total of one's life to God. It was
this act of consecration, argued Palmer, that brought entire sanctification. It
was a shorter way because it was accomplished as an act of faith, that is, as a
decision. Palmer added two other critical points. First, becoming entirely sanc-
SUMMER 2005 127

THE THEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE O F THE HOLINESS MOVEMENT
tified was regarded as a duty, so that failure to get there was a sin and was due
to an express lack of faith. Second, once one had become entirely sanctified,
one was duty bound to testify to this fact to others. Failure to testify publicly
was regarded as a grave fault. In spite of Palmer's departure from Wesley's
understanding, proponents of holiness in this period were thought to be
contributing something of great value to the Methodist cause and exerted
considerable influence on the Methodist Episcopal Church
The second phase of the Holiness Movement began with the formation,
in 1867, of the National Camp Meeting Association for the Promotion of
Holiness (NCMAPH). This event was a stroke of brilliance, for it combined
two impulses deeply rooted in American religionthe perfectionist impulse
and the revivalistic impulse. By hearkening back to the days of widespread
awakenings, NCMAPH was identifying the cause of holiness with one of
the most pervasive and influential features of American Christianity. By
linking the revivalistic impulse to the doctrine and experience of holiness,
the Association signaled a change in strategy for the Holiness Movement. In
the days of Bangs and Palmer, the movement was propagated by literature,
sermons, and personal influence, such as was exerted in Palmer's Tuesday
Meeting for the Promotion of Holiness. But NCMAPH had plotted a far
more ambitious strategy. By utilizing the idea and fervor of the revival and
camp meeting tradition, the Association intended to advance the cause of
holiness at a popular level and to increase the numbers directly involved in
the Holiness Movement.
At this point it is important to note an important feature of the
Holiness Movement, namely, its ecumenical character. It is customary
today to think of perfectionism as a Methodist preoccupation; but, in fact,
in the nineteenth century the Holiness Movement was far from being the
exclusive predilection of Methodists. Significant aspects of the movement's
theology were contributed by the Congregationalists Charles G. Finney
3
and Asa Mahan. Moreover, the movement had a strong bent toward social
reform in such areas as the abolition of slavery and the temperance move
ment. In these endeavors the Holiness Movement found common cause
with other reform-minded groups that were dissatisfied with the modest
effect that Christians were having on society. They believed that a more
elevated standard of Christian living would be the instrument of wide
spread social reform. In short, we should think of the Holiness Movement
as a transdenominational phenomenon, even if Methodists were among its

SAMUEL M. POWELL
leading participants. It is important to keep the ecumenical character of the

Holiness Movement in mind, because that character later helped give rise
to tensions between some leaders of the movement and the leadership of
the Methodist Episcopal Church.
The National Camp Meeting Association enjoyed great success. Within
a decade, it had spawned a host of regional and state camp-meeting associ
ations, all focused on the single goal of bringing about a nationwide revival
of the experience of Christian perfection. The success of the various camp
meetings encouraged those in the movement to believe that America was
on the verge of a great revival. But the leaders of the Holiness Movement
were interested in more than just the revival. Under the influence of
Finney and Mahan, the doctrine of holiness had come to be linked to
Pentecost; and Holiness expositors routinely identified entire sanctification
with the baptism with the Holy Spirit. Moreover, they thought of Pentecost
not only as an event that had happened at the founding of the church in
the first century but also as a promised eschatological event. That is, they
believed that just before the return of Jesus God would again pour out the
Spirit. Only this time the Spirit would be poured out literally on all
humankind. This pouring out of the Spirit would be the eschatological
event that would prepare the world for the return of Jesus. As a result of
this interpretation, the leaders of the Holiness Movement believed that
their movement, in which Christian perfection was identified with
receiving the Spirit, was the eschatological event that was preparing the
world for Jesus' return. The ecumenical character of the movement seemed
to confirm this belief, for it suggested that the Holiness Movement was
uniting Christians and overcoming denominational barriers. Since at least
the 1830s there had been several movements in the United States that
aimed at the union of Christians and the abolition of denominations. The
Holiness Movement believed that it was the divinely appointed means for
accomplishing this desirable goal
However, the success of the camp-meeting associations and the
ecumenical character of the Holiness Movement did not prevent problems.
The main problem was tension between the movement and the Methodist
Church. It resulted from a combination of the movement's ecumenism and
the fervor associated with its mission. The leadership of the National Camp
Meeting Association consistently succeeded in maintaining good relations
with the Methodist Church. Although it was not an officially sponsored
SUMMER 2005 129

THE THEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE HOLINESS MOVEMENT
ministry of the Methodist Church, the Association's leaders were all

Methodists and they took great care to coordinate the Association's efforts
with those of the church. The same was not true of the regional and state
associations that sprang up in the 1870s. Generally speaking, they were less
committed to coordination with the Methodist Church and more
committed to spreading an increasingly ecumenical movement. One partic
ular point of contention was the use of evangelists. At the national level,
the Association always made sure that in its camp meetings it used evange
lists who were members in good standing in the Methodist Church and
that its meetings had the support of local Methodist clergy. However, the
state and regional associations increasingly saw no great value in this
policy and were inclined to use any evangelists who proved effective,
regardless of denominational affiliation. They were also inclined to press
ahead with holiness camp meetings and revivals even if local Methodist
4
clergy were unenthusiastic. In increasing measure the state and regional
associations loosened their bonds with the national Association and
became autonomous entities, setting their own policies and creating their
own schedules of camp meetings, with their own favored evangelists.
Inevitably, this led to conflict, with local associations sponsoring camp
meetings, urging local Methodists to attend, and then using evangelists
whose preaching might at some points be at odds with Methodist doctrine
and practice. Understandably, Methodist pastors were nervous about
supporting such endeavors.
The third phase of the Holiness Movement was the direct result of
these tensions with the Methodist Church. From the perspective of the
local associations, the Methodist hierarchy was setting institutional
propriety over the needs of the revival. From the Methodist perspective, the
associations were abandoning Methodist doctrine and discipline. If this
were the extent of the dispute, a happy resolution might have been reached.
In fact, other issues had begun to surface that ultimately led to schism.
Prominent among these other issues was the question of "worldliness."
From the time of John Wesley, Methodism had stood for a well-defined
stance toward wealth and physical pleasures. Briefly put, Methodists were
an abstemious people. They were careful about their dress and manner of
living, abstained from alcohol and frivolous pursuits, and were devout and
disciplined. But in the course of the nineteenth century, American
Methodism (at least in the eastern part of the country) joined the social

SAMUEL M, POWELL
mainstream, This was attested by, among other things, the founding of
universities and the building of costly church buildings. Whether this
assimilation to American social standards was a good or a bad thing may
be debated. But in the opinion of the Holiness Movement, it was definitely
a bad thing. It is no exaggeration to say that, by the 1870s, the Holiness
Movement saw itself as upholding the behavioral standards that had always
characterized Methodism and that, in its opinion, the Methodist Church
had now largely abandoned. This view had antecedents in the formation (in
1860) of the Free Methodist Church, whose origin lay in a protest over
pew-rents and its effect on the poor who wished to worship in a Methodist
5
church. The Holiness Movement of the 1870s simply extended this sort of
critique. As far as Holiness people were concerned, the Methodist Church
was a victim of growing worldliness, as evidenced by extravagant living,
costly clothing, lavish buildings, and so on. One effect of this critique was
the tendency to define holiness in reaction to behaviors that were taken to
embody worldliness. Theater attendance, dancing, gambling, and many
other behaviors thus gave concrete form to the image of worldliness, to
which the holy life was opposed.
The other main point of contention between the Holiness Movement
and the Methodist Church concerned the nature and centrality of
Christian perfection. By the 1870s, the movement had an elaborated
doctrine of holiness that was an amalgamation of the thought of John
Wesley, Charles Finney, and Phoebe Palmer. In particular, it emphasized
Palmer's teaching that the way to entire sanctification lay in an act of faith
and consecration, that this act was a duty upon everyone, and that testi
mony about one's having made this act was likewise a duty. The first of
these pointsthe way to entire sanctification lay in an act of faith and
consecrationmeant that Christian perfection is received in an instant and
that it is not the result of a process of growth, The more this point was
emphasized, the more it made nervous those theologians and pastors who
were convinced that perfection is attained gradually. Moreover, the
Holiness Movement increasingly argued that, far from being the culmina
tion of a process of growth, entire sanctification is the basis of spiritual
growth. In other words, it tended to present sanctification as the moment
in one's life before which there was no significant spiritual development.
The time between conversion and sanctification was regarded as a tempo
rary (and, it was hoped, short) period, marked by frustration and spiritual
SUMMER 2005 131

6
defeat. Entire sanctification represented the solution to this frustration
and defeat. One result of this teaching was that the importance of
Christian perfection was magnified. It was no longer just a desideratum of
the spiritual lifea goal to be striven afterbut an obtainable obligation
and the vital center of Christian life and doctrine.
In other words, the Holiness Movement was a single-issue movement.
Admittedly, that issue had several facets, including the doctrine and experi
ence of entire sanctification, the eschatological and ecumenical under
standing of the significance of that doctrine, and the social reforming
tendencies deduced from the doctrine. Nonetheless, the movement
poured all its energy into promulgating that single issue. In contrast, by the
1870s, the Methodist Church was a full-service church, with missionary
endeavors, educational programs, concerns for theological precision and
comprehensiveness, growing concerns about liturgical worship, and so on.
There was indeed an important place for holiness within the denomina
tion, but with its multiple commitments, the church could neverand did
not wish toemphasize holiness to the extent the Holiness Movement
thought necessary. The question was whether holiness was to be one
important concern amidst other important concerns or instead the one
dominating concern around which all else should revolve.
The collision course established by these issues assumed concrete
7
form in the so-called "church question" of the 1880s and 1890s. From the
perspective of the Holiness Movement, the movement was under attack by
the hierarchy of the Methodist Church. In particular, Holiness adherents
complained that those who had obtained holiness in camp meetings and
revivals were ill advised to join a Methodist congregation if, as was often
the case, the pastor was opposed to holiness as the Holiness Movement
understood it. Yet leaders of the movement recognized the necessity of
church membership, lest the fruit of revival be lost. Until the 1880s the
movement's policy had been to encourage people to join a congregation
even if its pastor was inhospitable to Christian perfection. Suggestions that
Holiness people should leave the Methodist Church were denounced. It is
true that there were some "corne-outers," such as Daniel Warner (founder
of the Church of God [Anderson]), who believed that denominationalism
8
was contrary to God's will and who encouraged people to leave churches.
But this was a rare case and denominational loyalty prevailed through the
1870s. However, by the 1880s the points of contention had increased in

SAMUEL M. POWELL
number and intensity. Increasingly, local camp-meeting associations began

functioning as quasi-churches, with some practicing ordination. There were
also frequent calls for the formation of a national Holiness church that
would preserve the work of the camp meetings. Denominational loyalists
within the movement managed to frustrate the formation of such a church;
but the fact that there was interest in a national church at all was an index
of the tension between the Holiness Movement and the Methodist Church.
In any event, the call for a national church went unheeded. Instead,
local associations (some of which by now were functioning as churches and
denominations) began uniting in federations. This development marks the
beginning of the fourth phase of the Holiness Movementthe development
of Holiness denominations. Over time, unions of Holiness groups took
place, resulting in the formation of some Holiness denominations (such as
the Church of the Nazarene) and the augmenting of others (such as the
joining of the Pilgrim Holiness Church to the Wesleyan Methodist Church).
Today there are numerous Holiness denominations and the movement
exists largely in this denominational form. Predictably, the formation of
Holiness denominations has required the development of full-service
churches, so that Holiness denominations today find themselves in the
same situation as the Methodist Church of the nineteenth century with the
need to elaborate theology, social reform, meaningful worship, and more.
The Doctrine of Holiness Today

How is holiness understood in Holiness denominations today? One thing
to note is that there is far more acknowledged diversity of opinion in
Holiness circles than ever before. Holiness theologians exhibit much less
agreement on the understanding of the doctrine than did previous genera
tions. There are several reasons for this.
First, the generation of theologians and scholars that received its theo
logical education in the 1950s and 1960s imbibed the leading ideas of the
Biblical Theology movement. While these ideas are not above correction,
they encouraged Holiness scholars to ask whether the doctrine of holiness,
in its by-now traditional formulation (the amalgamation of Wesley, Palmer,
and Finney) had a sound biblical basis. A perusal of articles in the Wesleyan
Theological Journal during the 1960s shows that this was a hotly debated
subject. Generally speaking, scholars managed to find ways of justifying the
doctrine biblically, but not without considerable effort. On two points,
SUMMER 2005 133

THE THEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE HOLINESS MOVEMENT
however, the traditional understanding of the doctrine was found wanting

when weighed in biblical scales: the use of the aorist tense in Greek to inter
pret certain biblical passages and the identification of entire sanctification
with the baptism with the Holy Spirit.
For generations Holiness scholars had appealed to the fact that some
New Testament passages bearing on holiness employed verbs in the aorist
tense. From their understanding of this Greek tense, these scholars
concluded that these passages supported the understanding of holiness as
9
an instantaneous event. Today, it seems odd that anyone could ever have
placed so much doctrinal weight on what turned out to be an utterly
mistaken understanding of the Greek language. Yet, a review of Holiness
literature in the 1960s and 1970s shows that this understanding died a hard
but inevitable death as a new generation of scholars arose with better
linguistic tools and fewer aberrant presuppositions.
The identification of entire sanctification with Pentecost was a more
serious issue, for (as noted above) it not only defined holiness but also
provided the Holiness Movement with the conviction that the movement
was an eschatological act of God for the unification of all Christians in
preparation for the return of Jesus. Toward the end of the 1970s debate took
place (mainly within the Wesleyan Theological Society) as to the exegetical
propriety of understanding holiness in terms of Spirit baptism. The sad
news delivered by the scholars was that there was little warrant for this iden
tification. For a generation that had striven to maintain impeccable evangel
ical credentials, the revelation that the most popular exposition of the move
ment's central doctrine had shaky biblical foundations was shocking.
A second reason for today's diversity of opinion is a large increase in
historical knowledge. Specifically, Holiness theologians participated in the
"back to Wesley" movement launched by Albert Outler in the 1960s. Once
serious historical study of John Wesley's theology began to bear fruit, it
became obvious that Wesley's understanding of holiness differed in signifi
cant respects from that of the Holiness Movement, shaped as it had been
by Finney and Palmer. Neither did Wesley link entire sanctification with
Pentecost nor would he have agreed with Palmer's "shorter way" into holi
ness. He put no special emphasis on consecration or on the duty of testi
fying to one's experience of holiness. In general, he had a more balanced
view of holiness as an obtainable state in relation to holiness as a pursuit.
It was a difficult matter in those days to explain to denominational offi-

SAMUEL M. POWELL
cials and pastors the fact that the Holiness Movement's doctrine was at vari
ance from that of John Wesley. This variance put people in the awkward
position of having to choose one stream of the Holiness tradition over
another. What made this sort of thing emotionally and bureaucratically trou
bling was that the movement's understanding of the doctrine had come to
be enshrined in denominational articles of faith. In other words, the
Finney-Palmer view of holiness had official sanction. It was represented as
the biblical doctrine of holiness. Pastors and theologians were expected to
believe it and teach it. Now that the traditional understanding of holiness
had been exposed as but one interpretation alongside others, it exhibited a
degree of historical relativity that was, to put it mildly, uncomfortable. To
add insult to injury, the next generation of theologians, having by now
learned Wesley's theology comprehensively, collectively judged his version
of holiness to be far superior to traditional Holiness theology.
Today, Holiness theologians are far more adjusted to theological diver
sity than were previous generations (although we should keep in mind that
the amount of diversity in Holiness circles is pretty limited in comparison
with the diversity found in some denominations). The widespread convic
tion that theological language uses models and metaphors has helped to
blunt the trauma caused by theological diversity. Nonetheless, Holiness
theology is in the strange situation of recognizing a plurality of under
standings of holiness while Holiness denominations continue to espouse
and sanction the doctrine in very traditional language.
Oddly, a third noteworthy factor stands in tension with this diversity.
While theologians and scholars were fighting over the meaning and biblical
status of the doctrine, Holiness denominations were diverting institutional
energy in another direction. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, these denomi
nations strove mightily to identify themselves with the burgeoning
Evangelical movement. By the 1980s, Evangelicalism had embraced (or
perhaps had been embraced by) the Church Growth movement Perceiving
that the holiness message had not achieved hoped-for gains in membership,
Holiness denominations decided to join their evangelical comrades in the
Church Growth movement. The theory was that church growth methods
would stand alongside holiness doctrine. The problem was that Holiness
denominations, having begun as a movement, still portrayed themselves as a
movement. That is, in spite of necessary concessions made in becoming full-
service churches, they retained (or wished to retain) the urgency and energy
SUMMER 2005 135

associated with single-issue movements. With this heritage and mentality

and with the perceived need to join the church-growth movement, it has
become evident that the single issue that currently drives Holiness denomi
nations is numerical increase and not the doctrine of holiness. This result is
unexpected because of the fact that churches in the Holiness movement still
officially regard the promulgation of holiness to be their raison d'etre,
There have been several developments in the doctrine of holiness. One
has been underway for several decades, namely, the discussion regarding
the question of what entire sanctification does and does not accomplish. In
the enthusiastic early years of denominational formation, Holiness writers
made some fairly extravagant claims about what entire sanctification could
do. Not only was holiness thought to be the basis for solving social prob
lems and energizing social reform, it was also thought to be the solution to
virtually every spiritual and psychological problem. Sometime in the 1950s
Holiness writers began moderating their claims, understanding that, while
holiness may mean the cessation of a worldly attitude and worldly behav
iors, it was not a panacea for every sort of disorder into which the human
psyche may fall. In some ways this understanding was simply a reversion to
John Wesley's observation that those who had obtained Christian perfec
tion were still subject to a host of human weaknesses and limitations that
are not matters of sin. But in other ways this new understanding was the
product of a more sophisticated knowledge of developments in psychology.
While Holiness denominations were busy spreading the message of holi
ness, they also devoted themselves to creating liberal-arts colleges. As these
institutions began to mature and to measure themselves according to the
standards of the academic world, departments in those institutions began
to assimilate and appreciate theories that were accepted outside the world
of Holiness denominations. As a result, writers informed by developments
in psychology and other disciplines soon saw that the extensive claims
made for holiness in earlier generations needed softening. Accordingly, in
recent decades, Holiness theology has developed considerable sensitivity
to the limitations of entire sanctification. There is a much greater recogni
tion of the extent to which deeply ingrained habits and prejudices are not
susceptible to the instantaneous character of entire sanctification.
Likewise, theologians have come to acknowledge that, in general, holiness
does not change the contours of one's personality, however much we may
wish for it. However, it should be noted that this moderating of earlier

SAMUEL M, POWELL
claims for holiness has not achieved universal support among Holiness
proponents. There is some anxiety in Holiness circles that the qualifica
tions introduced by two generations of psychologists and theologians have
emaciated the doctrine of holiness to the point that the idea of entire sanc
tification is vaporous and undefined.
Another important development in holiness, beginning in the 1970s,
concerns the language and conceptual framework with which holiness is
expounded. Until the 1970s there was a consensus on these matters. Entire
sanctification was identified with the baptism with the Holy Spirit. It meant
the eradication of "depravity" (the term that holiness writers used for original
sin), the cleansing of the heart, and complete devotion to God. Above all,
sanctification was represented as taking place in a single instant. Conse
quently, the term progressive sanctification had no meaning. Justification
brought one into a saving relationship with God, but sanctification was a
distinct and instantaneous work of God's grace subsequent to justification.
In the 1970s a group of theologians, notably Mildred Wynkoop,
10
proposed an alternative understanding of holiness. Drawing upon the
philosophy of Martin Buber, Wynkoop and others argued two points. First,
they claimed that the traditional and popular modes of expounding holi
ness, with their metaphors of eradication and cleansing, wrongly implied
that depravity is some thing that holiness removes. This argument rested on
the assertion that these modes of exposition reflected an outmoded meta
physics that saw reality primarily in terms of "substances" or "things."
Second, they proposed a different metaphysics for explicating holinessone
that would see reality primarily in terms of relationships. In this rendering,
holiness was represented as a change in our relationship with God. In
particular, it was portrayed as our coming to love God and neighbor in a
complete (though not flawless) way.
This proposal gained some adherents in Holiness theological circles but
did not convince everyone. The chief problem for objectors was that this
approach made it difficult to sustain the central tenet of the Holiness move
ment, namely, that entire sanctification as a second, distinct work of grace
following justification is instantaneous. In Wynkoop's scheme, it made much
more sense to represent holiness as a process occurring over time as one's
relationship to God advanced by degrees. But this sort of talk induced much
anxiety, for the Holiness movement had always been grounded in the fear
that if holiness were a process and were attained gradually, then it would be
SUMMER 2005 137

easy to argue (as most Christian churches did) that it had no termination in
this earthly life. In other words, if holiness were progressive, then it would be
difficult to sustain the conviction that there is a second, definite, and instan
taneous work of God by which we are made completely holy.
Today, there is residual but decreasing support for the traditional under
standing of holiness among Holiness theologians and scholars. Variations
on Wynkoop's proposal are popular but not universally accepted. In other
words, Holiness theology today is in a state of flux (if it is even accurate to
speak of Holiness theology as something fixed and definable). The days are
probably gone when theologians within the Holiness Movement are driven
by a clearsighted vision of the central importance of holiness. Over the past
thirty years many of these theologians have come to regard the traditional
understanding of holiness doctrine as a quaint and at points incomprehen
sible set of convictions espoused by a movement that lost sight of its origin
in John Wesley's theology and other vital contributors to the Christian tradi
tion. At the same time, the growing sophistication of biblical scholars and
church historians in Holiness colleges has added great depth to the move
ment's understanding of holiness. Gone are the days of embarrassingly bad
exegesis and facile assumptions about the biblical character of popular
expositions of holiness. Gone as well is ignorance about the historical devel
opment of the doctrine of holiness and the diverse and incompatible
streams flowing into it. Likewise, Holiness theologians today have a far
greater acquaintance with developments in the larger theological world, so
that nowadays it is common to see Holiness theologians engaging
Liberation Theology, feminist theologies, Radical Orthodoxy, and so on.
Conclusion
What will be the enduring contribution of the Holiness Movement? It
cannot be denied that the Holiness Movement has in its history exhibited
all the virtues and vices of single-issue movements. On the side of vice, at
times it has been too inwardly focused, manifesting an intolerant and
unsympathetic attitude toward other branches on the Christian tree. It has
fostered and celebrated eccentric behavior and then used that behavior as
a yardstick to measure and then pummel those outside the movement who
failed to measure up. On the side of virtue, the Holiness Movement has
stood resolutely for the idea that the human heart can be cleansed of sin
and selfishness. Additionally, it has promulgated the conviction that this

SAMUEL M. POWELL
idea is not merely an ideal but is capable of realization. It upheld an almost

unbridled optimism about the capacity of God's grace to redeem us from
sin and transform us into the image of Jesus Christ. The movement has also
kept alive the memory of social activism that both anticipated the Social
Gospel and provided an evangelically oriented variation on the Social
Gospel. Finally, it has continuously witnessed to the importance of
resisting sin by a close attention to behavior.
In many ways, the Holiness Movement has been a modern version of
early Christian thought and character like that of Tertullian. He was a moral
rigorist and perfectionist and more than a bit censorious, impatient, and
intolerant, It is difficult to imagine wanting someone like Tertullian as your
pastor or next-door neighbor. Yet Tertullian was driven by a passion for the
church's well-being and for the Christian's separation from the world. We
may judge that the Tertullians of the world go too far in their demands on
ordinary Christians and that they concede too little to the enduring power of
sin. But it will surely always be important for the church to have among its
members people who with single-minded concentration call attention to the
power of God's grace and to the church's need to separate from the world.
Samuel M. Powell is Dean of the School of Theology and Christian Ministry at

Point Loma Nazarene University in San Diego, California.
Endnotes
1. American Rescue Workers; The Association of Evangelical Churches; The
Association of Independent Methodists; Bible Holiness Movement; Brethren
in Christ Church; Churches of Christ in Christian Union; The Church of God
(Anderson); The Congregational Methodist Church; Evangelical Christian
Church; Evangelical Church of North America; Evangelical Friends Alliance
(Eastern Region); Evangelical Methodist Church; Free Methodist Church of
North America; Japan Immanuel General Mission; Missionary Church (North
Central District); The Church of the Nazarene; Primitive Methodist Church;
The Salvation Army (USA); The Salvation Army of Canada & Bermuda; and
The Wesleyan Church.
2. See Charles Edward White, The Beauty of Holiness: Phoebe Palmer as
Theologian, Revivalist, Feminist, and Humanitarian (Grand Rapids, MI: Francis
Asbury Press, 1986); Harold E. Raser, Phoebe Palmer: Her Life and Thought.
SUMMER 2005 139

TI IE THEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE HOLINESS MOVEMENT
Studies in Women and Religion (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1987), vol.
22; and Phoebe Palmer: Selected Writings, ed. by Thomas C. Oden. Sources of
American Spirituality (New York: Paulist, 1988).
3. See James E. Hamilton, "Nineteenth Century Philosophy and Holiness
Theology: A Study in the Thought of Asa Mahan," Wesleyan Theological Journal
13/1 (1978); idem, "The Church as a Universal Reform Society: Social Vision of
Asa Mahan," Wesleyan Theological Journal 2 5 / 1 (1990); Donald W. Dayton, "Asa
Mahan and the Development of American Holiness Theology," Wesleyan
Theological Journal 9 / 1 (1974); Timothy L. Smith. "The Doctrine of the
Sanctifying Spirit: Charles G. Finney's Synthesis of Wesleyan and Covenant
Theology," Wesleyan Theological Journal 13/1 (1978); David L. Weddle, The Law as
Gospel: Revival and Reform in the Theology of Charles G. Finney, Studies in
Evangelicalism, no. 6 (Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1985); and Nancy
Hardesty, "Your Daughters Shall Prophesy: Revivalism and Feminism in the
Age of Finney," (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1976).
4. Melvin E. Dieter, The Holiness Revival of the Nineteenth Century, 2nd. ed.,
Studies in Evangelicalism, no. 1 (Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Press, 1996),
219-222; Charles E. Jones, Perfectionist Persuasion: The Holiness Movement and
American Methodism 1867-1936, ATLA monograph series no. 5 (Metuchen, NJ:
The Scarecrow Press, 174), 90-105.
5. Timothy L. Smith, Revivalism and Social Reform In Mid-Nineteenth Century
America (New York: Abingdon, 1957), 129-34,
6. A representative author on this point is J. A. Wood, Perfect Love (Chicago: The
Christian Witness Company, 1880), 30-33 and 170-82,
7. Dieter, Holiness Revival 236-95, and Jones, Perfectionist Persuasion, 90-105.
8. Dieter, Holiness Revival, 245-57.
9. For the roots of this approach, see Daniel Steele, A Defense of Christian
Perfection (Salem, Ohio: Schmul Publishing, 1984), 82-85. A more recent expo
nent is J. Kenneth Grider, Entire Sanctification: The Distinctive Doctrine of
Wesleyanism (Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill, 1980). For a rebuttal of Grider's
approach, see Randy L. Maddox, "The Use of Aorist Tense in Holiness
Exegesis," Wesleyan Theological Journal 16/2 (1981).
10. Mildred Bangs Wynkoop, A Theology of Love: The Dynamic of Wesleyanism
(Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill, 1972); Rob L. Staples, "John Wesley's Doctrine
of Christian Perfection: A Reinterpretation" (Th.D. thesis, Pacific School of
Religion, 1963); H. Ray Dunning, Grace, Faith, and Holiness: A Wesleyan
Systematic Theology (Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill, 1988).

"The Arts of Holy Living":
Holiness and the Means of Grace
REBEKAH MILES
J ohn Wesley often preached a sermon in which he asked his listeners to

imagine an alien visiting earth and observing its human occupants. This
"intelligent being, entirely a stranger to the state of this world and its inhabi
tants," observes human activity, looking for clues about the goal of human
life. Based on simple observation, "he would surely conclude," wrote Wesley,
"that these creatures were designed to be busied about many things." "How
surprised" our alien would be, then, to learn that the true goal of human
lifethe one thing needfulwas not any of the things with which they were
busying themselves. The one thing needful was the very thing they seemed
1
to be neglectingholiness of life and heart.
Like Wesley's eighteenth-century earthlings, we too are "busied about
many things." Our churches and even our pulpits are filled with people
who come to Sunday worship with minds so busy and distracted that it is
hard to be fully present to the presence of Christ or to remember, much
less grow in, holiness of life and heart. This is surely an ancient problem;
but we have pushed it further than most generations before us. On average
we work more hours than people in earlier generations and often at a
faster pace. We are less likely to have the same abiding ties to home,
nature, and community to anchor our lives. We rarely have the same
connections to the rhythms of time-especially the rhythm of work and
2
Sabbath rest-that were common to Christians before us. And many of us
have grown accustomed to media that offer quick changes and high stimu
lation, making it difficult to match the movement of our minds to the slow,
timeless pace of prayer.
For many Christians in our day, a chief obstacle to holiness may be not
the ugly lure of the sins of the flesh or of pride but the seemingly harmless
(and thus more insidious) temptation to focus on the next items on our to-
do list. How do we offer the means of grace in a distracted culture, where
we and the other Christians around us find it hard to make time for the

"THE ARTS O F HOLY LIVING": HOLINESS AND THE MEANS OF GRACE
means, much less remember the end, of holiness-a life saturated with love
of God and neighbor?
For many Christians in our day, another key obstacle is not simply that
we are busy but that we are busy making things happen. In our churches
and the larger culture, we value hard work, success, and the ability to
manage and control difficult situations. These are great values that have
nourished the vibrancy of many parts of our churches and our culture.
Even so, when it comes to the means of grace, where we place ourselves in
faith before God, ready to receive God's grace and blessing, we impede the
flow of grace if we try too hard to control the situation. How do we offer
the means of grace in a culture of control, where we and other Christians
find it hard to let go of our own agendas long enough to see, much less
make room for, God's agenda?
A Wesleyan Remedy
To shape an effective and faithful approach to the means of grace in a
culture of distraction and control, United Methodists need to look back to
our Wesleyan heritage. Along with many other Christians, we believe that
God's grace is present everywhere and available to every person and that
God can use any opportunity to make that grace known. At the same time,
United Methodists also believe that God has given special channels for
receiving that grace. By approaching these means of grace such as worship,
acts of kindness, or the Lord's Supper with a responsive heart, we open
ourselves to receive special blessings from God that can nourish a life of
holiness infused by love.
John Wesley saw the means of grace as one part of the dynamic inter
action between God's gift of grace and a person's response to that gift. To
describe this divine-human interaction and the transformation it fosters,
Wesley often used the language of healing. The therapy for healing human
souls, like the therapy for some chronic illnesses of the body, often calls for
repeated doses of medicine, many hours of therapy, and the mutual effort
of healer and patient leading toward a gradual but significant healing over
time. The "great medicine" in this healing is love, "the never-failing remedy
for all the evils of a disordered world; for all the miseries and vices of
3
men." The means of grace are a part of the medical remedy in two ways.
First, they are channels by which God offers medicine for healing. Second,
they are therapeutic opportunities for humans to respond to the grace

REBEKAH MILES
already given. In other words, they can be pure gifts from God to humans
and, at the same time, health-giving, strengthening exercises that humans
4
do in cooperation with God.
What are these means of grace so rich in benefits for human life?
Wesley described the means of grace as "outward signs, words, or actions,
ordained of God, and appointed for this end, to be the ordinary channels
whereby he might convey to men, preventing, justifying, or sanctifying
5
grace." Wesley's lists of the specific means of grace varied over time, in
6
part because the needs and practices of his Methodist societies varied.
The lists always include some of the means of grace "instituted" by Christ
in Scripture, such as prayer, worship, the Lord's Supper, fasting, meditating
on Scripture, and sometimes Christian conference. At times, Wesley also
included a wider array of practices, some of which are specified in
Scripture. According to Wesley, the means of grace can include singing;
7
listening to sermons; doing good for others; being baptized; participating
in an array of worship services such as covenant renewal services and love
feasts; visiting the sick; reading devotional books; suffering; denying the
self; "cheerfully bear[ing] your cross"; "set[ting] God always before you";
8
and exercising "the presence of God." Wesley referred to many of these
things as "prudential means of grace," or means that a Christian would be
prudent or wise to use. Under the prudential means, Wesley and early
Methodists also included other disciplines that could help members or
leaders of Methodist societies in body or soulattending small-group meet
ings (bands and classes); practicing the "arts of Holy living"; watching
"against the world, the devil, yourselves, your besetting sin"; and "deny[ing]
9
yourself every useless pleasure of sense, imagination, honor."
Wesley's means of grace even included practices thought to be good
for the body, such as avoiding meat at supper; not eating too much or too
late in the evening; drinking only the kind and amount of beverages that
are good for "body and soul"; and drinking plenty of water. Christians
could also benefit from this catchall list of means of grace for healthy
10
livingbeing temperate or moderate "in all things." At the end of one long
and rather quirky list of prudential means of grace, Wesley concluded,
"Never can you use these means but a blessing will ensue. And the more
11
you use them, the more will you grow in grace." Whatever we think of
Wesley's dietary advice, the point is that healthy living, including healthy
eating and drinking, can be means of grace.
SUMMER 2005 143

"THE ARTS O F HOLY LIVING": HOLINESS AND THE MEANS O F GRACE
Wesley and the early Methodists did not limit the means of grace to
the "works of piety" or to the activities good for the body of the individual
Christian. They also insisted that works of mercy-compassionate activities
benefiting the bodies and souls of otherswere means of grace. "Works of
mercy" included an array of activities, such as "the feeding the hungry, the
clothing the naked, the entertaining or assisting the stranger, the visiting
those that are sick or in prison, the comforting the afflicted, the instructing
the ignorant, the reproving the wicked, [and] the exhorting and encour
aging the well-doer." Indeed, works of mercy include "everything which we
give, or speak, or do, whereby our neighbour may be profited; whereby
12
another [person] may receive any advantage, either in his body or soul."
The means of grace, then, are limited only by our resourcefulness in doing
good. Note that these works are good not only for the recipient but also for
the giver, who may grow in love.
Wesley explained the relative place of these works of mercy and the
other means of grace in the Christian life by describing a series of concen
tric circles. The center of the circle is love, "the sum and the perfection of
religion." The other rings around the circle are good insofar as they relate to
and drive toward the center of the circle. Although all the rings are neces
sary in the Christian life, the rings have greater "comparative value" as one
moves closer to the center of the circle. In the outer ring is the church, to
which Christians should be loyal and for which they should pray. As much
as Christians care for the church, they should be even more zealous about
the means of grace. The next circle inward consists of one branch of the
means of gracethe works of piety that are "ordinances of the Christ," such
as Scripture reading, the Lord's Supper, and fasting. As much as Christians
care about these instituted works of piety, they should be even more
zealous for the next circle inwardworks of mercy, another part of the
means of grace. Wesley writes that the Christian should "show his zeal for
works of piety; but much more for works of mercy.... Whenever, therefore,
13
one interferes with the other, works of mercy are to be preferred."
The zeal of Christians for works of mercy should be surpassed,
however, by their zeal for the next inner circlethe fruits of the Spirit.
Works of mercy and piety help the Christian grow in virtuein the fruits of
the Spirit, such as patience, gentleness, and self-control. When Christians
engage with loving hearts in works of mercy, they exercise these Christian
virtues and thereby improve them. So, as much as we value good works,

REBEKAH MILES
"we should still be more zealous . . . for planting and promoting, both in
our own souls, and in all we have any intercourse with" these fruits of the
Spirit. At the center of this series of concentric circles is the foremost fruit
of the Spiritlove of God and neighbor. All of the other rings of the circle
the church, works of piety ordained by Christ, works of mercy, and the
other fruits of the Spirit"are inferior to this [inner circle] and rise in value
14
only as they approach nearer and nearer to it." Love, then, is not only at
the heart of Christian life but also the goal of the other parts of Christian
life and the standard by which they are assessed.
Thus, Wesley and other Methodists cherished the means of grace not
as ends in themselves but to the extent to which they nourished the fruits
of the Spirit, especially love. They must be done, as Wesley put it, with a
15
"single eye." The means of grace nourish love, but they must be
approached with an open, responsive heart. They are not magical, Wesley
insisted, and have no power in themselves. They only become true means
of grace as humans cooperate responsively with God.
Although Wesley ranked these concentric circles, they are not in
competition with one another. The point of Wesley's model was not to
discourage Christians from attending to the outer circles. The point was
that if one stopped with the outer circlesvaluing them only for them
selvesthen one would distort the Christian life. A Christian should use all
the circles and all the means of grace that could be included within the
middle circlesthe works of piety and mercy. Wesley's "sure and general
rule" is that "whenever opportunity serves, use all the means which God
has ordained; for who knows in which God will meet thee with the grace
16
that bringeth salvation?"
All of these circles are not only necessary but also interrelated, building
on one another. For example, the means of grace come out of the life of the
Christian in the community of the church and are exercises that strengthen
the Christian virtues, especially love. Also, a work of charity may take prece
dence over a work of piety in a specific moment; but Christians who repeat
edly turned away from the works of piety, even if they were giving themselves
fully in works of charity, would soon find their own charity, their passionate
love for God and neighbor, depleted. Both works of piety and works of mercy
are necessary, and both are subordinate to the higher goal of love.
Not all of the means are mentioned in Scripture. Wesley included activ
ities and structures, such as band meetings and covenant services, that
SUMMER 2005 145

were popular in his time and that appeared to nourish the fruits of the
Spirit. He was pragmatic and flexible in his approach to the means of
grace.
In this summary of Wesley's teaching on the means of grace, we see
also that the means of grace are holistic. His lists cross over divisions we
normally draw. They include both private and public acts. The means of
grace are not limited to acts done by individuals but include those done
within the body of Christ. Moreover, even the individual, private acts of
piety have systemic effects. For example, a person who, through the grace
offered in private prayer, finds his heart filled with love, will, out of that
love, affect the people and institutions around him. The means of grace are
holistic also in that they include practices that are good for an individual
Christian's body or soul as well as those practices that benefit the bodies
or souls of others. Wesley avoided the familiar division between works of
piety and works of mercy. Both are necessary means of grace. For example,
private prayer has a benefit and purpose similar to almsgiving; both should
aim toward and nourish love of God and neighbor.
Christians fail to use the means of grace at their peril. When, out of
love, Christians care for the church, use the means of grace, and nourish
the holy tempersespecially lovethey receive special blessings of grace. If
they fail to attend to these things, their faith suffers. Emphasizing the
necessity of works of mercy, Wesley writes, "Those that neglect them, do
not receive the grace which otherwise they might. Yea, and they lose, by a
continual neglect, the grace which they had received. Is it not hence, that
17
many who were once strong in faith are now weak and feeble-minded?"
Wesley insisted that all could benefit from the use of the means of
grace and be harmed by their neglect. Everyone needs the means of grace,
both those lacking in faith and those advanced in faith. This was a key
point for Wesley, because it was a disputed point in his time. For example,
some Moravians (the group so important to Wesley's Aldersgate experi
ence) claimed, to Wesley's horror, that a person who had not yet experi
enced the peace that comes from God's grace and did not yet have faith
18
could do nothing but wait for that gift of grace. Not only were the means
of grace in these cases not really means of grace at all (because they were
ineffectual for a person without faith); they might actually harm the
person. These were fighting words for Wesley, who insisted that people
who desire but do not have faith should be all the more eager to use the

REBEKAH MILES
means by which that gift is offered. To discourage these people from using
the means of grace was to imperil their souls.
Wesley also criticized those who claimed that Christians advanced in
19
faith no longer needed the means of grace. Wesley thought this was a
dangerous teaching, because it could encourage a holy person to neglect
precisely the thing she neededthe nourishment necessary for continued
holiness. To discourage a person, even a holy person, from using the means
of grace was to endanger, over time, her holiness and salvation.
Thus, Wesley was opposing those who dismissed the means of grace as
unnecessary or even harmful at some stages of Christian life. He was also
fighting with those who made too much of the means of grace, mistakenly
thinking that doing the means of grace could somehow merit salvation.
Further, he worried about the tendency of some people to think that using
the means of grace was the sum total of religion while disregarding the
20
growth of the fruits of the Spirit, especially love, They mistakenly
confused means and ends. This false idea is particularly dangerous, Wesley
insisted, because it could lead a person to a false complacency, believing he
was righteous, when, in fact, his soul was in danger.
United Methodists and the Means of Grace Today

Some problems of our time are similar to those of Wesley's. United
Methodist churches today include members who believe that some or all of
the means of grace, even the instituted ones, are unnecessary. Even more
so than in Wesley's time, people regularly insist on or act as if corporate
worship is not so important. Faith, they say, is a matter of the heart, and
one does not need to go to church or to participate in other forms or
rituals of the church to be a good Christian, This line of reasoning makes
no sense within a Wesleyan framework. The church and its practices are
crucial not because laity and the clergy who make up the church are
wonderful or righteous (anybody who has spent much time in the church
knows that they are not). Rather, the church and its practices are important
in part because God has given these forms to us as a means to a higher
end. Christians neglect them at their peril and the peril of those around
them who might benefit from their holiness and be harmed by their sin.
Many other United Methodists see the value of the means of grace but
live as if they do not. Valuing the means of grace without actually using
them is pointless; and yet this is the condition of many laity and clergy
SUMMER 2005 147

(including me) who shortchange the means of grace because they are too
busy. I am convinced that, for many people, the busy and distracted char
acter of our culture is one of the biggest hindrances to the use of the means
of grace. Because average American workers spend much more time than
previous generations working, commuting, shopping, and using media such
as television and the Internet, they simply do not have the time, energy, and
focused attention to use the means of grace as often or as effectively as they
might. In the rush of all the things that need to be done and the distractions
of a fast-paced, consumer-driven culture, many United Methodists tend to
not so much thumb their noses at the means of grace as simply to ignore
them. And many of those who do use the means of grace are so inattentive
and distracted by the rush of events, images, and words in the environment
that they are in effect ignoring the grace, even as they are using the means.
Others overvalue the means of grace by remembering the form but
forgetting the substance of religion. Many United Methodists today are
especially susceptible to this tendency not because they value the form or
the means of grace so much but because the church has talked about the
end or the substance of religion so little. It is hard to put the means of
grace in proper perspective without understanding their role in nourishing
the virtues or the fruits of the Spirit and in leading the Christian toward
greater holiness and sanctification. Many United Methodists have given
over the language of virtue, holiness, perfection, and the radical transfor
mation of the soul to more conservative Christians. This is a distortion of
our Wesleyan heritage. How can we expect people to remember the
substance of religionsanctification and holiness of life and heartif our
leaders do not continually preach and teach it? Too often, our churches
encourage members to use the means of grace without explaining the
reason or goal for using these means; namely, to open oneself to divine
grace that can nourish the fruits of the Spirit, especially love, and over time
can lead to increasing holiness or sanctification. Many Christians are left
with a vague sense of guilt that they are supposed to pray, go to church,
and use other means of grace. But they forget or are never taught that
these means are channels of tremendous blessing and joy and the well-
spring of the fruits of the Spirit and a life of holiness. In other words, we
not only tend to ignore the means of grace; many of us are also ignorant of
their end or goal in the path of holiness.
Many Christians today are less likely than previous generations to be

REBEKAH MILES
practiced in the means of grace. As a church we face a steep learning curve.

We need not only to teach and preach about the means of grace (and their
goal of holiness) but also to encourage people (including ourselves) to
develop the regular habit of using them,
Many United Methodists have taken on other values of our culture-
hard work, a willingness to strive for success, and the ability to control and
manage things around us for the sake of this success. These values may be
effective in places of employment, the political sphere, and some of the
work of the church; but when it comes to the means of grace, they are inef
fective, even counterproductive. The appropriate human response in
prayer, worship, or any other means of grace is not striving, controlling, or
managing but letting go and opening oneself to God.
What, Then, Shall We Do?

Given both the typical problems of our time and the Wesleyan view of the
means of grace summarized here, what are some appropriate responses for
churches and church leaders? Church leaders would do well to remember
that the means of grace and their effects are substantial, holistic, and
systemic. Wesley expected that when people used the means of grace with
responsive, loving hearts, their whole lives and the lives of the people and
institutions around them would benefit. There is substantial evidence to
support the idea that religious practices such as worship attendance and
prayer are good in a holistic sense. People who regularly participate in reli
gious communities and activities tend to be happier and healthier (both in
body and in spirit). People with regular worship attendance are more likely
to take care of their bodies and even more likely to eat broccoli and green,
21
leafy vegetables. Recent studies suggest that as good as religion is for
adults, it is even better for adolescents. Adolescents who are active in reli
gious communities are much less likely to smoke, get drunk, commit
suicide, use or sell illegal drugs, get in fights, or have sex early and with
multiple partners. At the same time, they are much more likely to volunteer
in their communities, take care of their bodies, do well in school, handle
22
difficulties more smoothly, and even wear seat belts and brush their teeth!
The effects of religious practice (for Christians this amounts to using
the means of grace) are not limited to the individual but can affect others
and even the whole system. For example, when the parents of religious
adolescents are also religious, these adolescents are even less likely to get
SUMMER 2005 149

in trouble and more likely to do the right thing than those whose parents
are not religious. Moreover, family religious activities have been linked with
a healthier family system. A nationwide study revealed that when families
did some religious activity (such as a prayer at mealtime or bedtime) five to
seven days a week, their 12-14-year-old children were much more likely to
report that their families engaged in an array of other healthy family behav
iors that tend to nourish more loving, respectful relationships and interac
tions among family members and better mental, physical, and moral health
23
as well.
These studies point to the substantial and holistic impact of religion.
Religious faith and religious activity are linked with positive behaviors in
many other parts of an individual's life and the life of the community in
which that individual lives.
Remembering that the means of grace and their effects are substantial,
holistic, and systemic, church leaders would do well to act accordingly.
Given these beneficial effects, those church leaders who are timid about
reaching out to people without a religious community or faith have yet
another reason to take a new look at evangelism. For example, as we have
seen, young people who regularly participate in religious life are less likely
to commit suicide or become addicts. Their odds get even better if their
parents are religiously involved. Given the clear benefits to young people
and others, we need to invite them to worship with us and to give them an
24
enthusiastic welcome if they accept. We can reach out to people without
falling into Christian arrogance.
These benefits give added support not only for outreach to nonreli-
gious people but also for discipleship among those who are already church
members. In light of these benefits, we owe it to the young people of our
churches as well as to all other members, whether new or lifelong
Christians, to teach them about the means of grace and to encourage them
to get in the habit of using the means not simply because they should but
because the means of grace are means to better, more joyful lives and rela
tionships. Our denomination's stated missionto make disciples of Jesus
Christincludes outreach to the nonreligious and discipleship for
Christians at all stages.
What means of grace should the church today offer? Although Wesley
had a long list of the means of grace, he gave special attention to the means
instituted by Christ, such as meditating on Scripture, praying, worshiping,

REBEKAH MILES
fasting, and taking Communion. He was adamant that these special works
of piety, along with works of mercy and care for others, were essential to
the Christian life of discipleship. Church leaders today have the duty and
joy of using these means and encouraging others to use them. They can
also offer opportunities for learning more about different forms of the
means of grace. For example, some churches have opportunities for
prayerful reading of Scripture in groups (known as lectio divina) and for
different kinds of prayers such as centering prayer.
Wesley's flexible and pragmatic approach to the prudential means of
grace can give church leaders a model for making a similar list of means
that could be fruitful for Christians today. Given our needs and the trends
of our time, what might church leaders today add to the list of prudential
means of grace? The fast pace and the many distractions of our culture may
call for spiritual practices that help people slow down and pay attention.
Christians are turning to silent or quiet spiritual retreats, meditative prac
tices such as walking a labyrinth or doing centering prayer, and quiet music
like that offered by the Taize community. They have found these to be
effective means of grace in a loud and driven culture. Some Christians may
be more interested now in spiritual direction, the exercise of spiritual
discernment, and many other ancient spiritual practices, because they need
extra help to slow down and pay attention to the way God is moving in the
rush of details of their daily lives. At the same time, because many have
grown accustomed to the faster pace of our culture, including the quick
changes and high stimulation of the senses of hearing and sight in popular
media, church leaders would be wise to think about means of grace that
will meet this need for high stimulation. In our time, projecting fast images
on a screen and offering high stimulation music can be means of grace.
Many people today live far away from their extended families and are
much less likely than previous generations to belong to community organi
zations. Thus, the social networks of the church, such as Sunday school
classes, Emmaus groups, or long-term study/covenant groups (for example,
25
Disciple Bible Study and Companions in Christ) are invaluable. A recent
interdisciplinary report found that adolescents today are in crisis because
their biological needs for connection to other people and to "spiritual and
26
moral meaning" are not being met. Younger children and adults share
some of these same basic needs. When churches draw youth and others
into full participation in the body of Christ through an array of small groups
SUMMER 2005 151

and activities, they offer a means of grace badly needed for our time.
That many neighborhoods and communities are segregated by class
and race makes it important for churches to offer opportunities for people
to interact with others who are different. For example, when middle-class
and wealthy people have no contact with poor people, opportunities for
coming to know poor people and offering them assistance can serve as a
means of grace for the prosperous. Similarly, given the current epidemic of
materialism and greed of all kinds, many wealthy and middle-class people
desperately need to give away a big chunk of their money and possessions.
Sacrificial giving is not just a means of survival for the poor but also a
means of grace for the financially prosperous.
Given both the Wesleyan holistic concern for health and the preva
lence today of unhealthy practices, a list of Wesleyan prudential means of
grace for today would have to include activities that are good for the body,
such as good diets, exercise, and other healthy habits. Moreover, because a
good Wesleyan cares not only for the health of his own body but also for
the health of other bodies, the list could hardly be Wesleyan without
including means of grace that benefit the bodies of others, such as feeding
the hungry, helping people get access to medical care (for both physical
and mental health), and working to see that young people have healthy
food options in their school cafeterias, vending machines, and fast-food
restaurants. If, as Wesley insisted, the means of grace can include "every
thing which we give, or speak, or do, w h e r e b y . . . another [person] may
receive any advantage, either in . . . body or soul," then our list of pruden
tial means of grace is constrained only by the limits of our imagination and
compassion as we respond to the needs of our time.
For Wesleyans, both works of piety and works of mercy are essential
means of grace, making the current temptation to separate these two kinds
of works un-Wesleyan. Recently, Wesleyans have been divided along un-
Wesleyan lines, with those who value works of mercy to the neglect of
works of piety, on the one side, and those who reverse the error, on the
other. Any good Wesleyan list of the means of grace and any consistent
Wesleyan life must include both works of mercy and works of piety.
The problem with these long lists of works of piety and works of mercy
is that Christians can become as thoughtlessly busy and distracted with the
means of grace as with any of the other items on their to-do lists. It is all
too easy to focus on getting through the form of the means of grace and

REBEKAH MILES
forgetting about the goal. It makes an ugly situation uglier when church
leaders cheer on busy people to use the means of grace without continu
ally emphasizing that the means of grace themselves are not the point.
Prayer is not the point. Good works-even really, really good worksare not
the point. The point is growth in love. We can call it by the name of holi
ness or sanctification or renewal in the image of God or Christian perfec
tion or Christian maturity or anything else we want, as long as we are
talking about the same thinggrowth in the love of God and neighbor,
Many of us face another temptation when we approach the means of
grace, namely to control and manage. Some of us live as if we believe that
our holiness depends on getting things right and on trying harder, It is
difficult not to be formed by the pervasive message in our culture that the
best way to succeed and to get something done in this world is to push
harder than the next guy and to give it everything you've got. United
Methodists are not unaffected by this dominant cultural message. Indeed,
we have a well-deserved reputation for working harder and longer at our
church meetings and conferences than members of many other denomina
tions. Anyone skeptical of this claim need spend only onevery longday
observing United Methodist General Conference delegates in action.
In a culture and a church where people like to make things happen and
take pride in relying on their own strength, ingenuity, and hard work to shape
the world, it can be tough to get the means of grace rightprecisely because
when it comes to grace, trying too hard to get it right is a sure way to get it
wrong. Trying too hard often amounts to little more than a futile attempt to
control both the means and the grace. And grace will not be controlled.
When, in approaching the means of grace, we try to control God and
to manage grace, our efforts can become means not of grace but of dimin-
ishment, not of healing but of enfeeblement. This sounds like bad news,
but it is not. When we see the futility of our dimwitted, strong-willed
attempts to slog our way toward God, we may find ourselves, either
through despair or simple, childlike openness, able to let go and to trust in
God and God's powerful work within us.
In their better moments, hard-working United Methodists know that
ultimately we rely not on our own efforts and power but on God's. Wesley
understood grace not simply as God's mercy given to us but also as God's
loving power at work within us. God's grace is, Wesley writes, "the power of
God, the Holy Ghost, which 'worketh in us both to will and to do of his
SUMMER 2005 153

1 27
good pleasure. " When Wesley talked about holiness as growth in love, he
was not simply talking about the increase of our love for God and neighbor
but also about the increase and flourishing of God's powerful love within
us. The means of grace are the ordinary channels to continually receive
within us and nourish this power of God.
Wesleyans insist, though, that it is not only by God's grace or power
that the means of grace become effective. The human response is also
necessary. But if straining, controlling, and trying too hard are of limited
help, what is the proper human response? I have found that in prayer and
other acts of worship, I can be most responsive to God's grace when I will
ingly let go of my impulse to control and, instead, intentionally welcome
God's power, which is a power not of coercion but of love. God takes us
not by force but only by our openness and invitation. Likewise, we cannot
take God by force but only by our openness and even our surrender.
Many people today are nervous about a word like surrender. In thinking
about surrender, it helps to use not military images, where the defeated
surrender to the victorious, but domestic images. Many nursing mothers
will testify that the intimate connection between the mother and the baby
at her breast, especially in the loving union that sometimes comes as the
milk lets down, is a kind of mutual surrender. When lovers surrender their
bodies to each other, it is an act not of defeat but of mutual openness and
embrace, leading even to ecstatic union. At its b e s t this surrender is
mutual and healthy.
Someone might object that surrender in a good marriage is more
mutual than in the divine-human relationship, in which only one party
the humansurrenders and gives over self and control while the other
partythe divineis by nature all powerful. But that is not the way our
Christian story goes. The mutual surrendering may be unevenly weighted,
but surely the balance tips far to the other side. God, the all-powerful
creator and sustainer of the universe, willingly came into the world in the
most vulnerable and dependent way-in the form of a baby (see Phil. 2:6-8).
God poured out Godself in the manger and on the Cross. God's self-
surrender did not stop there but goes on as God, in every moment, dwells
within each person, continually giving of Godself and God's loving power.
God surrenders fully to us and asks for our surrender in return.
As in our surrender we open up to the working of God's power within
us, we receive power greater than anything we could imagine. It is not our

REBEKAH MILES
power but God's power working within us that is "able to accomplish abun
dantly far more than all we can ask or imagine" (Eph 3:20), allowing us to
use the means of grace responsively and to grow in holiness of life and
heart. The Christian life, Wesley insisted, is not about waiting in quiet
openness for God's gifts of grace. Through God's power of grace within us,
we have been given the power to move toward God, in part by going to the
places that are known channels of God's love and powerthe means of
grace. God's power does not undercut human agency but makes it possible.
We are able to "work out [our] own salvation with fear and trembling; for it
is God who is at work in [us], enabling [us] to will and to work for his good
pleasure" (Phil. 2:12b-13). As God surrenders and pours Godself out into us,
God gives us the power and mandate to surrender to God and to pour
ourselves out into the world. By the power of God's grace, our efforts
become not futile but holy. By this power we are able, in the face of the
struggles of life, to strive faithfully.
In my family, we like to quote John Buchan, the Scottish writer and
28
Calvinist preacher's son, who wrote, "It's a great life, if you don't weaken."
But surely, when it comes to grace, it is a great life if you know how to weaken
at the right momentsat the Lord's table and the family dinner table; during
times of worship and times of confession in a small group of Christians; and
within the sacred borders of the marriage bed and our own places of private
prayer. It is precisely in our weakness that God's power within us grows
strong, for God's "power is made perfect in weakness" (2 Cor. 12:9).
Rebekah Miles is Associate Professor of Ethics at Perkins School of Theology,

Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas.
Endnotes
1. John Wesley, Sermon 146, "The One Thing Needful," in The Bicentennial
Edition of the Works of John Wesley, ed. by Albert Outler (Nashville: Abingdon,
1976), 4:352.
2. See my "That's All a Mule Can Do: The Ethics of Balancing Work at Home
and on the Job," Maguire Center Occasional Papers (Maguire Center for Ethics:
Dallas, 2003).
3. John Wesley, Sermon 132, "On Laying the Foundation of the New Chapel,"
2.1, in The Works of John Wesley, ed. by Thomas Jackson (Albany, OR: The
SUMMER 2005 155

SAGE Digital Library, 1996); hereafter Works Jackson).

4. See Randy Maddox, Responsible Grace: John Wesley's Practical Theology
(Nashville: Kingswood, 1994), 200-02.
5. Wesley. Sermon 16, "The Means of Grace, "2.1, in Works (Jackson), 5:266.
6. These lists are found throughout his work. See, for example, Wesley, Sermon
92, "On Zeal"; Sermon 16, "The Means of Grace"; Sermons 26-28, "Upon Our
Lord's Sermon on the Mount," Discourses 6, 7, and 8; Sermon 98, "On Visiting
the Sick," VII; "Minutes of Some Late Conversations between the Rev. Mr.
Wesley and Others," Question 48, VIII; and Sermon 85, "On Working Out Our
Own Salvation," all in Works (Jackson).
7. Baptism is called a means of grace instituted by Christ in "A Treastise on
Baptism,"2.1, in Works Jackson), 10:225.
8. Wesley, "Minutes of Some Late Conversations." in Works, 8:377-79.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid., 2.4.9,8:379.
12. Wesley, Sermon 26, "Upon Our Lord's Sermon on the Mount, Discourse 6,"
1.1, in Works Jackson), 5:418,
13. Wesley, Sermon 92, "On Zeal," 2.5-11, in Works (Jackson), 7:76-78.
14. Ibid., 2.10-11, 7:78.
15. Wesley, Sermon 98, "On Visiting the Sick," 1, in Works (Jackson), 7:139.
16. Wesley, Sermon 16, "The Means of Grace, "5.3, in Works (Jackson), 5:280.
17. Wesley, Sermon 98, "On Visiting the Sick," 1, in Works (Jackson), 7:139.
18. See, for example, Wesley, "An Answer to the Reverend Mr. Church's
Remarks on the Reverend Mr, John Wesley's Last Journal, In a Letter to that
Gentleman" (February 2,1745), in Works (Jackson), 8:442-85.
19. See, for example, "Letter to His Brother Samuel" (November 23, 1736), in
Works (Jackson), 12:41-42; "Cautions and Directions Given to the Greatest
Professors in the Methodist Societies," 1762, 11, in Albert C. Outler, ed., John
Wesley (New York: Oxford University Press, 1964), 300; and Wesley, Sermon 16,
"The Means of Grace, "5.3, in Works (Jackson).
20. See, for example, Wesley, Sermon 2, "The Almost Christian," 5; Sermon 22,
"Upon Our Lord's Sermon on the Mount, Discourse 2"; Sermon 25, "Upon
Our Lord's Sermon on the Mount, Discourse 5"; Sermon 27, "Upon Our Lord's
Sermon on the Mount, Discourse 7," all in Works (Jackson).
21. "Church Really is 'Heart-Healthy,'" United Press International (November
2004).

REBEKAH MILES
22.1 am currently writing a book Good Kids, Good Society, Good God: Moral and
Theological Reflections on Raising Moral Children, which has a chapter on the
effects of religious practice on young people and includes more of this data.
See Christian Smith and Robert Faris, "Religion and American Adolescent
Delinquency, Risk Behaviors and Constructive Social Activities," Research
Report #1 (Chapel Hill, NC: National Study of Youth and Religion, 2002). The
benefits of religion for the general population have been widely reported. See,
for example, "Religious Influences on Personal and Societal Weil-Being," Journal
of Social Issues 51 (Summer 1995).
23. Christian Smith and Phillip Kim, "Family Religious Involvement and the
Quality of Family Relationships for Early Adolescents," Research Report #4
(Chapel Hill, NC: National Study of Youth and Religion, 2003). See also
Research Report #5 in the same series.
24. For a Wesleyan model of evangelism and discipleship, see Scott Jones, The
Evangelistic Love of God and Neighbor: A Theology of Witness and Discipleship
(Nashville: Abingdon, 2003).
25. See Robert Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American
Community (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2000).
26. The Commission on Children at Risk, Hardwired to Connect: The New
Scientific Case for Authoritative Communities (New York: Institute for American
Values, 2003). See also my article "For the Love of God and Mammon: How
Marketing Firms and Religious Groups Succeed in Forming Young People and
Why It Matters," available soon on the website of the Association of
Theological Schools, at the Luce Fellows page.
27. Wesley, Sermon 12, "The Witness of the Spirit," 15, in Works (Jackson).
28. "Top 100 Quotes," Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, Online at www.askox-
ford.com/worldofwords/quotations/quotefrom/100quotes.
SUMMER 2005 157

How America Got the Holy Ghost:
The Uniqueness of the African-American
Experience of Holiness
LOVE HENRY W H E L C H E L , JR.
O ur African-American ancestors were brought to the United States

with the Holy Ghost fire shut up in their bones. They arrived on this
continent with an insatiable hunger for the spiritual world. From West and
Central Africa they brought a strong belief that the personal and
communal had a continuous involvement in the spirit-world in the prac
tical affairs of daily life. They believed that the whole earth was full of
God's glory and that there was no rigid demarcation between the sacred
1
and the profane, the natural and the supernatural. The spirituality of our
African ancestors can best be expressed in a quote from Thomas a
Kempis's Imitation of Christ-. "It is better to feel the [Holy Ghost], than to be
2
able to define it." In short, Africans did not arrive in the United States as
spiritual and cultural destitutes. They came with a rich religious and
cultural heritage that is rooted in the Bible and in the origin of the universe
itself. In contrast to European immigrants, whose religious tradition
survived and prospered, the religious beliefs and practices of African
3
Americans were denied and systematically suppressed.
It is seldom recognized and acknowledged that the religious instruction
in Christianity offered to African Americans by white denominations
contributed to the suppression of their indigenous holiness and pietism,
rooted in traditional African religion and culture. European Americans
regarded African beliefs and practicessuch as spirit possessions, religious
dancing, shouting, honoring ancestors, and drummingnot only as expres
sions of the kind of paganism they claimed to deplore but also as vestiges of
identity they felt they needed to destroy in order to enhance their control
over their slaves. Nevertheless, African Americans clung tenaciously to
some of their beliefs and often practiced themalthough in secretand
adapted them in creative ways for whenever their captors tried to share
4
Christianity with them or impose it upon them. It was not until the Great

LOVE HENRY WHELCHEL, JR.
Awakening of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries that a significant

number of African Americans embraced Protestant Christianity. It may have
been providential that the pietism and holiness that European Americans
had suppressed and rejected for more than a century sparked a transconti
nental spiritual revival in both Europe and America. But even prior to the
conversion of Europe and America to pietism, African Americans practiced
a clandestine holiness while at the same time worshiping publicly in white
churches under the approval and supervision of their white slave masters.
The religious services and teachings were conducted by white preachers,
who emphasized a heavenly reward for good slaves who were obedient to
their masters. More important for the slaves, however, was the "invisible
institution" in which the practices of holy dancing, shouting, spirit posses
sion, testimonies, and exhortations were practiced in secret, away from the
prying eyes of slave masters. Despite the threats and severe punishments,
African Americans persisted in holding secret praise services, often at night,
under the bush harbors in the thickets or down by the riverside, "where you
5
couldn't hear nobody pray."
In this article, I delineate African Americans' beliefs in and practices of
holiness in light of their unique history and religious experiences. I focus
on the African-American experience of holiness and pietism as it relates to
the conversion experience and the spreading of scriptural holiness.
The Conversion Experience

In the aftermath of John Wesley's heartwarming experience at Aldersgate, he
made the amazing discovery that salvation was simple and available for
everyone, including for African Americans. For the early African-American
Methodists, the conversion experience gave them their first opportunity to
speak in public and to become literate. The Methodist "love feasts," prayer
meetings, and class meetings played vital roles in providing a platform for
African Americans and women, both black and white, to express themselves
in public. All believers at these testimonial gatherings were expected to tell
their stories by including the following elements in their testimonies:
(1) After singing a verse of a hymn, the person speaks of expressing

1. love for everybody
2. joy at being present
3. determination to stay on the battlefield to the end;
SUMMER 2005 159

HOW AMERICA GOT THE HOLY GHOST
(2) After singing, the person gives the right hand of fellowship; and
(3) The person recalls his or her conversion experience by telling how and
6
when he or she came through.
Many early Methodists benefited from these prayer meetings and love
feasts, including Richard Allen, Harry Hosier, Jarena Lee, and Amanda
Berry Smith. After Richard Allen received his personalized Aldersgate
conversion experience on his master's plantation in Delaware, he
purchased his freedom and moved to Philadelphia. Here Allen united with
St. George's Church and became active as a class leader of the African-
American members and convened them for 5:00 A.M. prayer meetings and
love feasts. These gatherings provided Allen and his members with the
opportunity to sing, pray, and testify. Allen was so pleased with the oppor
tunity to exhort and exercise his spiritual gifts that he wrote the following
in his autobiography:
I would not be anything but a Methodist. I was born and awakened under
them. The Methodists were the first people to bring glad tidings to the colored
people. I feel thankful that I have ever heard a Methodist Preacher All the
other denominations preach so high flown that we were not able to compre
hend their doctrine. I am of the opinion that reading sermons will never prove
7
so beneficial to colored people as extempore preaching.
Another pioneering African-American preacher who benefited from

these testimonial meetings was Harry Hosier. He was a contemporary of
Richard Allen, and they were the only two African Americans present at
the 1784 organizing General Conference at the Lovely Lane Church in
Baltimore. Hosier accompanied Freeborn Garrettson on his travels up and
down the Eastern Seaboard to summon the Methodists to assemble for the
famous Christmas Conference. On another occasion, Hosier traveled with
Bishop Francis Asbury to Northern Virginia in 1787. In his journal, Asbury
noted that Hosier preached to the African-American audience, admon
8
ishing them to live holy lives. Harry Hosier was an amazing fire-baptized
and Holy Ghost-filled Methodist preacher. Due to his fame and notoriety
throughout colonial America, he was considered the first African-American
celebrity. A product of his times, he never learned to read or write; but he
was gifted with a phenomenal memory. When he heard the Scriptures

read, he remembered and could quote those passages. His ministry was
validated by the Holy Spirit as his guide and teacher, Benjamin Rush, a
member of the Continental Congress and signer of the Declaration of
Independence, paid Harry Hosier the ultimate compliment when he called
9
him "the greatest orator in America" during colonial times.
Jarena Lee had two strikes against herrace and genderbut she perse
vered and became the first female preacher in the African Methodist
church. She nurtured and cultivated her spiritual gifts in prayer meetings
and love feasts. She was called to preach while sitting in a prayer meeting.
After she received the call to preach, she went to Richard Allen, who was
the pastor of Bethel African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church and
informed him of her call to preach. Allen refused to grant her a license to
preach but did allow her to hold prayer meetings in her home. When
people found out about these prayer and healing services, they quickly
filled Lee's home. These prayer meetings gave Lee a platform to exercise
her spiritual gifts of singing, praying, testifying, speaking in public, and
giving spiritual exhortations. After Jarena Lee effectively manifested her
spiritual gifts in these meetings in her home, she was invited to preach at
Bethel AME Church. After hearing her sermon, Allen commented that "she
10
was called to the work as any preachers who were present."
Amanda Berry Smith was another early Methodist female preacher
who was a strong advocate of holiness. She ascended from slavery in
Maryland to become a washerwoman, wife, mother, evangelist, interna
tional missionary, and founder of an orphanage for black children. She
became very popular with white Methodists, particularly the nineteenth-
century Shouting Methodists. The Shouting Methodists earned their name
from being a noisy bunch, shouting and responding to preaching with
"Praise the Lord!," "Hallelujah!," and "Amen." Interestingly, one stanza of a
popular Shouting Methodist revival song found its way onto the corner
stone of the historic Foundry Methodist Church in Washington, D . C :
They are despised by Satan's train,

Because they shout and
Preach so plain.
I'm bound to march to endless bliss
11
And die a shouting Methodist.
SUMMER 2005 161

In her autobiography, Smith recalls conducting a camp meeting in

Maine, where black folks were (and still are) few and far between. An
elderly white brother came to her camp meeting and was converted under
her preaching. She described him as well-to-do and full of prejudice. He
confessed that he would not have anything to do with Blacks when he
12
could help it. The man admitted that he came to the meetings a number
of times seeking a blessing, but found himself disappointed every time
because there was Amanda Smith, a black woman, singing, praying, and
testifying. In spite of his disappointment, this man, while attending the
camp meetings and listening to the African-American evangelist, received
direction from the Holy Spirit to refrain from using tobacco in his mouth.
When he knelt before the Lord, the Spirit said to him, "Can you give up
that tobacco?" Smith saw him dig a hole, remove the tobacco from his
mouth and put it in the hole, cover the hole, and kneel over the hole. It was
not long before the Lord poured in his heart a blessing of full salvation:
13
"My, My! and how he shouted."
Smith's mantra was, "Without holiness, no one would see the Lord."
Like many African Americans, she believed in tarrying and waiting on the
Lord. The expression "You can't hurry God" is frequently heard in the Black
church today. Worship in the African-American tradition represents eternity.
Smith expressed that sentiment when she admonished her followers:
We colored people are not used to getting up off our knees quick, like white
folks. When we went down on our knees to get something, we generally got it
before we got up. We are very imitative people, so I find we have begun to
14
imitate white people, even in that the Lord help us.
African-American religion was shaped on the anvil of struggle and

adversity. For African Americans, religion has been an important survival
mechanism. It is a citadel of hope for people on the brink of despair. In
studying various liturgical styles of worship, it is important to take into
account the different cultural and institutional situations that shape
patterns and forms of individual and group expressions of the worship
experience. At times, people practice maintenance worship, which is
routine and normal. Maintenance worship is like a three-month or 3,000-
mile oil change-it ensures the nuts and bolts are lubricated. At other times,
they practice a more radical style of worship. A radical worship more nearly

LOVE HENRY WHELCHEL, JR,
resembles an "engine overhaul," because major damage has been done to

15
the human spirit and psyche. The reign of terror during slavery and
subsequent segregation, discrimination, and lynching called for a more
radical worship response among the masses of African Americans. In times
of terror, trepidation, and fear, people are inclined to engage in a more
radical and serious worship encounter, as we all witnessed after the
horrible tragedy of 9 / 1 1 .
Spreading Scriptural Holiness

The pragmatist Booker T, Washington observed that from the very begin
ning African Americans and Methodists appeared to have had a natural
affinity for one another. He attributed the appeal to the way Methodism
got started in Englandby visiting the prisons, feeding the hungry, and
16
addressing the needs of the poor and disinherited. Methodism began in
Britain as a response to the indifference of the Anglican Church in
reaching out to the unchurched and to those in need of help. John Wesley
believed that the gospel of Jesus Christ mandated that the church become
involved in serving the needs of others. He observes, "For religion to
17
retreat into a solitary religion is to destroy it." In his sermons and writ
ings, Wesley consistently admonished his followers to relate to world and
society as the "salt of the earth" and the "light of the world."
Richard Allen, founder of the first independent African-American
Methodist church, applied John Wesley's social teaching to his ministry. In
1793, a calamitous outbreak of yellow fever in Philadelphia took the lives of
hundreds of people of both races. The people who contracted the dreaded
disease would have a chill, accompanied by a headache and severe joint
and back pains. Patients usually suffered from seven to ten days and would
suddenly die, just as they appeared to be improving. Some of the victims
lost their minds and became enraged with fury. Others jumped out of
18
windows while yet others would vomit blood and scream for help.
When the mayor of Philadelphia appealed to the churches to step
forward to care for the sick and to bury the dead, Richard Allen and his
fledgling congregation responded. European Americans were allegedly
considered more susceptible to the sickness than African Americans.
Therefore, Allen and his followers took the leadership in caring for the sick
and burying the dead. They put their health and their lives in jeopardy to
spread the beauty of social holiness by addressing the needs of the people
SUMMER 2005 163

in their community. Also, Allen solicited freewill offerings to assist with

medical costs and burial expenses. He kept meticulous records of receipts
19
and expenditures, demonstrating his administrative and business acumen.
Before and after the Civil War, African Americans expressed pride in
holiness and moral superiority over their slaveholders as well as whites
who mistreated them. For example, a freed slave named Charlie, who met
his former slave master after the Civil War, had been unmercifully beaten
by his master and bore lacerations on his back as evidence of the abuse.
When asked by his former master if he had forgiven him, Charlie revealed
that he indeed had forgiven him: "For the God I serve is a God of love and
I can't go to his kingdom with hate in my heart. When a man has been
killed dead and made alive in Christ Jesus, he no longer feels like he did
20
when he was a servant of the devil."
After the emancipation, African-American leaders in the North and
South worked ardently to prepare their people for responsible citizenship
by emphasizing that nothing was more important than building good char
acter through honesty, chastity, thriftiness, hard work, and charity. The
Black leadership realized that the practice of these virtues would serve as a
powerful weapon to combat the charges of African Americans being infe
rior to white people and unqualified to assimilate in civilized society.
Another African American who championed spreading scriptural holi
ness near the end of the nineteenth century was J. W. E. Bowen. Bowen
was the first African American to earn a P h D , from Boston University's
School of Theology. The erudite Bowen launched a national crusade to
inject high moral character into the Black community by preaching a series
of four sermons from his Asbury Methodist Church in Washington, D.C.
These sermons were published in 1892 under the title "What Shall the
Harvest Be?": A National Sermon or Series to the Colored People of America on
Their Problem. In the preface, Bowen recognized the fact that the Black
church was the largest public institution in the African-American commu
nity, with awesome potential for building character and spreading social
holiness. He wrote:
I hold that the Christian pulpit whose pastor is president of the largest univer
sity among us, the university of the masses, ought to address itself faithfully to
these living questions of civic and moral importance and ultimately steer the
21
whole people in the direction of a higher life.

Bowen used Deut. 28:9, "The Lord shall establish thee a Holy people,"
in two of his sermons in order to compare the mission and unique history
of African Americans with those of the Israelites. Bowen believed that God
had chosen to deliver the Israelites and the African Americans from
bondage for a special mission. At the time Bowen preached these sermons,
African Americans were fewer than thirty years removed from slavery, and
he compared their plight with the Israelites' wandering in the wilderness
for forty years. In both cases, Bowen maintained, the wilderness experi
ences were necessary schools of adversity to prepare them for the full
blessing of the promised land. Also, he extrapolated from this text that
God would not fulfill his promise for the Israelites or for the African
Americans until they became an obedient, holy, and righteous people.
Like many African Americans in the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries, Bowen admonished Blacks to take pride in their rich heritage
and challenged them to regain their pristine superiority in arts, sciences,
literature, architecture, and music. He exhorted African Americans to look
upon Africa not as the Dark Continent but as the place where the world
first saw the light. More important, Bowen appropriated the names of
African people and places recorded in the Bible in order to affirm their
22
special calling to spread scriptural holiness.
23
In addition to advocating a cultural piety and holiness, Bowen
addressed what he called the Negro problem and the "manhood problem."
In his view, the legacy of slavery had its greatest adverse effect on the
masculinity of the Black male. He believed there was a correlation between
the emasculation of the Black male and the Negro problem. He claimed
further that addressing the manhood problem should take precedence over
the struggle for political equality. At the time Bowen delivered his series of
sermons in 1892, all the talk was about the "Negro problem" and little was
being said about the continuation of segregation, discrimination, economic
exploitation, and lynching of African Americans after their emancipation.
These issues were not addressed until Gunnar Myrdal's 1944 classic study,
American Dilemma, altered the race problem from the older "Negro
problem" to a "White problem." The study concluded that it was the moral
failing of white Americans rather than a problem of Black deficiency that
was responsible for the lingering racial disparity and degradation in the
24
United States. In short, Bowen's prescription for this malady was for the
Black churches across the United States to help Black men achieve
SUMMER 2005 165

Christian character and spiritual holiness.

Before concluding this article, let us look at Charles Albert Tindley,
who, at the beginning of the twentieth century, promoted scriptural holi
ness and exerted considerable influence on all Methodists, both black and
white. He was born a Methodist on Maryland's eastern shore. During the
colonial revivals, the region had been popular for evangelistic crusades for
the Methodists and various other denominations. Tindley was the product
of a Holy Ghost-filled and enthusiastic style of worship from his youth.
When he moved to Philadelphia, he brought this demonstrative style of
worship with him, which was very popular and appealing to a large number
of people. Tindley used his gifts and talents to build one of the greatest
churches in all of Methodism. His congregation soon outgrew the 3,500
seating capacity of his church; so great were the weekly crowds that often
25
as many as 1,500 more had to stand throughout the worship services.
Tindley's approach to praise and worship included a variety of litur
gical and cultural forms. All of the elements of the worship experience,
including the hymns, anthems, responses, creeds, prayers, and confessions,
were performed with high spiritual fervor. The congregation would
respond as enthusiastically to Handel's Messiah as they would to Tindley's
own gospel song "We'll Understand It Better By and By." The same folks
who could enjoy Rossini's Inflammatus on Sunday morning would return
26
later for all-night tarrying and healing services. In the true spirit of
Methodism, Tindley demonstrated that worship can retain its dignity and
life without being dead and sterile.
Still another manifestation of Wesleyan influence on Tindley was his
insistence that the quest for personal salvation must never be divorced
from the work of social transformation. Tindley refused to confine his
ministry within the safe walls of the church. He was frequently seen
walking up and down the streets of the neighborhood in which the church
was located, meeting and greeting the people on their level and talking and
preaching to people of all classes and conditions. Reverend Henry Nichols
once said that what impressed him about Tindley was how "he made his
church a sort of vessel into which people were welcome to bring all their
traditions. He believed that the spiritual needs of the community could not
be addressed without taking into consideration the practical and material
27
needs for food, housing, and clothing." Tindley was known and loved by
his congregation as much for his willingness to help them find employ-

ment or raise money for a down payment on a house as for his masterful
28
preaching and skillful orchestration of Sunday worship.
Tindley's sense of inclusion and balance between religion of the head,
heart, and hands is characteristic of Methodist holiness and were the
defining attributes of Richard Allen and John Wesley. Historically, the
African-American church has been the face of the Black community; and
church membership was not a prerequisite for receiving benevolence to pay
rent or find a place for a respectable burial and funeral. A notable preacher
once echoed this holistic approach to religion with ungrammatical profun
dity when he remarked, "If your religion don't make you feel somethin,'
29
think somethin,' and do somethin,' you can be sure you ain't got nothing.'"
Today's African-American worship takes a page from Charles Tindley's
style of worship as it attempts to be inclusive to meet the spiritual needs of
all congregants in worship. The music and liturgy are diverse in order to
appeal to youth and adults, the masses and the classes, the lettered and
unlettered, the demonstrative and the undemonstrative. Holiness allows
for unity in diversity and respects individuality and differences. The
African-American traditions of "call and response" between the pulpit and
the pew, vocal praise, liturgical dance, and spirit possessions are very
30
evident in today's African-American worship experiences.
The largest and fastest-growing churches in the Methodist tradition are
congregations that appropriate the Bible-based, Holy Ghost-filled, and fire-
baptized worship experience. Today, in urban areas across the United
States, the Pentecostal holiness and urban Methodist style, once popular in
the rural South and sanctified churches in the North, have moved onto
college campuses and into middle-class traditional churches. Many (though,
of course, not all) African-American churches in mainline denominations
have rekindled a holy fire of Pentecost by incorporating such gifts as
speaking in tongues, spirit possessions, shouting, holy dancing, and laying
on of hands. The emotionalism that has traditionally been associated with
anti-intellectualism is becoming more and more fashionable. Emboldened
by the Civil Rights and Black Power movements, African Americans are
more comfortable with their own identity. More and more of them are no
longer impressed with whatever it means to be white.
Currently, African Americans are flocking to churches engaged in
holistic ministry. Many Black preachers have changed their preaching style
to address the needs of this generation. Particularly, youth and young
SUMMER 2005 167

adults are looking for ministers to do more teaching from the Bible, book-
by-book, chapter-by-chapter, and verse-by-verse, rather than ministers who
follow the old preaching style of delivering sermons. More and more,
African Americans are demanding relevant sermons that address their
everyday needs such as finance, relationships, physical fitness, alternative
medicines, AIDS awareness, and gender concerns. A growing number of
African-American churches are like spiritual shopping malls, offering schol
arships, programs for community or economic development, books,
tutoring, libraries, physical fitness centers, and computer labs. The trend
toward these holistic types of ministries is not new to the African-
American religious experience. Historically, the Black church has been the
cultural womb of the African-American community. For example, the
African-American church gave birth to the first schools, banks, insurance
companies, literary clubs, orphanages, drama clubs, and publishing compa
31
nies. In short, spreading scriptural holiness, making the world one's
parish, and applying God's Word to contemporary problemswhether spir
itual or temporalare inherent in the African-American religious experi
ence and culture.
Love Henry Whelchel, Jr., is Professor and Chair of the Department of Religion
and Philosophy at Clark Atlanta University in Atlanta, Georgia.
Endnotes
1. Gayraud S. Wilmore, Black Religion and Black Radicalism (Garden City, NY;
Doubleday Anchor, 1973), 19-20.
2. Thomas a Kempis, Imitation of Christ (Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor,
1955), 1.1.3. A slave in Georgia, Mary Gladdys, describes her experience during
an all-night prayer meeting: "All night long I've been feelin' im. . . . Jest befo'
day, I feels 'im. Jest befo* day. I feel 'im. The sperit. I feels 'im. The sperit, I feels
'im!" Quoted in Albert J. Raboteau, Slave Religion (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1978), 260.
3. Jon Butler, Awash in a Sea of Faith: Christianizing the American People
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990), 57.
4. Susan Hill Lindley, "You Have Stepped Out of Your Place": A History of Women
in Religion in America (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 174.
5. Ibid.

6. Zora Neal Hurston, Mules and Men (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1993), 51.
7. Rt. Rev. Richard Allen, The Life Experience and Gospel Labors of the Rt. Rev.
Richard Allen (Nashville: Abingdon, 1960), 29-30.
8. Elmer T. Clark, ed., Francis Asbury: Journal and Letters (Nashville: Abingdon,
1958), 1:408.
9. Warren Thomas Smith, Harry Hosier: Circuit Rider (Nashville: Upper Room,
1981), 15.
10. Milton C. Sernett, Afro-American Religious History (Durham, NC: Duke
University Press, 1985), 173.
11. Winthrop Hudson, "Shouting Methodists," Encounter 2 9 / 1 (Winter 1968):
73.
12. Amanda Berry Smith, The Story of the Lord's Dealings with Mrs. Amanda
Smith, the Colored Evangelist Containing an Account of Her Life Work of Faith
and Her Travels in America, England, Ireland, Scotland, India, and Africa, as an
Independent Missionary (Chicago: Meyer and Brother, 1893), 188.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid., 185.
15. Malidoma Patrice Some, The Healing Wisdom of Africa (New York: Penguin
Putnam, Inc., 1997), 150-51.
16. Smith, Harry Hosier, 15.
17. John Wesley, Fifty-Three Sermons, ed. by Edward H. Sugden (Nashville:
Abingdon, 1983), 277.
18. Richard Allen, Life Experience and Gospel Labors, 50.
19. Ibid., 48-65.
20. Love Henry Whelchel, Hell without Fire: Conversion in Slave Religion
(Nashville: Abingdon, 2002), 16.
21. J. W. E. Bowen, "What Shall the Harvest Be?": A National Sermon or Series to
the Colored People of America on Their Problem (Washington, D.C.: Asbury
Methodist Episcopal Church, 1892), 3. These sermons can be found in Special
Collections in the Emory University Woodruff Library.
22. Ibid., 5.
23. Ibid., 6.
24. Thomas C. Holt, The Problem of Race in the Twenty-First Century (Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 2000), 92.
25. Alton Pollard III and Love Henry Whelchel, Jr., "How Long This Road,"
Race, Religion, and the Legacy of C. Eric Lincoln (New York: Palgrave MacMillan
Press, 2003), 221.
SUMMER 2005 169

26. Bernice Johnson Reagon, ed., We'll Understand It Better By and By: Pioneering
African American Gospel Composers (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institute
Press, 1992), 39.
27. Pollard and Whelchel, "How Long This Road," 222.
28. Ibid.
29. Ibid., 214.
30. Ibid.
31. Ibid., 226.

Outside the T h e m e
SYMPOSIUM:
A World Parish? Hopes and Challenges of The United

Methodist Church in a Global Setting
B r u c e W . Robbins
Bruce W. Robbins's A World Parish? Hopes and Challenges of The United Methodist
Church in a Global Setting (Nashville; Abingdon, 2004) presents a provocative inter
pretation of the issues facing The United Methodist Church as a global church that
deserves widespread conversation. The essays below, and Robbins's response, are
offered as a contribution to this vital dialogue.
TIM McCLENDON
B ruce Robbins's A World Parish? offers a challenging and thought-

provoking primer on the global nature of United Methodism. However,
the book does not have clarity about the nature of connectionalism as it
extends to a central concept of United Methodism in ministerial creden-
tialing. Robbins cites examples and sources from our ecclesiological history
that expose the fact that we are not indeed a global church. While it is true
that there are United Methodists in Africa, Europe, and the Philippines, the
Methodist family has largely gone the route of autonomy. United
Methodism does not extend to all four corners of the globe. What we are
left with, according to Robbins, is a church that is more international than
globalan "extended-national confessional" church, a descriptor Robbins
borrows from Janice Love. United Methodism is primarily a U.S. church
that has overseas franchises loosely held together by a common polity.
Certainly Robbins's book is a good introduction to tensions in the
connection. It proposes new ways to combat U.S. paternalism and the
power of its financial largesse. Robbins's notion that we should address
inequities in pension, bishops' salaries, and the fact that non-U.S. confer
ences do not pay any monies into the general church's apportioned funds
(except a sliding-scale amount for the Episcopal fund) is a superb idea.

SYMPOSIUM ON BRUCE W. ROBBINS, A WORLD PARISH?
However, the real issue of "self-headedness" (Robbins's term for autonomy)

is more about effective disciple-making than about structure. In all struc
tural issues form should follow function. Thus, the question is this: "Do our
structures (forms) undergird our stated function of making disciples of
Jesus Christ?" The answer to this question will help us reach Robbins's goal
of both self-headedness and interdependence.
Robbins provides an admirable history of past studies and plans about
United Methodist structure, including assessments of why they were not
adopted, and he seems to support a version of the Connectional Process
Team (CPT) report. He also offers snapshots of other churches' polities and
gives principles by which we as a denomination might release different
regions of the church from a strict understanding of the United Methodist
Discipline, Ultimately, Robbins is suggesting that we move toward a stronger,
more effective World Methodist Council in which the worldwide Wesleyan
family would resemble the Anglican Communion.
To this end, Robbins identifies not United Methodism's Book of
Discipline but its polity as the common link across international lines. He
cites 1f543.7, which states that central conferences have the power to
make such changes and adaptations to the Book of Discipline as the special
conditions and the mission of the church in the area require, especially
concerning the organization and administration of the work on local church,
district, and annual conference levels; provided that no action shall be taken
that is contrary to the Constitution and the General Rules of The United
Methodist Church; and provided that the spirit of connectional relationship is
kept between the local and the general church.
Robbins uses this Disciplinary paragraph to highlight his whole case

about the overall disconnect between United Methodists within and
outside the United States. He concludes that the flexibility granted to
central conferences to make certain adaptations to the Discipline is the crux
of United Methodism's lack of ecclesiological clarity. This seems to be the
main presupposition in his argument for an understanding of United
Methodism that promotes self-headedness in the midst of interdepen
dence. In other words, Robbins seems to say that if a means already exists
for non-U.S. conferences to provide for their own governance, then how are
we a global church anyway?

TIM McCLENDON
Robbins expresses the concern of many when he wonders whether

central conference delegates should vote at General Conference on issues
they are allowed to adapt and modify in their respective regions. He uses
the hot-button issue of homosexuality as a case in point for expanding
autonomy and adaptation of the Discipline to every region of the church,
including U.S. jurisdictions. About homosexuality, Robbins states, "[S]ome
Central Conferences exercise their right to change the Book of Discipline on
this controversial issue. Should that be a possibility for jurisdictions as
well?" (23) This implies that each jurisdiction, like the central conferences,
would be able to adapt and expand the Discipline as they determine.
At this point I question Robbins's facts and his understanding of
United Methodist polity and ecclesiology. At issue is our very identity as
United Methodists. My critique of Robbins's assumptive endorsement of
autonomy for both the U.S. and the central conferences begins with the
fact that our Constitution clearly states, "The United Methodist Church is
a part of the church universal, which is one Body in Christ" (Article IV, 1f4).
Robbins has been a champion of ecumenical relationships; yet his ideas
seem to propose a United Methodism even more fragmented than it is at
present and less able to embrace the unity of the body of Christ. From
recent events, we know that the model for the Anglican Communion is as
tenuous as holding together the remnants of the British Commonwealth.
Holding together the divergent tensions of self-headedness and interde
pendence is against our polity, except where mission is concerned.
Regional adaptations of the Book of Discipline for missional purposes are
necessary and important, unless they come at the expense of the whole.
I agree with Robbins that we need to applaud the permissive language
in the Book of Discipline that allows both U.S. and non-U.S. conferences to
structure themselves in ways that are best suited for their unique situa
tions. This resembles John Wesley's use of every strain of Christendom to
reform the Anglican Church. He borrowed from the Pietists, the Roman
Catholics, the Reformed, the Anglicans, and the Evangelical Revival strands
of Christian mission to further his efforts at making disciples. Thus, adapt
ability is a part not only of our heritage but also of our ecclesiology and
our polity, We do not believe in a one-size-fits-all ministry. We do believe in
doing whatever works in whatever situation to spread the gospel.
That said, we cannot surrender another tenet of Wesley's, namely,
uniformity. He may have tried to use all of the means that he could in
SUMMER 2005 173

disciple-making, but in some of the essentials, he was exacting. After all,

this is why we are called "Methodists." Particularly, Wesley was exacting in
his understanding of ministerial credentialing. Since the earliest days, our
episcopal polity has been an example of our desire to bring legitimacy to
the Methodist movement. The third Restrictive Rule in our Constitution
(If 19) protects the episcopacy, underscoring the fact that our polity is
weighted toward clergy. Although we are a church that touts the ministry
of all Christians, the Book of Discipline describes "charges" as pastoral
charges; and the number of lay delegates at every level of conferencing in
our system is disproportionately based on the number of clergy. Therefore,
although I embrace Robbins's encouragement for local autonomy, there are
limits, especially around ministerial credentialing. If connectionalism is
one of the primary ways that United Methodists do mission and employ
clergy, any self-headedness that we support, whether within the U.S. or
outside, must retain certain commonalities.
Specifically, with regard to ministerial credentialing, central conferences
are not permitted to change the Discipline in any way that violates the
Constitution. Paragraph 16 of the Constitution states, "The General
Conference shall have full legislative power over all matters distinctively
connectional " One of these distinctively connectional duties is "[t]o
define and fix the powers and duties of elders, deacons, supply preachers,
local preachers, exhorters, and deaconesses" ( f 16.2). In point of fact, the
Judicial Council has consistently upheld General Conference's prerogative
over central conference adaptations in the matter of ministerial credentialing.
Several of these judicial decisions illustrate the limits of autonomy
within United Methodist polity. In Decision No. 155, the case digest states,
A Central Conference may not change General Conference legislation

regarding the granting of full clergy rights for women. A Central Conference
may not refuse to accept a woman who has been given full clergy rights by an
Annual Conference. A bishop has the power to transfer a woman ministerial
member of an Annual Conference to any other Annual Conference provided
he has the consent of the bishop of the receiving Conference, and provided
1
the ministerial member agrees to said transfer.
This decision underscores the fact that a central conference cannot usurp
General Conference's oversight of clergy credentialing and deployment.

TIM McCLENDON
For example, where would clergywomen be if the church resorted to locally

driven sexist bigotry?
Similarly, Decision No, 313 states,
The general power conferred by the General Conference on a Central

Conference to make changes and adaptations regarding the ministry and other
subjects does not authorize a Central Conference or its Annual Conferences to
add to or subtract from the basic ministerial obligations established and pre
2
empted by act of the General Conference.
The full text of this decision is very clear in its argument that itiner
ating clergy from one annual conference or central conference to another
must abide by the same Disciplinary qualifications. Because ours is an epis
copal polity and we share clergy, self-headedness and interdependence
must yield to connectionalism's insistence on basic ministerial standards.
Without uniform standards for credentialing, we lose our connectional
polity. Robbins's book overlooks this challenge.
In conclusion, our primary commitment as United Methodists is to
mission. That commitment should not be restricted by national boundaries
or issues of nepotistic colonialism, I know from personal experience that
the global church adds richness to United Methodism. As we embrace the
pluralities of our world, we embrace Christ. Bruce Robbins admirably asks
us to find more effective ways to understand who we are and who we can
be. As his ideas are tested, I sincerely hope that we do not resort to section
alism or regionalism as means to a perceived autonomy. United Methodism
without clear connectionalism is not who we are, historically or ecclesiolog-
ically.
Tim McClendon is Senior Pastor of St. John's United Methodist Church in Rock
Hill, South Carolina.
Endnotes
1, See http://www.umc.org/interior judicial.asp?mid~263,
2. Ibid.
SUMMER 2005 175

SYMPOSIUM O N BRUCE W. ROBBINS, A WORLD PARISH?
HEINRICH BOLLETER
R obbins's book is the legacy of someone who has served for twelve
years as general secretary of the Commission on Christian Unity and
Interreligious Concerns. Yet it is a candid, strong voice in the cultivation of
the discussion on the global dimension of The United Methodist Church.
In his analysis of the current circumstances within which the denomi
nation finds itself, Robbins notes that General Conference has repeatedly
considered proposals about the "global nature of the church." These
proposals all failed before they even were discussed, he states quite frankly,
because the people are simply not equipped to understand the complexity
of the issues. Robbins opens the reader's eyes to the many facets of the
challenge to truly becoming a "global church."
As a bishop in one of the central conferences outside the United
States, I have a different view of the global configuration of The United
Methodist Church. Taking up Robbins's invitation for different points of
view, I offer the following perspective as a member of a United Methodist
minority in Europe.
Structure. I fully support Robbins's claim that "our current infrastruc
ture is unable to carry the weight of a truly just and sustainable global
church Now is the time to create a structure for a global church" (15).
The greatest weakness of the existing structure is that there is no place
where the U.S. branch of the family can discuss U.S. issues together. The
major themes of General Conference would be less political and more
missional if the church in the United States would clean its own house first.
This would allow us to focus more clearly and in a truly international way
on our shared calling, namely, to preach Christ to a broken world. In its
quadrennial meetings, the Central Conference of Central and Southern
Europe is able to deliberate fully over the many issues facing the region,
which includes Methodist minorities in fourteen nations, organized in
seven annual conferences.
Finances. Robbins is correct when he observes that central conferences
do not contribute to the connectional system through paying of apportion
ments. This leads him to speak about the "elephant" of huge financial
disparity. On the one hand, this issue has to do with global financial disparity
and the division of the world into poor and rich. On the other hand, though,
of the seven annual conferences in my episcopal area, two contribute fully to

HEINRICH BOLLETER
the Episcopal Fund, covering all the costs and not relying at all on the General
Conference budget. In collaboration with the central conference in Germany,
we are providing full support for the theological seminary in Reutlingen,
which we share. But for the two annual conferences (Switzerland-France and
Austria), our paying the full apportionment to the General Conference budget
and fully participating in the distribution of the funds might result in our
receiving support we did not anticipate.
The other five annual conferences in my episcopal area (in post-
Communist countries) are still fully dependent on support through connec
tional channels. Their contribution to the Episcopal Fund is minimal. One
of the problems is that the U.S. members of the denominational family are
often setting their priorities of support unilaterally and do not really under
stand the situation and the needs of the vulnerable and the poor in our
midst. For example, in the 2 0 0 0 - 2 0 0 4 quadrennium, the General
Conference provided almost $4 million in support of theological education
in post-Communist countries in Europe. In 2004, General Conference
changed its priorities for the ensuing quadrennium, leaving no budget for
theological education in post-Communist Europe. This sort of behavior
threatens to turn the global connection into a lottery.
T h e B o o k of Discipline in the Global Church. Central conferences
have the authority to edit and publish a central conference edition of the
Discipline. In addition to the Constitution, this Discipline contains revised,
adapted, or new sections in accordance with the powers given to central
conferences by the General Conference. Most delegates to General
Conference do not understand the role of the central conferences. Such
lack of awareness results in General Conference making ad hoc decisions
based on inadequate or wrong information.
Let me illustrate General Conference's incompetence in regard to
global issues with two examples. The Methodist Church in the Ivory Coast
(West Africa) wanted a more formal relationship with The United
Methodist Church. However, the process that was used to incorporate the
African denomination left a lot to be desired. There already exists a central
conference in the areathe West Africa Central Conference. The appro
priate process would have required that the proposal for formal admission
be submitted to General Conference through the West Africa Central
Conference and the General Board of Global Ministries. Instead, General
Conference failed to respect the regional structures, acting as if there were
SUMMER 2005 177

SYMPOSIUM O N BRUCE W. ROBBINS, A WORLD PARISH?
no West Africa Central Conference. Incidentally, the West Africa Central

Conference has yet to meetfor financial, not structural, reasons.
One of the categories of relationship with other members of the
Methodist family is the concordat churches. Concordats are presented to
General Conference on the recommendation of the Council of Bishops. In
2004, the Methodist Church of Puerto Rico was accepted as a concordat
church. Among central conference members the joy about the new rela
tionship with our Methodist brothers and sisters was troubled by the fact
that this special concordat is conferring more rights to this concordat
church than the Book of Discipline awards to central conferences, which are
full members in the connection.
These examples support Robbins's assessment of the present circum
stance that "our current infrastructure is unable to carry the weight of a
truly just and sustainable 'global church.'" In addition, the reader may sense
the uneasiness of one central conference member within the church family.
Robbins introduces the term United Methodist citizenship to remind us
of other dimensions of membership: local, global, United Methodist, Pan-
Methodist, American Methodist, etc. His discussion broadens our under
standing of belonging to the Methodist confessional family. However, in
Europe we would paint the picture in different colors. We are collaborating
on a permanent basis with the larger Methodist family through the struc
ture of the European Methodist Council. Recently, the Church of the
Nazarene was admitted to the council as an observer. Perhaps it is the
reality of living in a minority position in the European context that binds
the many autonomous Methodists, United Methodists, Nazarenes, and
others together. Even the British and Irish Methodists have become a
minority in the secular society of Europe.
The summary about the historic journey toward a global church has
many aspects. I highlight two: the history of overseas mission (often by
migration) and the formation of the central conferences and the history of
1
church unions. In a recent issue of Quarterly Review, Patrick Streiff, a
United Methodist church historian from Switzerland, wrote an account
that parallels Robbins's reflections. It is fascinating that the perspective
from outside the U.S. has another focus. In his article, Streiff juxtaposes the
period during the 1960s, when the overseas churches were virtually forced
to go into autonomy, with the predilection in the 1980s and 1990s to inte
grate minorities into a more global connection.

HEINRICH BOLLETER
Robbins is leading us into possible directions for the future. He quotes

the Council of Bishops: "If [The United Methodist Church] does not take this
step of becoming a global church, it will most likely face the danger of
becoming fragmented into autonomous churches in various nations of the
world, with the American segment becoming merely thatan American frag
2
ment of the once future of the global United Methodist Church." Familiar
themes manifest themselves once more: voices debating independence
versus connection; Christian unity and uniting churches; attempts at struc
tural change and structural visions; the disparity between the rich and the
poor regions, etc.
The selection of case studies by a U.S. partner (Philippines, Kenya,
South Africa, Ivory Coast, Russia, and Puerto Rico) is a mirroruninten
tional but nevertheless power driven and money drivenfor the condition
of being dominant. The boards and the partner churches in the U.S. are
carrying the banner of the global vision. They are selecting the partners
and the projects overseas. They are setting the priorities for new initiatives
and holistic strategies.
Finally, Robbins moves from assessment to learnings and principles for
change. The next time I read the book I will start with Robbins's "seven
principles for change." These include the spiritual dimension and the theo
logical view that unity in Christ is always a given from where we can start
afresh. If the global nature of The United Methodist Church is reflecting the
unity in Christ, it will find the appropriate structure, the spirit of sharing
resources, and the openness for the poor and the vulnerable in this world.
My son collects maps. Interestingly, the nation where the map is
printed also influences the sector of the global map that dominates the
map. The map of The United Methodist Church too often appears to be
"printed" in North America on behalf of all of us. This is always a signal for
how "center" and "margins" get defined. We have to overcome the mapping
of our mission from the geographic, economic, and political centers and
start by looking at the map from the margins.
In a time when our local churches tend to become more congregation-
ally focused and the global aspects are becoming increasingly delicate and
complicated and when the leadership role of the U.S. in the world is jeopar
dized, we need Robbins's candid and strong voice in cultivating the discus
sion on the global dimension of The United Methodist Church. I hope that
many will respond to Robbins's provocative statement of the issues.
SUMMER 2005 179

Heinricb Bolleter is Bishop of the Central Conference of Central and Southern

Europe.
Endnotes
1. Patrick Streiff, T h e Global Nature of The United Methodist Church: What
Future for the Branch outside the United States?** Quarterly Review 2 4 / 2 (2004).
M
2. Council of Bishops, A Report on the Global Nature of The United
Methodist Church," in The Ecumenical Implications of the Discussions of "The
Global Nature of The United Methodist Church" (General Commission on
Christian Unity and Interreligious Concerns, 1999), 87-88.
RUDIGER MINOR
B ruce Robbins's book is a contribution to an ongoing conversation in

The United Methodist Church concerning its mission and self-under
standing. As former general secretary of the General Commission on
Christian Unity and Interreligious Concerns, Robbins is not only well
equipped for this task but also has been an active part of such conversa
tions and has participated in enabling such dialogues and shaping their
content. As one would expect in a book written for a broad audience, for
the most part Robbins presents the main ideas, aims, directions, and even
controversies in a noncontroversial way, focusing on information over parti
sanship. Robbins retells the story of (United) Methodist world relationships,
beginning with the foundation of an annual conference in Liberia in 1832;
the introduction and growing role of central conferences; and the search
over the past four decades for a world structure for United Methodism.
Robbins dislikes the term global to express these relationships and struc
tures, a feeling I support wholeheartedly. While conceding the weakness of
the term international as a substitute, Robbins seems to have no better word.
Growing up in German Methodism, I got used to the expression "world
wide Methodist Church." This phrase recommends itself in that it does not
bear the imperial or political connotations of the other two.
In his attempt to understand United Methodism's peculiar mission and
structure, Robbins makes productive use of his profound knowledge of
other churches' polities and the ecumenical scene and discussion. He
places the worldwide United Methodist relational connection in a larger

RODIGER MINOR
context, consisting of a multiplicity of national settings within an

ecumenical network. Stressing the importance of an ecumenical commit
ment is important. However, Robbins seems to note a contradiction
between United Methodism's ecumenical commitment and the way the
church currently structures itself. According to Robbins, the current struc
ture of a strong connection between the jurisdictional conferences in the
U.S. and the worldwide central conferences competes with an ecumenical
understanding of global Christianity. Therefore, Robbins's sympathy, if not
bias, is for proposals that would strengthen autonomous structures. His
own model is that of a covenanted communion of "self-headed, regional"
Methodist communities that, he hopes, would be open to other Methodist
bodies and that, together, would seek closer links to the ecumenical
community. Since models like these have yet to be implemented in United
Methodism, Robbins diagnoses "a tradition of failure to change within
United Methodism" (112).
As a United Methodist living and working in a central conference, I
look at United Methodism from a different angle of experience and service.
Below, I recommend a different approach and, in the process, I point out
weaknesses in Robbins's argument.
Overemphasis o n geography and numbers, Robbins follows a
typology that was developed by Janice Love, who categorized The United
Methodist Church as belonging to the "extended-national confessional
model," similar to other U.S. denominations and some Orthodox
1
churches. If we look first of all at the geographic distribution, such a cate
gorization gives secular categories precedence over theological ones. (It
should be noticed that Love developed this typology in dealing with the
effect of "globalization" on churches.) However, Robbins should be aware
that, in Wesley's thought, "world" (alluded to in the title of Robbins's book)
has almost nothing to do with geographic extension. Rather, it refers to an
obligation to all persons in all places. Thus, designating The United
Methodist Church as a "world church" recalls the church's mission; it is not
a statement about the many countries and places in which United
Methodism has a presence.
Another problematic criterion is statistics. Robbins is right in pointing
to the uneven distribution of United Methodists in the world and the rela
tively small total numbers. However, he dwells too much on the fact that
United Methodists are a "tiny part of the body of Christians worldwide"
SUMMER 2005 181

(32). In a graph on the same page, United Methodism is represented by a

tiny dot in concentric circles of different bodies. This seems to affirm
Robbins's thesis; but the graph is misleading. If one applies the basic rules
of geometry to the graph, the circle for "All Christians" is more than 6,000
times larger than the "United Methodist" dot. Yet, according to the accom
panying figures, the real difference is 210. However, a more important ques
tion has to do with just what these statistical figures truly represent.
"Membership*' numbers claimed by "(former) national" and "traditional"
churches" (usually representing a history of identification of church and
nation) are incommensurable with the "committed membership" (a term
from the conversations on church union in France in the 1930s) of "free
churches." Therefore, statistics that count regular communicants or worship
attendance give a more accurate picture of the reality in Christianity. For
example, it has been shown that, on an average Sunday in Russia, more
people attend Protestant worship services than attend services of the
Russian Orthodox Church, notwithstanding the latter's much larger official
membership.
Obsession with finances. Robbins calls finances the elephant in the
room, He describes the central conferences as a financial burden to the
church and its agencies and laments the "huge financial disparity" and
dependency in United Methodism. Finances and control over them are
indeed crucial matters and not only for the relationship between central
conferences and U.S. church. Given the gravity of these issues, it is important
for Robbins not to perpetuate imprecise information and vague fears but to
present exact facts. I cite two examples of where Robbins gets it wrong. His
portrayal of the proposed Central Conference Pension Fund (22) makes it
appear as if U S . pension funds would be diverted to this new fund at the
expense of U.S. pensioners. Instead, a brief look at the materials produced by
the task force reveals that great pains were taken to distinguish clearly
between the new fund and U.S. funds. To be sure, U.S. annual conferences
are invited to contribute a share of their receipts from The United Methodist
Publishing House, which is earmarked for pension. Moreover, the annual
reports of the General Council on Finance and Administration show the real
relationship between episcopal salaries in the U.S. and those in the central
conferences to be far from "nearly equivalent" (92).
The more important issue concerns equitable sharing of the financial
burdens in the connection. I am grateful to Robbins for stating that

RODIGER MINOR
"funding goes in one direction from the US to the Central Conferences"

(89), while central conferences "pay nothing" (91) into the "apportioned"
funds, except for the Episcopal Fund. Twenty-five years of involvement in
connectional matters has taught me that apportionment is a volatile issue,
but less so for the central conferences. Apportionments are a small, albeit
important, part of the denomination's overall funding. However, except for
what is designed as "mission support" by the General Board of Global
Ministries, only a small part of apportionment money is used for central
conference purposes. Given the growing involvement of central confer
ences in the general church, this portion has been growing over the past
few quadrennia. Therefore, the issue of central conference contributions to
apportioned funds deserves discussion. (The newly established Connect
ional Table, which has strong central conference representation, might be
the proper place for such conversations.)
The issue of apportionments is too narrow a basis for a fair assessment
of giving in The United Methodist Church. Considering economic situations
and income structures, one can argue that per capita giving in the central
conferences is higher than that in the U.S. church. It is true that the central
conferences receive substantial financial contributions from the United
States. However, these contributions do not come from apportionments;
instead, most of the funds are voluntary gifts raised through other avenues,
predominantly through the "Advance for Christ and His Church." Does this
practice add to the "patterns of dependency" Robbins diagnoses as "part of
the actual infrastructure of the UMC" (21)? As with any donor-recipient rela
tionship, the danger of dependency is always near. In my experience of more
than a decade of service "at the receiving end" of this benevolence, the
United Methodist connectional system, especially given the growing influ
ence of persons from central conferences in denominational decision
making processes, provides for the possibility of sharing of resources that
avoids such dependency.
Borrowing of structural models from other traditions to the
neglect of genuine Methodist polity. Robbins helpfully uses many exam
ples, quotations, and stories to present the polity of various churches and
confessions. However, the reader has to wade through a third of the book
before encountering the keyword for United Methodist polity: connectional
(40). Even when Robbins does discuss the term (70//.), he fails fully to
appreciate the fundamental point that, in United Methodism, connection is
SUMMER 2005 183

synonymous with church. That is, for United Methodists, "connectional

system" describes a peculiar way of interdependence of persons, congrega
tions, conferences, and agencies on a variety of levels. It is characterized by
a high degree of mutual commitment and support, as well as flexibility and
adaptability to various and changing situations. We cherish the experience
of the universality of the church over differences of nations and countries
as an important means to further mission and ministry. In this way, it
provides a much higher degree of commitment and coherence than the
understanding of "connexion" in the British Methodist tradition (27,31) or
"acts of covenant," as recommended by Robbins (114).
Some of the motives for autonomy ("self-headedness") that Robbins
cites (68-69)"national political pressure"; "more effective mission";
"organic union"have been elements that showed the strength of the
connectional system. Methodism in Europe would not have overcome the
onslaught of Nationalism and Communism without being part of a world
wide connectional church. The new "Mission Initiatives" of the General
Board of Global Ministries, formed in the 1990s in the pattern of the
"Russia Initiative," provide a model of grassroots involvement in mission
combined with institutional accountability that is linking Christians and
churches in many countries. On the other hand, in most cases, Methodist
churches that choose to leave the connection and enter into organic
unions lose their typical thrust and energy, to be replaced with mainline
Presbyterian/Reformed attitudes.
One reason why the central conference model has "prevailed" (63)
might very well be because it has been a genuine expression of the United
Methodist connectional system. Robbins celebrates the proposals in the
1960s by the "Committee on the Structure of Methodism Overseas"
(COSMOS) to do away with the organic unity of the then Methodist
Church as a "high water mark of the move to a new structure that favored
autonomous bodies worldwide" (57). For me, these proposals represent
probably the lowest point of an understanding of the worldwide connec
tion. General Conference chose a system that has been proved in practice.
Alongside Robbins's chronicle of "failure to change" we need a report
about the successes of the connectional system, including the central
conference system. One of Methodism's statesmen in the twentieth
century, Bishop John L. Nuelsen (1867-1946, bishop 1908-1940) may serve
as a witness. As leader of Methodism on both sides of the Atlantic,

RODIGER MINOR
Nuelsen steered the European Methodist communities through the diffi

cult times of nationalism and fascism and initiated a noble attempt of
mission and relief in Russia, which was aching under the burden of civil
war and societal strive. His characterization of the central conference
system, given at the Central European Central Conference in 1925, still
captures the vision and goal for further development of that institution;
Central Conferences are a link between Annual Conferences, with their local
duties, and the General Conference, with its worldwide tasks. They are an
expression of the structural principle that areas outside the U.S. are not mere
colonies of the American church but fully qualified parts of the church that
design their own rules according to their conditions of life, however, within
the framework of the common constitution. . . . While English Methodism
looks upon national autonomy in the different countries and, therefore,
renounces organic union, for its part, American Methodism seeks to build up
the idea of federation, more and more granting responsibility of self-adminis
tration to the church in various continents and countries but maintaining the
organic union of the worldwide Methodist Episcopal Church. Central
2
Conferences are an important step on this way,
Rudiger Minor, now retired, was bishop of the Euro-Asia Episcopal Area of The
United Methodist Church.
Endnotes
1. Janice Love, "Is United Methodism a World Church?" in The Ecumenical
Implications of the Discussions of "The Global Nature of The United Methodist
Church" (General Commission on Christian Unity and Interreligious Concerns,
1999), 99-110.
2. John L. Nuelsen, Die letzten Schritte zur Selbstandigkeit der Bischdflichen
Methodistenkirche in Deutschland (Bremen, 1936), my translation.
SUMMER 2005 185

BRUCE ROBBINS RESPONDS
I am grateful for the careful attention that the three reviewers have given to
my book. I sought to bring to public attention issues facing The United
Methodist Church in regard to its structure, especially in settings beyond
the United States. Tim McClendon contends that the question of ministe
rial credentialing lies at the heart of how we hold together the "connection"
within United Methodism. Bishops Minor and Bolleter speak from a
perspective very different from the United States perspective I bring to the
issues. Both of them represent minority Methodist communities in Europe
and beyond. Minor has been the bishop of Eurasia, based in Moscow; and
Bolleter continues as bishop of many conferences in Europe, and even
extending to North Africa. Bishop Bolleter recognizes the lack of informa
tion and knowledge by United States leaders, especially at the place where
it matters mostGeneral Conference. Bishop Minor acknowledges the
emphasis I place upon the importance of geography, numbers, and statistics
but believes I overemphasize those areas in the book.
I do stand guilty of overemphases in some respects. I do dramatize the
differences between the "global church" we call ourselves and the body that
may be the only truly global church, namely, the Roman Catholic Church
(with a membership difference of 10 million to 1 billion). I do call attention
to the fact that General Conference makes polity and structure decisions
without awareness of the financial implications of their actions. (Some
compromises were added to the actions to address financial and structural
issues, but the vast majority of delegates seeking to make informed deci
sions were unaware of these.) I do emphasize questions and issues that
have received minimal attention in United Methodist circles. To this day, I
know of no other publication that begins to discuss the web of relationships
and issues that comprise our reality as a "global church," even when those
relationships have a large impact upon the day-to-day lives of United
Methodists. As Bishop Bolleter points out, General Conference is making
"ad hoc decisions based on inadequate or wrong information." As examples,
he cites the decisions taken by General Conference in 2004 on the
Methodist Church in Ivory Coast and the Methodist Church of Puerto Rico.
My hope in writing the book was to start a conversation about these
weighty matters; and I appreciate the opportunity offered by Quarterly
Review to engage the discussion in its pages.

BRUCE W, ROBBINS
Both Minor and McClendon challenge my understanding of "connec-

tionalism." Minor suggests that United Methodism offers a cohesion and
sense of mutual commitment and support that I do not fully appreciate.
McClendon fears that my proposal lacks faithfulness to a basic tenet of
Wesley's vision for disciple-making, namely, "uniformity." Both challenges
deserve careful response.
Connectionalism and Commitment

Minor is concerned that I have neglected "genuine Methodist polity." He
believes that I have missed the point that "connectionalism" is synonymous
with "church." My argument is that, while connectionalism is important
within United Methodism, an appropriate ecclesiology must distinguish
between "our" connection and that which binds Christians everywhere.
Otherwise, we might confuse United Methodism with the universal
church! United Methodism represents less than 1 percent of the global
Christian community. We are called to celebrate the way that God has
worked within other Christian churches as well. Consider Pentecostalism,
which is growing rapidly worldwide. In important respects, Pentecostalism
has deep roots in the Wesleyan tradition, spread by Methodists from the
United States and Britain. This makes many of our Pentecostal friends our
cousins, part of our family.
By separating out three voices that call to usSelf-Headedness,
Interdependence and Connection, and Christian UnityI have emphasized
the need for a sense of ecclesial self that is rooted locally, in the connection
in Methodist tradition, and in the gift of unity within the body of Christ, to
which we are called by Scripture. (British Methodists have defined
"connexion" more narrowly, meaning by the term only those issues specifi
cally associated with the British Methodist Conference.) Bishop Minor
concludes his review by demonstrating ways in which the structural rela
tionship with the United States has helped small Methodist communities
to keep a foothold in the face of Communism and nationalism. I accept
that it was helpful in such contexts. But the situation of the vast majority
of United Methodists in central conferences is very different. In Africa and
the Philippines, United Methodism's "connection" has been caught up in
the secular issues of neocolonialism and financial dependency/globaliza
tion. These forces exert huge influence and pressure upon the structure.
Bishop Minor concludes his review with an excerpt from Bishop
SUMMER 2005 187

SYMPOSIUM ON BRUCE W. ROBBINS. A WORLD PARISH?
Nuelson, one of the bishops serving in Germany from 1908 through 1940.
Bishop Nuelsen had hoped that General Conference would grant more
and more "responsibility of self-administration" to central conferences
while maintaining the "organic union" through the Methodist Episcopal
Church. Beginning in 1928, important changes got underway at General
Conference, such as "granting" central conferences the right to elect their
own bishops rather than having them sent from the United States. The
problem, which became apparent then and remains so today, is that it is
General Conference that does the granting. In those early years of the decon-
struction of the colonial system, many Methodists wanted greater
autonomy and not be dependent upon the largesse of General Conference.
Two of the earliest national Methodist groups to appeal for self-headedness
were Brazil and Korea. Would anyone today argue that those churches
should have remained as central conferences?
Connectionalism and Ministerial Credentialing

Tim McClendon believed that my proposals ignored an essential piece, or
commonality, necessary for an authentic connectionalism, namely, unifor
mity in ministerial credentialing. I appreciate this critique. He quite appro
priately points to an assumption that I was making about the breadth of
possibility of central conferences to edit and amend the Book of Discipline.
Although not saying so specifically, I do imply that central conferences
may be able to change the language in the Discipline that relates to homo
sexuality (23). McClendon argues that, in regard to ministerial creden
tialing, the central conferences are bound by the specifics in the Book of
Discipline. Citing two recent Judicial Council decisions that upheld the
responsibility of General Conference to establish "basic ministerial obliga
tions," McClendon claims that central conferences are prohibited from
changing the language of sections dealing with matters of ordination or
ministerial order. He further argues that "self-headedness and interdepen
dence must yield to connectionalism's insistence on basic ministerial stan
dards." He believes that without those standards we will lose our connec
tional polity.
Several points are in order. Prior to the creation of The United
Methodist Church in 1968, the Constitution of the Methodist Church
called for General Conference to "define and fix the qualifications and
l
duties of elders, deacons , . ." After 1968, the language in the Constitution

BRUCE W, ROBBINS
was changed, calling for the General Conference to "define and fix the
2
powers and duties of elders, deacons . . ." Judicial Council Decision No.
313 held that an annual conference (Norway) could not add an additional
requirement (for abstinence) for candidates to ministry because the
General Conference has responsibilities for all things "distinctively connec
3
tional." I am convinced that today there is much less certainty on this
issue. Recent Judicial Council decisions (for example, Decision 536) have
held that annual conferences are able to set standards for ministry higher
than those set by General Conference. Decision 313 was overturned.
I do not think that ministerial standards can be the basis of our
connectional polity. Yet McClendon is correct when he says that our
primary commitment must be to mission. A passion for proclaiming the
gospel of Jesus Christ based upon the unique gifts and vision of John and
Charles Wesley can hold us together. But who is being held together? I
think the only answer to that question must include those who emerged
from the Wesleyan tradition-be they British Methodists, Wesleyans, or
United Methodists. Let us configure ourselves in the different places of the
world where we can live together in mission with other Wesleyans, not
competing with one another but proclaiming the gospel to a broken world:
governing ourselves regionally, supporting ourselves within our church
structures, and cooperating in spreading the message.
Bruce W. Robbins is Senior Pastor at Hennepin Avenue United Methodist Church

in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Before that he served as General Secretary of the
General Commission on Christian Unity and Interreligious Concerns of The
United Methodist Church.
Endnotes
1. The Doctrines and Discipline of The Methodist Church-1964 (Nashville: The
Methodist Publishing House, 1964), If 8.2.
2. The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church-1968 (Nashville: The
Methodist Publishing House, 1968), If 15.2.
3. See Doctrines and Discipline, f 8; cf. Book of Discipline, f 15.
SUMMER 2005 189

The Church In Review
What is the key to renewal in The United Methodist Church in

the twenty-first century?
ELAINE STANOVSKY RONALD K. CRANDALL
T he United Methodist Church is

suffering from the dry rot of
distrustnot everywhere, not all the
J ohn Wesley noted that no great
movement of God's Spirit and
the extension of the gospel seemed
time, but often enough to threaten to last for more than a season. Thus,
its integrity and credibility as an he wrote;
agency capable of bearing the gospel.
Members don't trust leaders. Leaders I am not afraid that the people
don't trust one another. People who called Methodists should ever
give money don't trust decision cease to exist either in Europe or
makers who spend money. There are America. But I am afraid lest they
rifts based upon geography, theology, should only exist as a dead sect,
and culture and faults running having the form of religion
between and within the general without the power. And this
agencies. Within the church we have undoubtedly will be the case,
grown so distrustful of one another unless they hold fast both to the
that we are losing faith and our doctrine, spirit, and discipline
ability to serve God's mission effec 1
with which they first set out.
tively in the world. Dominance,
suspicion, and protectionism mark For me, renewal in The United
the culture of distrust. Humility, Methodist Church will happen in
curiosity, and generosity of spirit are
three modesas doctrine, as spirit,
the marks of trust that are missing.
and as discipline. Let me explain.
The key to renewal in our For Wesley, doctrine was not so
church is for our leaders and our much a matter of theological ideas to
people to return to God and turn to be debated as it was the wonderful
one another in faith. Only then will reality of God's threefold amazing
we be able to engage the world with grace.
a gospel message of hope. First, salvation brought to the
continued on page 191 continued on page 194

VOLUME 25. NUMBER 2. SUMMER 2005
ELAINE STANOVSKY
continued from page 190

In a period of extraordinary global insecurity, the Christian church
offers faith in one God, whose Kingdom is secure beyond all threat of
attack. Yet, just when the world desperately needs such a faith, the church
shows signs of functional agnosticism. We are losing confidence that God
is truly one and able to unify our conflicted church and world. One
symptom of this unease is that Christians can be heard to speak of God in
competition with many gods. Another symptom is growing intolerance of
differences, both within the church and throughout the human family. The
church will be renewed only as we, the people and leaders of the church,
deepen our faith that God continues to cradle human history with mercy
and power to heal.
Monotheism was hard won in the history of ideas. In early biblical
times, many cultures existed side by side, each worshiping its own gods.
Cultures clashed; gods did battle with one another. Who can forget that
fiery scene on Mount Carmel when the followers of Baal and the followers
of Yahweh put their gods on trial to see which would prevail? A winnowing
occurred and some gods fell out of use. Over time a biblical consensus
emerged that there is only one God, who engages with the world, but from
a place beyond the exigencies of time and culture, tribe, and language. This
one God has power to save, presides over heaven and earth, and is the one
God for all the people of the earth.
The notion of one God allows us a certain civility about the variety of
ways of being human in the world. Since one God rules over heaven and
earth, we need not insist upon uniformity in humankind. People who are
different need not be enemies, divided by allegiance to competing gods.
They can be brothers and sisters, united by one God, despite cultural differ
ences. Monotheism allows us to chalk the variety of human beings up to
perspective: we all perceive the one God from a variety of perspectives in a
variety of cultural contexts and through the clay vessels of our physical
bodies and our historically shaped lives. Those different perspectives lead
to different religious interpretations and social structures.
Some might call this view relativism. However, I am not claiming that
God changes with time and place but rather that human perceptions and
interpretations of the one God vary with time and place.
Recently, some Christians have reverted to talking as if the one God
were one among many gods. Consider these examples. Soon after 9 / 1 1 ,
SUMMER 2005 191

THE KEY TO RENEWAL IN THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
some civic and religious leaders went on radio to decry the tragic loss of
life and security and to call people to religious understanding and civility.
As a Muslim leader spoke about the teachings of compassion and peace in
the Quran, a man interrupted, shouting, "Your god is not my God!" More
recently, I received a statement by a self-proclaimed evangelical in The
United Methodist Church, claiming that the "god" heard by some in the
church is not the "One revealed in the Holy Bible." Even Bishop William
Willimon, in a recent article, struggled with the profound differences
between Christian and Muslim expressions of faith. "True, both faiths talk
about 'love,' 'peace,' 'justice,' b u t . . . we have remarkably different ways of
defining or obtaining love, peace, and justiceso different that, well, it's
1
almost as if we were worshiping a different God."
I am alarmed when I hear Christian people suggesting out loud that
God is not one but rather that many gods are competing to influence
human affairs. As a Christian, if I allow the possibility that different people
worship different gods, then God is no longer secure on the throne of
heaven and thus is stripped of the power to reconcile the world. My
mission ceases to be to introduce people to Jesus Christas salvatore mundi,
"savior of the world." I become just another partisan, arguing that my god
is better than other gods in a marketplace of competing deities. Rather
than being the incarnation of the one God, Jesus becomes no more than
the name brand for my sectarian god. Without the reality of one God with
the power to reconcile, the human community fragments into competing
tribes, loyal to a multiplicity of gods and lacking unifying hope for the
human family.
If we truly believe that there is only one God and that this God has the
power to reconcile our differences and draw us together in faith, then we will
turn to one another in humility and work to live and grow in peace with one
another within the church and throughout the world. In a recent work,
Margaret Wheatley, a spiritual guru of the organizational world, admonishes
2
the secular world to "turn to one another." In this time of polarization, why
has the church not led the way toward conversational reengagement? Is it
because we do not know the way? Throughout the church, we need to learn
to know one another through holy conversation.
After General Conference adopted the Unity Resolution in Pittsburgh
last year, a colleague with whom I had struggled mightily, approached me
with outstretched hand, saying, "I look forward to our working together." I

ELAINE STANOVSKY
replied, "It will be hard work for us to learn to be church together." I was
making a confession with that statement: / don't know if I have the heart for
bridging the divides that separate us. Setting distrust aside and choosing to trust in
spite of all the evidence will be so hard that we can't do it alone. We will need the
transformative power of the one God to rebuild the fabric of trust within the church.
Before The United Methodist Church can engage the world in a
renewed and renewing way, we will have to become a community of faith
in God and trust in one another. To accomplish this, I hope that we will
dedicate time, energy, and creativity to "turning to one another." What if
every annual conference session included class meetings where members
could grow in connectional Christian fellowship? What if annual confer
ences invited ambassadors from other regions of the church to participate
in their conference sessions? The Southeastern Jurisdiction opened this
door by inviting participants from the Western Jurisdiction to an event last
quadrennium. What if we prepared for General Conference 2008 by
sending visitation teams of one delegate from each of the jurisdictions and
central conferences to each jurisdiction and central conference to sample
the rich variety of ministry and mission across our church? Could the one
God whom we all serve draw us together in a single family of faith, even as
we experience the breadth and depth of our diversity?
Returning to God and turning to one another in trust will restore the
integrity of The United Methodist Church and set us free to minister to the
world. Herein lies the hope for solving our doctrinal differences, recon
ciling our variant interpretations of Scripture, and coming to a consensus
about the character of our mission and ministry. God calls us to this work
and empowers us to do it. Is our faith strong enough to risk turning to one
another in confidence? Let us preach this faith until we have it.
Elaine Stanovsky is Superintendent of the Seattle-Tacoma District in the Pacific

Northwest Annual Conference of The United Methodist Church.
Endnotes
1. William Willimon, The Christian Century (16 November 2004).
2. Margaret J. Wheatley, Turning to One Another: Simple Conversations to Restore
Hope to the Future (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 2002).
SUMMER 2005 193

continued from page 190

world through Jesus Christ is profoundly active and creative, always
moving toward us to awaken our souls to the kingdom of God far before
we know of its arrival. This wooing and inviting work of God on behalf of
all persons and peoples is prevenient, or preparing, grace.
Second, this active movement of God's grace toward us becomes trans
forming grace in us when we, in response to the good news of Jesus' life,
death, and resurrection, by faith turn away from sin's deception and "trust
2
in Christ, Christ alone for salvation," thereby experiencing life eternal-
knowing the only true God, and Jesus Christ" (John 17:3). This new birth
of divine life within us is justifying, or restoring, grace and allows us to
know the cleansing and liberating love of God that "surpasses knowledge"
(Eph. 3:19). No one is beyond the reach of God's grace, and all may find
this restorative reality.
Third, this grace of God in us is a profound mystery, described in
Scripture and experienced by Christians as the indwelling Holy Spirit
(Rom. 8:15-17) or Christ in us (Col. 1:27), "the hope of glory." This perme
ating presence of Christlikeness, or holiness, is intended to change us
"from one degree of glory to another" (2 Cor. 3:17-18), until we are "filled
with all the fullness of God" (Eph. 3:19) and have the mind of Christ (Phil.
2:1-11). This is sanctifying, or transforming, grace.
This core of Methodist "doctrine" is our understanding of God's work
in us to empower and equip us for joyful obedience to the great command
ment (Mark 12:28-33) and the Great Commission (Matt. 28:16-20). The work
of being living witnesses to this gospel is what John Wesley described as
God's design for raising up Methodists: "Not to form any new sect; but to
reform the nation, particularly the Church; and to spread scriptural holiness
3 4
over the land." This "medicine of life" for all peoples is always at the heart
of renewal. Wherever it is forgotten or forsaken, decline and decay result.
We also need renewal as spirit. Spirit is life. The spirit of any creature,
person, or movement is its power. We all longed for Smarty Jones to win
the Triple Crown because that less-than-mighty horse reminded us that
"inspiration" is what makes something ordinary into something extraordi
nary. Human beings are created by and for the ultimate spirit, God's Spirit.
Our power as witnesses to the gospel of Jesus Christ is the Spirit's
power (Acts 1:8). The power of the gospel is always the power of self-sacrifi
cial love. True Christian leadership is always more about spirit and servant-

RONALD K. CRANDALL
hood than about votes and rhetoric. It claims little for itself and all for
Christ. Do our leaders and congregations recite Wesley's Covenant
Renewal with true surrender or merely as a quaint relic of history?
Lord, make me what you will.

I put myself fully into your hands;
put me to doing, put me to suffering,
let me be employed for you, or laid aside for you,
let me be full, let me be empty,
let me have all things, let me have nothing.
I freely and with a willing heart
5
give it all to your pleasure and disposal.
Spirit is contagious. Methodism's power has always been a "high expec

tation" gospel, full of spirit and directed to the world as our parish. Early
Methodism was often referred to as "more caught than taught." If we
longed for this spirit to be our spirit, then God's Spirit would lead us to a
great new day of contagious witness.
Last, we need renewal as discipline. Discipline was how "Methodists"
got their name. Even before Aldersgate, Methodists were deeply committed
to doing God's will, not just discussing it. The Great Commission reminds
us that our task is to "make disciples" and teach them to obey. The obedi
ence that honors and glorifies God emerges out of the life described above
as doctrine and spirit. Discipline that renews can never merely be organiza
tional rules in a book or even practicing the means of grace. These are only
means, not the end itself. The end is "You will be my witnesses" (Acts 1:8).
We are often an undisciplined church. Questions asked at ordination
services sometimes seem to generate more humor than radical commit
ment. District superintendents and boards of ordained ministry are
constantly dealing with congregations and spiritual leaders that have little
or no manifestation of the Holy Spirit's fruit of "self-control" and often not
much "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, and
gentleness" (Gal. 5:22) either.
How are these qualities of Christian character produced? They emerge
out of (1) "abiding" as branches in the true vine, Jesus, and submitting to
God's "pruning" (John 15); (2) practicing disciplined accountability and
loving nurture in small groups (Acts 2:43-47); and (3) investing heart and
SUMMER 2005 195

treasure in God's mission to reach the lost and call for "justice and mercy
and faith" (Matt. 23:23).
Either we are a company of the committed or we are a losing enter
prise. We cannot any longer believe that counting members or even easy
professions of faith is of the utmost importance. Our task is to make disci
ples who follow the real Jesus and are ready to become Spirit-led workers
in the Kingdom. Without disciplined and skilled leaders who are in love
with their Master and his gospel and are willing to respond with their
whole lives, The United Methodist Church will more than likely simply
fulfill John Wesley's fear and not his legacy.
I pray that we will continue to be encouraged by every sign of hope,
exhort and train young and old alike to fulfill their high calling as children of
God and followers of Jesus, and reclaim our rich heritage of personal and
social holiness through the transforming power of the Holy Spirit so that the
neighbor, the stranger, the lonely, and the lost, whether nearby or halfway
around the world, may come to know him who is life and hope and love. In
the last analysis, God's agenda is not the renewal of United Methodism but
Jesus and the Kingdom. To the degree that this is our agenda, God's Spirit
will use and renew us so that we might be blessed to be a blessing.
Ronald K. Crandall is Acting Dean in the E. S. J School of World Mission and

Evangelism at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky.
Endnotes
1. John Wesley, The Methodist Societies: History, Nature, and Design, vol. 9 of The
Works of John Wesley, ed. by Rupert Davies (Nashville: Abingdon, 1989), 527.
2. John Wesley, Journals and Diaries I (1735-1738), vol. 18 of The Work of John
Wesley, ed. by W. Reginald Ward and Richard P. Heitzenrater (Nashville:
Abingdon, 1988), 250.
3. John Wesley, Addresses, Essays, Letters, vol. 8 of Wesley s Works (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1978), 299.
4. John Wesley, The Appeals to Men of Reason and Religion and Certain Related
Open Letters, vol. 11 of The Works of John Wesley, ed. by Gerald R. Cragg
(Nashville: Abingdon, 1992), 45.
5. "Covenant Renewal Service," The United Methodist Book of Worship (Nashville:
The United Methodist Publishing House, 1992), 291.

Lectionary Study
JOHN COLLETT
F or the first half of the twentieth century, on a downtown street in my

city, stood a Jewish temple and a Christian church, separated by a
single-family residence. The resident family's name was Pigg. To this day,
one of the rabbis associated with this heritage is fond of saying about this
early history that "the only thing separating the Jews and the Christians
were the Piggs."
Humor aside, after the atrocities against Jews during the 1930s and
early 1940s, these two neighboring congregations determined to do some
thing about the divide. In 1947, they committed to an annual Brotherhood
Banquet as a ritual to further friendship and understanding.
The congregations have long since moved from the downtown area, but
the tradition of the annual banquet is alive and well and has expanded to
include four other congregations: the church I serve; a historic and predomi
nately African-American church; a large Catholic parish; and (as of 2002) a
network of Muslims. Ending the male monopoly in the late 1960s, the event
has become The Annual Brotherhood-Sisterhood Interfaith Dinner.
Leaders of the six faith groups always have good intentions of doing
more together; but, at the very least, we share an annual feast, welcome one
another into the other's space, and renew our resolve that faith will bring
us closer together rather than push us farther apart. And since 9/11, we
have realized this tradition is needed more than ever.
How things have changed in our land across a century! Now many of
the neighborhoods of my city include not just churches but synagogues,
mosques, and temples of historically Eastern religions. Often they share
the same street The vast majority of our citizens hail this development as a
tribute to the openness of our society and a much-improved climate of
diversity and tolerance.
But do not our times call faith communities to share more than
geographic proximity and a general spirit of acceptance? If religion and

LECTIONARY STUDY
faith have anything to do with the well-being of humanity, now is the time
for the positives to come to the surfaceif we know what the positives are.
We are living in one of those hinge periods of history when an old order
is crumbling and the emerging order is still unclear. The global village that is
being knit together through ubiquitous telecommunications and interlocking
economies is simultaneously and paradoxically being torn by intolerance,
exclusivism, and hatred. Post-9/11, we are plagued with global tension
between Muslims and Christians in what geopolitical scholar Samuel
Huntington cites as one example of "the clash of civilizations." And then
there is the weird coalition between the American religious Right, motivated
by the delusions of millennialism, and the state of Israel allied against
Palestinians! We are also witnessing the resurgence of the arrogant and idola
trous ideology of Christian supremacyan ideology akin to white supremacy.
What do Jesus Christ and Christian faith have to do with such a world?
Does our life with the risen Lord serve only the purpose of advancing our
beliefs over others' or does Christ release hope, healing, reconciliation, and
the redemption of the human experience? Does Christ divide us or bring
us together? And do we Christians even know what we believe, what
distinguishes us, and what contribution our faith can make to the whole?
What is the core Christian virtue and life-practice that manifests transfor
mation? Does faith tap into a deeper wisdom reflective of the One who
created all of us and who is our common destiny?
What these concerns have to do with our texts from Matthew for the
next three weeks should become apparent. (We will deal with the text for All
Saints' Sunday separately.) A few general comments about what seems to be
Matthew's context and message might help connect his world and ours.
Several features of Matthew's Gospel suggest that the author was living in
a time and a situation of pronounced tension, if not hostility, between his
community of Jesus people, believing that Jesus is Messiah, and a more domi
nant community of Jewish faithful, insisting that Messiah was yet to come. It
seems that Matthew is writing at a time when the Jesus people are being
forced to understand themselves as distinct from the prevailing expression of
Judaism of his day yet fully within God's covenant intentions through Israel
and Messiah.
Matthew clues us to his main message in the marquee introduction to his
Gospel: "An account of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David,
the son of Abraham" (1:1). This first sentence charts a course for Matthew

JOHN COLLETT
demonstrating continuity of God's purposes from Abraham, through Moses,

David, and to Jesus. Sixteen times Matthew uses the title Messiah in reference
to Jesus, more than any of his Synoptic companions, Matthew goes to great
lengths to demonstrate how Jesus fulfilled the Abrahamic covenant, Mosaic
teaching, and prophetic vision, culminating in the messianic hopes of the
Hebrew Scriptures. "This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the prophet"
is Matthew's formula phrase. Fifteen times he uses a form of the word fulfill,
compared with Mark, who uses it only twice. In our second lesson of this
series, Matthew has Jesus explicitly raise the question of the Messiah with his
adversaries; "What do you think of the Messiah?" (22:42).
Matthew's Gospel also reflects an emphasis on the teachings of Jesus
and on Jesus as teacher. With the importance Judaism places on teaching
and following Torah, it was incumbent upon Matthew to show Jesus not only
as a teacher and practitioner par excellence of the Mosaic tradition but also as
one who embodies it, lives it, and breathes it. For Matthew, Jesus lived and
taught a higher righteousness than that prescribed even by the Pharisees, a
sect of strict obedience, regarded as a model for first-century Judaism. There
is yet another interesting way in which Matthew draws a distinction between
his community's embrace of Jesus as Messiah and the way the prevailing
Jewish community viewed Jesus, namely, as only a "teacher."
A word search of Matthew's Gospel reveals that teacher is used as a form
of personal address toward Jesus only by those persons and groups who are
not open to him: scribes (8:19; 12:38), Pharisees (12:38; 22:36), a rich young
man (19:16), and Sadducees (22:24). By contrast, Jesus' disciples and others
who are favorable toward him refer to him exclusively as "Lord" (twenty-one
times, including repeated examples in chapters 8 and 20). Therefore, it is
clear that Matthew intends to set Jesus apart as a teacher of a higher order.
As Messiah he is not just "Teacher" or "Rabbi" but also "Lord."
Matthew seems to be highlighting a parallel between "what happened"
between Jesus and his adversaries and the author's own religious context of
conflict with a more dominant Jewish majority. Most commentators sum up
these and other observations about Matthew's Gospel by proposing that
the author and his faith community were living in the period after the fall of
Jerusalem in 70 C.E., when Judaism was trying to regroup. With Jerusalem
and the Temple destroyed, with no geographic or sacred center, Jews were
rallying around all that was left-tradition, memory, togetherness, and Torah.
For purposes of self-understanding and survival, the Jewish faithful of
SUMMER 2005 199

LECTIONARY STUDY
Matthew's environment had shifted the emphasis toward an aggressive

teaching of and obedience to sacred law, modeled by scribes and Pharisees.
Christians were being pushed out of synagogue worship because they were
perceived as heretics and a threat to true Jewish faith. Thus, Matthew is
keen to defend how followers of Jesus as Messiah embody God's righteous
ness and God's true intentions to "make disciples" of all people.
Ironically, in this tense situation, the Jesus people were having to decide
what they really believed. They were having to sharpen their understanding of
and conviction for their affirmation that Jesus is Messiah, Lord, and Savior.
To hear the nuances of Matthew in his situation for his people, let us
place ourselves in the text as we have it, not in some imagined moment of
"what actually happened." After all, the Gospel evangelists are proclaiming not
so much the Jesus of the pastthe "historical Jesus" as they are the Jesus
who is the Risen Lord with the church now. Matthew gives us a template for
how the church can hear and experience Jesus as Messiah and Lord.
Our three texts from Matthew 2 2 - 2 3 are set in the larger context of the
growing conflict between the reign of God that has come near in Jesus and
the reign of earthly powers, including the state and the Jewish establish
ment. Beginning at 12:22, the conflict between divided "kingdoms" builds
and intensifies once Jesus is in Jerusalem (ch. 21). More specifically, our
texts are a part of Jesus' Temple teaching during his last week. Matthew
turns to the general question of "authority." By whose authority can Jesus
do the things he does and be worthy of the acclaim of Messiah?
October 16,2005Twenty-Second Sunday after Pentecost

Matt. 22:15-22; Exod. 33:12-23; Ps. 99; 1 Tbess, 1:1-10
On first reading, we notice that Matthew resets the stage of the growing
conflict between Jesus and sectarian groups: "Then the Pharisees went and
plotted to entrap him in what he said" (v. 15). Matthew's community would
have identified with Jesus as the target of opposition, because they were
experiencing the same thing from the hyper-pious Jewish majority.
In the textual scene, the Pharisees are desirous of additional pretexts
against Jesus to further justify their prior decision to destroy him (12:14).
So the Pharisees are not interested in genuine dialogue; they fain sincerity.
They simply want to build a stronger case against Jesus.
The second notation is that the Pharisees have allied themselves with the

JOHN COLLETT
Herodians, a sect loyal to the Jewish royal family during Jesus' time and
loosely allied with Rome as an act of accommodation. In positing this alliance
Matthew might have been suggesting that in practical terms there was not
much difference between the self-interests of pietists and royalists. These two
disparate groups try to force Jesus' hand in the politics and piety of false
choice. The case study they cite to entrap him regards the dilemma any loyal
Jew would face in whether to deal in pagan currency and pay the annual
Roman census tax, thus avoiding harassment by the foreign occupiers, or to
refuse to pay the tax as an act of piety and protest, thus risking harsh retalia
tion. "Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not?" they inquire (v. 17).
The Pharisees, positing themselves as the embodiment of absolute
virtue in all matters religious, denounced the payment of the tax on the
grounds that such might be a tacit acknowledgment of the emperor's self-
proclaimed divine status. The Herodians, on the other hand, being more
concerned with the royal family's national interests than with morality,
counseled payment of the tax on the grounds that accommodation to and
cooperation with the Roman occupiers were better in the long run.
The Pharisees thought they could force Jesus publicly to choose
between the "lesser of two evils" and thus open himself to the ire of either
the nationalistic appeasers (not to mention the Zealot rebels) or the
doctrine-and-discipline purists of their own ilk. And we notice the
Pharisee's use of "Teacher" as a veiled putdown of Jesus.
The Pharisees and Herodians are engaging in the classic tactic of the
politics of false choice. This strategy pretends honest debate when in fact
the choices are functionally false and serve primarily as diversions from
real solutions. Present-day parallels are astounding; moral absolutism or
moral relativism; fideism or secular humanism; doctrinal discipline or theo
logical ambiguity; preemptive wars or homeland insecurity; big-government
health security for all or free-market boutique medicine as a consumer
commodity; privatization of Social Security or letting it go broke.
Jesus' answer to the question of the religious lawfulness of paying the
tax seems at first to sidestep the dilemma: "Give therefore to the emperor
the things that are the emperor's, and to God the things that are God's"
(v. 21). The surface implication is that paying taxes to the state is not a
moral problem as long as one does not compromise giving to God what
God is due. While bearing some truth, this meaning would provide a
convenient resolution to any tension in the church-state polarity.
SUMMER 2005 201

LECTIONARY STUDY
But such a reading does not do justice to the subtlety and power of
Jesus' engagement with the Pharisees. The key to his ingenious diffusion
of his opponents lies in his directive: "Show me the coin used for the tax"
(v. 19). If the coin in play were typical of Roman currency at the time, it
bore an image of the emperor and the inscription "Tiberius Caesar, august
son of the divine Augustus, high priest." For a faithful Jew, dealing in such
currency would be a hard pill to swallow.
Notice, however, who did and who did not have the coins. Jesus,
though not necessarily advocating rebellion against the state, apparently
did not deal in Roman currency on a day-to-day basis. His opponents did,
thus exposing their hypocrisy. By such possession, they had already made
their decision to play both sides: talk the talk of pious abstention from
anything that smacks of selling out to a secular and heathen culture but
walk the walk of accommodation. "You hypocrites!" Case closed.
At a deeper level, Jesus is saying that regardless of the accommoda
tions one has to make in the real world of harsh political and economic
realities, one cannot compromise giving all of one's life to the sovereignty
of God. God gives everything, and everything belongs to God. Whether we
give what we have to the state or to the Temple, we are not off the hook of
responsibility for what is done with God's provisionsall of them.
What belongs to God? Any parsing with regard to the answer already
betrays our compartmentalized faith. The faithful answer is that everything
we are and have belongs to God. If life's choices present too great a tension
between our faithfulness to God and loyalty to country, then we have a
problem. The question of whether to pay taxes to the emperor misses the
point. A "yes" or a "no" presents the politics of false choice. The real issue is
whether one's fidelity to God is inclusive of one's heart, soul, mind, mate
rial resources, and neighbor-care. All other allegiances are secondary.
October 23,2005Twenty-Third Sunday after Pentecost

Matt. 22:34-46; Deut 34:1-12; Ps. 90:1-6,13-17; 1 Thess. 2:1-8
The Pharisees take another turn at Jesus, gleeful that he had "silenced"
another of their competitorsthe Sadduceesin the previous passage. This
time a specialist in sacred behavior and spiritual discipline comes forward
from the Pharisaic group to test Jesus. Again, Matthew has the questioner
use the title Teacher as a way to neutralize the exceptional nature of Jesus'

JOHN COLLETT
teaching: "Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?" (v, 36).
The specialists in matters of splitting spiritual hairs and moral behavior
must have stayed busy trying to sort out some commandments of God in
Torah. Trying to classify and rank this many "dos and don'ts" could be a
never-ending wrangle. And whose classification and ranking should one
trust? If it were admitted that no human being could absolutely obey every
commandment all the time, then are some more important than others?
Jesus diffused this kind of nitpicking by asserting that all God's teach
ings and commandments boiled down to one core disposition and self-
understanding: love. Love God with all your heart, soul, and mind.
Matthew eliminates Mark's inclusion of the beginning lines of the Shema
(12:29), "Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God,.the Lord is One," and deletes the
reference to loving God with all one's strength. But what is significant
about Jesus' inclusion of Lev. 19:18, "Love your neighbor as yourself," is
Matthew's insertion of the words "and a second is like it" (v. 39, italics
added). Matthew seems to draw the two great commandments even closer
together, as though one reflected the other. And Matthew has Jesus make
an even more comprehensive compression of God's expectations by
asserting that on these two commandments "hang all the law and the
prophets" (v. 40, italics added).
According to Matthew's Jesus, loving encompasses all of God's expecta
tions; and loving relativizes all other expectations. If we take seriously the
supremacy of love, then we are left with ethical ambiguity. Ethical ambiguity
throws us back to loving; we don't have the convenience of determining
ethical and faithful behavior by a list of "dos" and "don'ts." Determining how
to act lovingly requires nothing less than faith in Godfaith that one's heart
felt desire to live and love as God does will be enabled by God. The God
who is faithful and loving will enable one to do more than follow disciplines
and doctrines; God will enable the reciprocity of neighbor-love.
Jesus seems to change the subject at v. 42 by asking his adversaries,
"What do you think of the Messiah?" At first, the question seems to have
nothing to do with the foregoing matter of loving God and neighbor. But
if Messiah is supposed to manifest the fullness of God and if God is love,
then wouldn't Messiah be primarily about loving? Jesus is challenging his
adversaries as to whether they are really serious about the hopes
embodied in Messiah or whether they are more interested in navel-gazing
about the "who" and "when" of Messiah. If they claim to be in the lineage
SUMMER 2005 203

LECTIONARY STUDY
of Father David, then act as David did: defer to the Lordship of God, for
whom Messiah is but an instrument. Matthew seems to be underscoring
that it is more important to practice what Messiah is aboutthe love of
God and neighbor-than to wrangle about who is and who is not Messiah.
Matthew has already offered abundant witness that Jesus meets all the
messianic qualifications as far as lineage is concernedAbraham and
David. And he underscores that Jesus also fulfills the Mosaic and prophetic
heritage. But in this exchange Jesus presses the ontology of Messiah
beyond matters of heredity and heritage. Quoting Ps. 110:1 and modifying
Mark slightly, Matthew has Jesus make the point that Father David
deferred to a higher Father, so why shouldn't they? If the scribes and
Pharisees were more concerned about living in God's image, then they
would not be trying to trap Jesus in matters of doctrine and discipline.
October 30,2005Twenty-Fourth Sunday after Pentecost

Matt. 23:1-12; Josh. 3:7-17; Ps. 107:1-7, 33-37; 1 Thess. 2:9-13
In ch. 23, Matthew has Jesus turn from fending off the "testing" from adver
saries to teaching the crowds and his disciples. Yet he picks up where the
testing left off: with the well-intentioned scribes and Pharisees. Jesus uses
them as a backdrop for sharpening the distinctions between their right
eousness and what he expects of his disciples. Jesus acknowledges that
what they teach should be adhered to, especially when they "sit on Moses'
seat" (v. 2) and claim to be speaking ex cathedra or in the form of a "pastoral
letter." Jesus advises his followers to respect what the scribes and Pharisees
teach, but emulating their behavior is another matter.
My high-school friend's father, who was embarrassed about some of
his own behaviors, would often say to his children, "Do as I say, not as I
do." At least he was honest. He was advising his children from the experi
ence of his own fallibility. Jesus is saying to his "children" about the
behavior of the Jewish teachers, "Do as they say, not as they do." Jesus
accuses those who posture as the keepers of truth and righteousness, disci
pline and doctrine of a double hypocrisy: they don't practice what they
preach and are not honest about it either. (Witness the Roman coins in
their purses.)
Jesus' counsel to his disciples as to their authentic and faithful behavior
sounds like what John Wesley would teach seventeen centuries later: "first

JOHN COLLETT
do no harm." Jesus is counseling his disciples to "do no harm" to others by

admonishing behavior one is unwilling to practice, burdening others with
unrealistic expectations one has no intention of shouldering oneself, and
posturing authority and integrity that is empty and vain. Sometimes people
who "do harm" parade around under the cloak of titles like Rabbi or, in a
contemporary mode, Reverend and Doctor, Jesus is saying, "Don't do harm by
acting this way or being concerned about these things" (cf. 23:1-7).
By contrast, his followers are to be concerned about things more impor
tant than titles and rank. One overriding relationship matters here: the
teacher-student relationship between God/Messiah and the person. This
insight harkens back to 22:42-46. All human behavior must defer to God.
Even media, like "sacred laws" and "messiah," are not the main message but
the medium for the main message, which is God. Only that toward which the
media point and that which is conveyed into the present through the media is
ultimately important. Any human relationship to God must keep moving
through and beyond all the historical media, such as culturally and religiously
conditioned symbols of God. Once the presumptive, self-authorized truths
and human behavior have been neutralized, one is ready humbly to discern
and emulate the behavior of Messiah as an emissary of God (w. 8-10).
Jesus then turns to the kind of behaviors characteristic of true faithful
ness to God and neighbor and representative of his own way of life. This
move prefigures Wesley's turn to "do all the good you can." Jesus says that
the disposition of a faithful child of God and true disciple of his is one of
being a humble servant of God and neighbor (w. 11-12).
Matthew seems to be saying to his Jewish "orthodox" neighbors: We are
practicing messianic righteousness because we have opened ourselves in
radical faith and obedience to the grace of God and the gift of servant love.
You talk about being right and true, but we actually live it. We live it by
grace through faith, not by the intent or power of our own righteousness.
* **
The three passages in Matthew 22 and 23 deal with showing how the
sectarian groups who posture as purveyors of "the true faith" do not go far
enough; they stop at the medium (Torah, rabbinic interpretation, and certain
conceptions of Messiah) rather than constantly trying to go deeper to the
Source (God). Furthermore, the rabbinic Jews do not practice what they
preach. Humble service motivated by the love of God and for God is the
SUMMER 2005 205

LECTIONARY STUDY
only true practice. Grace is the key to practicing humble service. Fidelity
depends not on propositions and theological arguments but on faithful,
humble service to the other for the other's sake. Thus, the quality of loving is
the difference between those who posture faith and those who practice i t
In some ways we have come full circle: Christians and congregations
often act like the synagogues of Matthew's context. But before any of us
critique others, we would do well to put servant-love into practice until we
learned its wise lessons of God's grace. Practicing servant-love with the
outsiderspersons who are poor, sick, of another faith or no faithmight
open us to God's righteousness and salvation.
In this regard, a conversation between Christian theologian Thomas
Long and a colleague and friend who is a rabbi raises troubling questions.
The rabbi shared his concern about a series of interfaith dialogue sessions
occurring between members of his congregation and members of a neigh
boring church. Ironically, the rabbi's concern was not about the possibility
of conflict between the two groups but about the inability of either his
Jewish members or the Christians to speak intelligently about their faith. In
fact, the Christians kept reassuring the rabbi that they had no intentions of
talking about Jesusl The rabbi then unveiled a disturbing analysis:
I went to the first meeting, and there wasn't enough faith there to "inter." The
Jews didn't know their religion and the Christians didn't know theirs. I have
too much respect for Christian theology to let them get away with that. The
world needs good Jews and the world needs good Christians. I'm making a
rule: no more interfaith dialogue in my synagogue until the Jews talk intelli
gently about Torah and the Christians talk intelligently about Jesus.
This was precisely Matthew's purpose, and moreto help disciples of Jesus
know what they believe and to practice it.
November 6, 2005All Saints' Sunday

Matt. 5:1-12; Rev. 7:9-17; Ps. 34:1-10, 22; 1 John 3:1-3
The "beatitudes" form one of the traditional lessons for All Saints' Sunday,
All Saints, an adaptation of the Catholic high day, is the time many
Protestant congregations memorialize those members who have died
during the previous year. All Saints' Sunday gives a congregation an oppor-

JOHN COLLETT
tunity to minister to the families of the deceased in their ongoing grief. All
Saints' Sunday also affords another time to celebrate Resurrection theology
and Easter faith. Typically, preachers will use the Beatitudes to stress that
faithful living will be rewarded by God in the afterlife. Those who through
faith tried to live God's righteousness in this life are rewarded by God's
grace in the next. And for the contemporary community of the bereaved,
the Beatitudes convey God's blessings to those who deeply feel life's losses
and its vulnerability to suffering and death. The Beatitudes offer comfort to
the bereaved that God keeps (Ps. 121) and honors our beloved as God's
beloved, especially those who opened themselves in humility to God and
to mercy and peacemaking to neighbor.
In the context of Matthew's Gospel, chapter 5 takes on a larger role and
comes in a line of continuity from God's promises and purposes through
Abraham (1:1) to Jesus and to "all nations" to the end of the age (28:19-20).
God's intentions through Abraham were always instrumental and global:
"I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name
great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and the
one who curses you I will curse; and in you all the families of the earth shall
be blessed" (Gen. 12:2-3). The first hearers of Matthew's narrative would have
instantly connected Jesus' words and deeds with God's promises for
Abraham and Sarah. And they would have immediately recognized the
parallel between the Joseph who was sold into Egypt and ended up feeding a
world dying of starvation (Gen. 37-50) and the Joseph who took a newborn
son to refuge in Egypt and who would save a world dying of sin (Matt. 2:13-
15). Moses and the Israelites are recalled in Joseph's bringing the child Jesus
"out of Egypt." And when Jesus emerges from the waters of the Jordan at the
hands of John's baptism, the reader of the narrative learns that Jesus is the
"son" of God in a more direct way than any of the descendents of Abraham.
His sonship is not mediated through biology and heritage; it comes straight
from God (ch. 3). The children of Israel are remembered in Jesus* temptations
in the wilderness. But unlike Jesus' forebears in their wilderness temptation,
he did not grumble, complain, disobey, or "test" God; he lived ultimately by
the "word" of God, did not try to manipulate God for self-serving reasons,
and made God the uncompromised center of his being (ch. 4).
Matthew gathers all these "memories" as he begins to make the case that
Jesus is the fulfillment of God's promise for the whole world. Jesus is the
promise of God's blessing, the gift of God's teaching, the power of God's
SUMMER 2005 207

LECTIONARY STUDY
liberation, and the faithfulness of God's deliverance-all wrapped into one.

All of this would have been conjured in Matthew's first hearers/readers
when he says that Jesus V e n t up the mountain" and "began to speak" (5:1,2).
Unlike the heavy burden of a self-disciplined righteousness admon
ished by the scribes and Pharisees, these behaviors are not so much virtues
of spiritual discipline as they are signs of God's gracious inbreaking. They
are results of God's coming near, of God with us. And when the receiver
responds to God's nearness in these ways, God has a further opening to
pour out more blessingsblessing upon blessing, grace upon grace. The
virtuous attitudes of those with ears to hear and eyes to see are not prereq
uisites for God's blessings or a quid pro quo; rather, they are the result of
what God makes possible. Once thus empowered by God's blessing, the
believer can practice the virtues as means of grace. Their practice opens
the way for greater blessings, which engender more faithful practice. The
grace (blessing) of God that attends the practice of the virtues makes their
faithful practice possible. Otherwise they become "works of righteousness."
In Jesus of Nazareth, God's promised blessings for the world are being
fulfilled. The blessings and their attending behavior are the "for-instances"
of God's reign, as theologian Leander Keck would say. The nearness of
God's reign is glimpsed in the "for-instances" of acknowledging that we are
poor in spirit, in mourning the spiritual impoverishment of the world,
hungering and thirsting for God's righteousness, acting mercifully and with
purity of heart, and making peace. Jesus is the quintessential manifestation
of the joining of God's righteousness (beatitudes) and the nearness of
God's reign in the historical actions of a person.
The good news for the hearers of Jesus and Matthew is that both the
behaviors of God's reign and the rewards of God's righteousness can
happen now! "Blessed a r e . . . " conveys the present tense of God's action.
This good news is why huge crowds came to hear Jesus and received his
word. They were not being lectured on patience for awaiting something in
the distant future. Yet Jesus' blessings came with the "not-yet" quality of
their future fulfillment. Faithfulness in receiving and practicing these bless
ings will be rewarded in full in God's time.
John Collett is Senior Pastor at Belmont United Methodist Church in Nashville,

Tennessee.

WILLIAM HASKER
H p h e past few decades have seen a remarkable resurgence in philosophy

JL of religion, as well as in Christian philosophy generally. This is well
known to practitioners in philosophy (and unwelcome to some of them)
but may well remain "off the radar screen" for many pastors and even some
theologians. It is perhaps somewhat ironic that this resurgence has taken
place largely within the branch of philosophy known broadly as "analytic
philosophy" Some will think of analytic philosophy primarily in terms of
logical positivism, an approach about as hostile to Christian conviction as
any view could be. (According to the positivists, not only were theologians
not saying what was true, but they also were not even saying anything
false. Their utterances were pseudo-statements that lacked even the dignity
of being wrongl) But the positivists have long ago been vanquished, and
the techniques of philosophical analysis have proved themselves useful in
clarifying a large number of issues that are important for Christian faith. To
be sure, some of this work is technical in nature and not readily accessible
to those not trained in philosophy. However, in recent years there has been
a concern to present the results obtained in the philosophy of religion in a
way that is broadly accessible to pastors and interested laypersons. In this
article, I mention some of the main options on a few key topics, as well as
some resources that are available.
Religious Diversity and Pluralism

It is news to no one that there is a great deal of interest in religious diver
sity among both students and ordinary churchmen and churchwomen.
Classes in world religions fill up quickly; and pastors feel compelled to
address the topic even if they feel themselves ill prepared to do so.
Philosophers also have gotten into the act. Probably the greatest interest
has been focused on John Hick's version of religious pluralism. According
to this model, the ultimately Realunknowable, and indescribable in itself

PHILOSOPHY O F RELIGION
is the "noumenar reality that stands behind the religious "phenomena,"

namely, the gods and absolutes of the various religions. (Hick's view on
1
this is largely inspired by the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. ) Responses
have varied; but it is fair to say that the predominant verdict has been unfa
3
vorable. One difficulty is that, in affirming the equal validity of all reli
gions, Hick is in effect reinterpreting their doctrines in ways most actual
3
adherents would reject. (Another way of putting his view is to say that all
religions are false but can bring one to salvation anyway.)
There are other versions of religious pluralism that need to be evaluated
4
on their own merits. A word on terminology is in order here. Most people
are familiar with the triadexclusivism (salvation can be found only in the
"true" religion), inclusivism (one religion embodies the "full truth," but salva
tion is possible also for adherents of other faiths), and pluralism (all religions
are equally valid and provide equal access to salvation). John Sanders has
proposed "restrictivism" as a name for the view that only those who have
explicit faith in Christ during this life can be saved. (Exclusivism, as defined
above, can allow for the possibility of post-mortem evangelization.) Among
philosophers, however, exclusivism is sometimes understood in a purely
cognitive sense, meaning that one religion provides access to the ultimate
truth and other faiths are in error insofar as they conflict with this, but
without addressing the issue of access to salvation. Generally speaking, the
tendency among more conservative thinkers has been toward some variety
of inclusivism, while liberals gravitate toward pluralism.
Souls and Brains

Recent years have seen extremely rapid progress in brain research, as well as
increased frequency and confidence in pronouncements from both scien
tists and philosophers that the jobs traditionally ascribed to the soul have
been taken over by the brain. As one popular article puts it, "The mind is
what the brain does for a living." The most important evidence for this
conclusion is found in the extremely close dependence of various types of
mental functioning on the condition and functioning of the brain. This situ
ation constitutes a crisis for the traditional belief in an immaterial soul, one
that theology needs to respond to or risk being dismissed as irrelevant.
One response, popular among Christian psychologists as well as
philosophers, is to welcome the new findings and affirm that the Christian
faith can do nicely without a soul in the traditional sense. Instead, a "non-

WILLIAM HASKER
reductive physicalism" is claimed to be closer to the "unity of the person"

found in biblical thought than is the mind-body dualism traditional
theology inherited from Plato. In place of the doctrine of the soul's immor
tality, emphasis is placed on the resurrection of the body, with resurrection
5
understood in a way that has no need for a separate soul.
Other philosophers pull back from this revisionism. They argue that,
despite the bandwagon mentality favoring materialism, existing materialist
theories have not shown themselves to be adequate in accounting for the
phenomena of the mental life. They contend that some varieties of dualism
not only are consistent with scientific knowledge but also harmonize with
that knowledge as well as does physicalism. Furthermore, materialistic
accounts of resurrection are inadequate because, while God could undoubt
edly create a physical replica of someone who has died, no adequate account
has been given of personal identity. How is it that the "re-created" person is
the same individual who formerly lived, rather than a mere duplicate? The
discussion continues; and at present no consensus has emerged, except for
6
agreement that Christians need to pay attention to the issue.
Evil and Suffering

Evil and suffering offer a challenge to the Christian faith on many different
levels. One insight that has emerged is that there is a difference between the
pastoral problem of evilhow to bring peace and healing to those who are
sufferingand the evidential problem of evilthe challenge posed by
suffering and evil to the rationality of belief in a loving and powerful God.
Of course, these issues are not wholly distinct. After all, a personal encounter
with suffering can lead a person to question the reasonableness of her faith.
Still, the problems are different, and so may be the responses called for.
Sometimes, it may be helpful to exhort a sufferer simply to have faith in the
goodness of God in spite of the suffering. However, such a response accom
plishes little when the focus is philosophical. On the other hand, some of the
things that are rightly said in response to the evidential problem of evil may
not be especially helpful for one struggling with personal grief.
Philosophy, as one might expect, has focused its attention on the
evidential problem of evil, though not without some concern also for the
pastoral problem. It is now generally agreed (though a few holdouts remain)
that the fact of evil and suffering in the world is not logically inconsistent
with the existence of a loving God. But do the facts about suffering consti-
SUMMER 2005 211

PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION
tute a compelling reason (if not a logical proof) to doubt the existence
and/or the goodness of God? On this question, opinions are deeply
divided, and the argument has become too complex to be usefully summa
rized here. Of course, Process theists claim evil and theodicy as an impor
tant area of advantage for their view: by limiting God's power to act in the
world, the problem posed by evil and suffering for belief in God is greatly
7
diminished. Whether this claim is correct is itself a matter of dispute.
Meanwhile, what about theodicy, the attempt to explain the reasons (at
least, the possible reasons) for which God permits evil? On the whole, this
has not been a favorable time for theodicy. Analytic theists have preferred
arguing that evil is not compelling evidence against God to undertaking
the (as some would think) over-ambitious task of theodicy. But there are at
least two slightly older works in this veinJohn Hick's Evil and the God of
Love and Austin Farrer's Love Almighty and Ills Unlimited-that still merit
attention. More recently, Marilyn Adams's Horrendous Evils and the
Goodness of God introduces new themes and emphases that could have a
8
profound effect on the discussion of this problem.
God's Action in the World

Any coherent Christian view of things must include an account of divine
action. A minimalist account of such action may be found in Process
theology's assertion that God provides the "initial aim" for each "occasion
of experience." In effect, this is God's "ideal will" for what should happen at
that juncture; but after that, God exercises no control over what actually
happens. Another minimalist account proposes that God influences the
"random events" on the microphysical level posited by quantum
mechanics, thus modifying the course of affairs without interfering with
the universal reign of physical law. However, one insight that has emerged
is that the widely accepted ban on supernatural divine interventionthat
is, on miracles in the traditional senseis remarkably lacking in intellectual
support. David Hume's celebrated argument against miracles, long held by
9
many to be decisive, has been exposed as a tissue of fallacies. Accordingly,
many analytic theists subscribe to divine omnipotence in the traditional
sense, namely, that God can do anything that is neither self-contradictory
nor contrary to God's own moral perfection.
Given this much, two further questions are critical: What sort of
freedom has God granted to rational creatures? And what sort of advance

WILLIAM HASKER
knowledge does God have of their responses in various situations? The

view of theological determinism affirms that human beings have compati-
bilist free will. Roughly, this means that we are free (in many situations) to
do what we most want to do; but our desires are themselves predetermined
by prior circumstances. This enables God, by arranging those circum
stances, to exercise absolute control over events; everything that happens
accords precisely with God's will for creation. Theological determinism has
rather limited currency at present, primarily among some of the stricter
10
disciples of Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin.
Most Christian philosophers, however, affirm libertarian free will,
meaning that, when we make a decision, it is sometimes genuinely within
our power to do any of two or more different things. In giving us this sort
of freedom, God necessarily gives up a part of God's control over the
course of events. An interesting perspective on this is given by Molinism,
so called from the sixteenth-century Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina.
According to Molina, God possesses "middle knowledge" of propositions,
which tell God, concerning each of his free creatures, what that creature
would freely choose to do under various possible circumstances. This
means that God can grant freedom to the creature and yet be absolutely
certain of the creature's use of that freedom, thus guaranteeing that God's
plan for the creation is carried out without the slightest deviation. The
majority view among philosophers is that middle knowledge is impossible,
because the truths God is alleged to know do not exist to be known.
11
However, the theory has staunch and capable defenders.
If both Calvinism and Molinism are rejected, the most plausible alter
native appears to be Open theism, sometimes referred to as "the openness
of God." According to Open theism, God is temporal rather than timelessly
eternal; and, concerning the future free actions of creatures, God possesses
only probabilistic knowledge. Truths about what creatures will freely
choose to do are not available to be known prior to the actual decisions.
This leads to an understanding of the ongoing, dynamic interaction
between God and creation that some find unsettling and others find
12
inspiring and liberating. While the term Open theism is relatively new, the
view in question has been in circulation for quite some time. It is character
istic of theologians such as Jiirgen Moltmann and Keith Ward, as well as
noted philosophers like Richard Swinburne and J. R. Lucas. Note also that
Open theism remains quite distinct from Process theism, in that it retains
SUMMER 2005 213

PHILOSOPHY O F RELIGION
the traditional doctrines of divine omnipotence and creation ex nihilo, both

of which are jettisoned by Process thinkers.
Some General Resources

The topics mentioned above are only a sampling of those that could be
brought forward, but the hospitality of the editor has its limits! So I will
mention here some general resources that give the reader a more complete
picture of the help offered by philosophy of religion. A textbook such as
Reason and Religious Belief, by Michael Peterson, et. al., gives a good overview
of the relevant topics explained in an accessible manner. Peterson's edited
volume Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Religion offers concise, well-
argued essays on both sides of the issues canvassed here and on many others
as well Perhaps of special interest to the readers of this essay is James Beilby's
edited volume, For Faith and Clarity: Philosophical Contributions to Theology.
This volume consists of articles that survey, in a readable fashion, a number of
areas in which philosophy can serve as a help for theology and ministry.
William Hasker is Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at Huntington College in

Huntington, Indiana.
Endnotes
1. See John Hick, An Interpretation of Religion: Human Responses to the
Transcendent (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989); see also idem., God Has
Many Names (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982).
2. For a representative set of essays, see Philip L. Quinn and Kevin Meeker,
eds., The Philosophical Challenge of Religious Diversity (New York: Oxford
University Press, 2000).
3. An egregious example of this is found in the title of Hick's edited volume,
The Myth of God Incarnate (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977).
4. See, for example, Peter Byrne, Prolegomena to Religious Pluralism: Reference and
Realism in Religion (New York: St. Martin's, 1995).
5. For a collection of essays promoting nonreductive physicalism, see Warren S.
Brown, Nancey Murphy, and H. Newton Malony, eds., Whatever Happened to the
Soul? Scientific and Theological Portraits of Human Nature (Minneapolis: Fortress,
1998). See also Malcolm A. Jeeves, Human Nature at the Millennium: Reflections on
the Integration of Psychology and Christianity (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997).

WILLIAM HASKER
6. For philosophical defenses of dualism, see Richard Swinburne, The Evolution

of the Soul (Oxford: Clarendon, 1986); Charles Taliaferro, Consciousness and the
Mind of God (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994); and William
Hasker, The Emergent Self (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1999). Accessible
presentations of both physicalist and non-physicalist options are found in Joel
B. Green and Stuart Palmer, eds., In Search of the Soul: Four Views of the Mind-
Body Problem (Downers Grove, 111: InterVarsity, 2005).
7. A number of useful essays are found in Marilyn McCord Adams and Robert
Merrihew Adams, eds., The Problem of Evil (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1990). For my own perspective on the issues, see William Hasker, Providence,
Evil, and the Openness of God (London: Routledge, 2004); chapter 9 deals explic
itly with Process theism's view of evil.
8. John Hick, Evil and the God of Love (New York: Harper and Row, 1966, rev. ed.
1978); Austin Farrer, Love Almighty and Ills Unlimited (London: Collins, 1962);
and Marilyn M. Adams, Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God (Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press, 1999).
9. Particularly striking in this regard is John Earman, Hume's Abject Failure: The
Argument against Miracles (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).
10. For a clear recent statement, see Paul Helm, The Providence of God (Downers
Grove, 111.: InterVarsity, 1994).
11. The authoritative contemporary exposition is Thomas Flint, Divine
Providence: The Molinist Account (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998). For
a collection of essays discussing Molinism pro and con, see William Hasker,
David Basinger, and Eef Dekker, eds., Middle Knowledge: Theory and Applications
(Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2000). Unavoidably, the discussion in both of these
volumes becomes rather technical in places.
12. For Open theism, see Clark Pinnock, et. al., The Openness of God: A Biblical
Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God (Downers Grove, III.:
InterVarsity, 1994). The theological implications of Open theism are further
developed in John Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence
(Downers Grove, 111.: InterVarsity, 1998), and Clark H. Pinnock, Most Moved
Mover: A Theology of God's Openness (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2001).
13. Michael Peterson, et. al., Reason and Religious Belief: An Introduction to the
Philosophy of Religion, 3rd. ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003);
Michael Peterson and Raymond Van Arragon, eds., Contemporary Debates in
Philosophy of Religion (Oxford: Blackwell, 2004); and James Beilby, ed., For Faith
and Clarity: Philosophical Contributions to Theology (tentative) (Baker, 2005).
SUMMER 2005 215

Book Reviews
Practicing Passion: Youth and the Quest for a Passionate

Church, by Kenda Creasy Dean (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004)
I n 1998, Kenda Creasy Dean and Ron Foster wrote the groundbreaking
book The Godbearing Life: The Art of Soul Tending in Youth Ministry. The book
took youth ministry "back to the future" by stressing the importance of intro
ducing and engaging youth in the ancient Christian practices of the church.
Grounded in ministry, The Godbearing Life pointed readers to the realization
that youth desire a deeper relationship with God, shared through adults who
see the need for God in their lives. Solid and theologically grounded, this
book spoke volumes about what we really need to be attending to: the privi
leged and holy claim of Christ on the souls of the young.
Practicing Passion offers an even more urgent and compelling vision for
effective youth ministryrealizing and embracing the passion of youth by a
passionate church. Far from "cuddly sentimentalism," claims Dean, "passion
devastates. It is 'to die f o r ' . . , which is precisely why it leads us to God.
Most of us spend our lives looking for ways to rekindle the passion of youth:
the burning desire to be engulfed by love, to be ignited by a purpose, to
radiate light because the love of another shines within us" (xiv).
As with The Godbearing Life, the uniqueness of Practicing Passion lies in
Dean's insistence that youth ministry be placed squarely in the realm of
practical theology rather than in educational theory or sociological-psycho
logical development. Recognizing that adolescence can be readily charac
terized by "passion," Dean develops three themes: "shared passion,"
"dimensions of passion," and "practicing passion."
Writing in the spirit of an academic dissertation (the book grew out of
her doctoral thesis), Dean uses vignettes, statistics, and expositions to
demonstrate youth's search for fidelity, transcendence, and communion. She
pays special attention to how the distortion associated with fidelity, transcen
dence, and communion has affected youth's ability to acquire a coherent
identity. "Young people," says Dean, "reveal society's fault lines, including
violence, despair, technological dependence, and poverty, precisely because

SUSAN H. HAY/VON W, UNRUH
they are so sensitive to the tremors of culture" (11). At the same time, Dean
continues, they are beautifully poised to understand, be challenged by, and
respond to the whole gospel with its many manifestations and ramifications,
With profound understanding, Dean describes the deep passions of
youth experience, which are due in part to the biological shifting going on
with their brain functions and bodies and the impact of the culture in
which they live; and also as an outgrowth of their spirituality and deep
need for interpersonal relationships. This understanding raises the ques
tion, "Does the church practice the passion it preaches?" As Dean points
out, without passion the Christian faith fails, and youth know it.
This important book speaks deeply to us about creating a ministry pred
icated on passionthe Passion of Christ and the passion of youthand real
izing the passionate faith that results when these come together. Practicing
Passion is a must-read for persons desiring to create authentic, passionate
ministry, not only with youth but also with the church.
Reviewed by Susan H. Hay. Hay is Director of Ministries with Youth at the

General Board of Discipleship in Nashville, Tennessee.
A Way of Life in the World: Spiritual Practices for United

Methodists, by Kenneth H. Carter, Jr. (Nashville: Abingdon, 2004)
H aving grown up in a denominational offshoot of Methodism, I was

familiar with John and Charles Wesley. I knew the story of faith, sang
many of the great hymns of the church, was trained in its theology, and
experienced God's grace for myself. Not until I attended Metropolitan
Avenue United Methodist Church in Kansas City, however, was I intro
duced to the liturgical riches of the church, That first Sunday became for
me a spiritual homecoming for which I continue to give thanks twenty
years later. Enough time has passed to make me painfully aware that there
are United Methodist churches that do not appreciate their spiritual
heritage. Still, United Methodism's unique blend of liturgical evangeli
calism remains a gift we can, and should, offer to the larger church.
Nurtured in the womb of United Methodism, Ken Carter, pastor of
Providence United Methodist Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, has
written about six practices he believes are essential to the Christian faith:
searching the Scriptures; generosity with the poor; testimony; singing; Holy
SUMMER 2005 217

A WAY O F LIFE IN THE WORLD: SPIRITUAL PRACTICES FOR UNITED METHODISTS
Communion; and life together. Foundational for the book is his belief that
what make us distinctively human are our practices. Whether laying brick
or writing poetry or hitting a baseball, the only way to excel at our craft is
to practice it. Practices therefore lead to habits, and habits become lives.
Carter is at his best as he leads his readers, step by step, from practices to
spiritual practices to Christian spiritual practices to United Methodist prac
tices. His conclusion is nothing short of a vocational call: we have little
hope for ecclesial renewal apart from the submission of the time of our
lives to the God whom Jesus Christ reveals.
Three additional chapters explore the theological implications that
these six practices have on the way we experience God's grace. Finally,
three appendices describe resources for renewal in United Methodism,
reprint Wesley's General Rules, and provide a copy of Wesley's Covenant
Renewal Service.
A Way of Life in the World is a nice primer for small group discussions that
will open the eyes of church folk for whom ecclesial practice is little more
than "going to church" and "doing devotions." Carter rightly alerts readers
that much more is expected of those whose lives are apprenticed to Jesus.
However, persons who have already implemented these practices in their
lives will discover the book falters in its attempt to provide theologically
nuanced descriptions of the practices. Carter never quite integrates these
practices into a cohesive whole; in the end, they remain strangely discrete.
For instance, the chapter on Holy Communion never gets around to
calling United Methodist Christians to observe this practice weekly.
Similarly, I was saddened that the chapter on searching the Scriptures did
not include a clear call to reinstitute the communal practice of Morning
Prayer, if not the complete daily office.
Despite these and other disappointments, Carter has pointed us in the
right direction. For that we can be thankful. Now it is up to other seasoned
pastors to help us continue this journey toward ecclesial renewal,
Reviewed by Von W. Unruh. Unruh is Editor, Adult Bible Studies, at The United
Methodist Publishing House in Nashville, Tennessee.

YOUTHA HARD MAN-CROMWELL
Bone to Pick: O f Forgiveness, Reconciliation, Reparation,

and Revenge, by Ellis Cose (New York: Atria Books, 2004)
H ere is a book that would be well used in ethics courses, Sunday school
classes, and book discussion groups. It provides facts, insights, and
stories that help open up meaningful discussion in a society in which
revenge and grudges have become acceptable responses to wrongs
inflicted. "Forgiveness," "reconciliation," and "confession" are key concepts,
not only for Christians but also for persons of other faiths. They are basic
to reconciliation with God and with fellow human beings. Cose asserts that
"forgiveness is the key to inner peace." The past matters; and when that
past includes wrongs inflicted by individuals, groups, or nations, these
wrongs shape the present and future. Clearly, the situations in Iraq and the
Holy Land, which demand our attention and raise great concern, remind
us of how the past influences both present and future.
"Sacred duty" demands that religious leaders and their followers who
believe in forgiveness and mercy seek ways to teach and nurture them. In
Bone to Pick, Cose has collected "parables of forgiveness and reconciliation"
from across the world. These stories tell of persons, groups, and nations
who have every right to hate those who have traumatized them and yet
who have found a way to move to recovery and renewal. As such, these
narratives can help us understand, teach, and nurture others toward more
healthy responses to inflicted wrongs.
Cose does not trivialize the complexity of what happens when one has
every cause to be angry with or seek revenge on another. He confronts this
complexity by raising pertinent questions and relating stories that chal
lenge the reader to acknowledge how easy the demand for forgiveness and
reconciliation can be and how hard the actual transformations can be. He
notes that, while the perpetrator's confession and the victim's absolution
can occur independently, reconciliation requires the participation of both
victim and victimizer.
Although Cose includes the Christian focus on forgiveness, this is not
a theological discussion of the issues. It focuses more on the sociological
implications and on the impact of forgiveness, or lack thereof, on human
relationships. People who work with victims and the traumatized will gain
insight and guidance from the various stories Cose lays out in how to
understand and respond to persons they would help. Those who seek
SUMMER 2005 219

DONE TO PICK: OF FORGIVENESS, RECONCILIATION, REPARATION, AND REVENGE
better to understand and express the theology of confession, forgiveness,

and reconciliation will find grist for their thought mills.
This well-researched and well-written book has one deficit: the title.
Bone to Pick neither attracts the readers who would benefit from this work
nor reflects the depth and thoughtfulness with which the issues are
addressed and reflected upon.
Bone to Pick wrestles with the meaning of such terms as forgiveness,
reconciliation, and confession and raises an important question: Who is justi
fied in offering forgiveness and of whom can the guilty expect to receive it?
Cose presents this question in a context that helps those willing to do so to
ask how forgiveness among individuals, groups, and nations can be a cata
lyst for addressing the conflicts in our world and for moving the global
community a little further along the road to peace.
Reviewed by Youtba Hardman-Cromwell Hardman-Cromwell is Director of the

Office of Practice in Ministry and Mission at Wesley Theological Seminary in
Washington, D.C.

IN THIS ISSUE:
Issue Theme:
Do United Methodists Still Believe in Holiness?
Elaine A. Heath
The Theological Significance of the Holiness Movement
Samuel M. Powell
"The Arts of Holy Living": Holiness and the Means of Grace
Rebekah Miles
How America Got the Holy Ghost: The Uniqueness
of the African-American Experience of Holiness
Love Henry Whelchel, Jr.
Outside the Theme

SYMPOSIUM: Bruce W. Robbins. A World Parish? Hopes and Challenges of The
United Methodist Church in a Global Setting (Nashville: Abingdon. 200-4)
Tim McClendon
Heinrich Bolleter
Riidiger Minor
Bruce Robbins Responds
The C h u r c h in Review
The Key to Renewal in The United Methodist Church
Elaine Stanovsky
Ronald K. Crandall
A Word on the Word

Lectionary Study
John Collett
William Hasker
B o o k Reviews
Practicing Passion: Youth and the Quest for a Passionate Church, by Kenda Creasy
Dean (Eerdmans. 2004) Reviewer: Susan H. Hay
A Way of Life in the World: Spiritual Practices for United Methodists, by Kenneth
H. Carter. Jr. (Abingdon. 2004) Reviewer: Von W. Unruh
Bone to Pick: Of Forgiveness. Reconciliation. Reparation, and Revenge, by Ellis Cose
(Atria Books. 2004) Reviewer. Youtha Hardman-Cromwell
' N E X T ISSUE: ^
PRAGMATISM AND CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY: FRIENDS OR FOES? ^

Summer 2005 Quarterly Review - Theological Resources For Ministry

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Summer 2005 Quarterly Review - Theological Resources For Ministry

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Summer 2005 Quarterly Review - Theological Resources For Ministry

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

QUARTERLY REVIEW EDITORIAL BOARD

PATRICIA FARRIS TRAGI C. WEST

MARY ANN MOM A N

QR is printed on acid-free paper.

Editor: Hendrik R. Pieterse

Come, Holy Spirit! 115

The Emerging Holiness Movement

The Theological Significance of the Holiness Movement 126

How America Got the Holy Ghost: The Uniqueness of

Outside the Theme

Tim McClendon 171

Heinrich Bolleter 176

Rudiger Minor 180

Bruce Robbins Responds 186

T h e Key to Renewal in T h e United Methodist Church

Elaine Stanovsky 190

Issues In: Philosophy of Religion

Bone to Pick: Of Forgiveness, Reconciliation, Reparation, and Revenge, by

T he question "Do United Methodists still believe in holiness?" may

QUARTERLY REVIEW 115

Hendrik R. Pieterse is the editor of Quarterly Review.

116 QUARTERLY REVIEW

Do United Methodists Still Believe in Holiness?

The Emerging Holiness Movement

D uring an interview concerning his recent appointment to the East

Bishop Hopkins's emphasis on our tradition as a holiness movement

QUARTERLY REVIEW 117

118 QUARTERLY REVIEW

vision of personal and social holiness. It could help return to us Wesley's

A Brief History of Holiness

Holiness is about loving God and neighbor as fully as possible, which

SUMMER 2005 119

in and through us, leading us to maturity. In other words, holiness is not

. . . the nineteenth-century conflicts that swirled around Wesley's emphasis

Is Outler's assessment of the second Wesleyan holiness movement accu

120 QUARTERLY REVIEW

The Emerging Holiness Movement

SUMMER 2005 121

I believe that Wesley's vision of a holiness movement that would renew

122 QUARTERLY REVIEW

the emerging church, its philosophies of ministry, and some of the

SUMMER 2005 123

The end or goal of Methodist teaching is not the advancement of Methodism.

124 QUARTERLY REVIEW

SUMMER 2005 125

M y task in this essay is to explain some of the theological issues that

126 QUARTERLY REVIEW

SUMMER 2005 127

128 QUARTERLY REVIEW

leading participants. It is important to keep the ecumenical character of the

SUMMER 2005 129

ministry of the Methodist Church, the Association's leaders were all

130 QUARTERLY REVIEW

SUMMER 2005 131

132 QUARTERLY REVIEW

number and intensity. Increasingly, local camp-meeting associations began

The Doctrine of Holiness Today

SUMMER 2005 133

however, the traditional understanding of the doctrine was found wanting