Home About Us Holiness Library Bible Prophecy Listen to Sermons History of the Holiness Movement Early English Bibles Bible Studies Links
|
The
Holiness Churches: A
Significant Ethical Tradition by
Donald W. Dayton[1] To many outsiders, the world of
“conservative” Christianity no doubt seems an undifferentiated mass. But the
uniformity and agreement often claimed by advocates of “evangelicalism” are
to great extent a myth. The groups that compose conservative Christendom are
marked by distinctive theological stances and sociological dynamics as
significant as those that distinguish other church traditions or those that
separate evangelical groups from mainline denominations. For example, the major ecumenical
body in conservative circles, the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE),
comprises more than 30 member denominations, which fall into three natural
groupings. About one-third are “Pentecostal”; these denominations have
become better known since the rise of the “charismatic movement.” A second
third are the sort of “evangelicals” represented by Christianity Today and
the dominant conservative seminaries. The third group, the “Holiness”
churches, is the one least noticed or understood by those outside the
conservative tradition. I Holiness groups have often been
caricatured as “holy rollers,” or confused with snake-handling cults. Not
only are such images for the most part false, but they hide from view one of the
most significant traditions of ethical and social witness in all of Christendom.
Indeed, it was not until the 1960s that certain values pioneered by Holiness
groups found widespread acceptance in American culture. I myself was drawn back
toward the church in which I was reared, in part by the discovery that at least
the history (if not always the present reality) of the Holiness churches was a
most significant incarnation of values that I had discovered in the student
movements of the past decade. Holiness churches claim to stand in
the direct succession of John Wesley and “original” Methodism. But the
movement is perhaps best viewed as a synthesis of Methodism with the revivalism
of Charles G. Finney, as it found expression in pre- Civil War It was the Revival of 1857–58 that
in many ways propelled perfectionist ideas into broader acceptance in Baptist,
Presbyterian, Quaker and other circles through varieties of “higher Christian
life” movements. The extension of these currents into Charles Jones’s Guide to the
Study of the Holiness Movement (Scarecrow Press, 1974) identifies
some 150 groups produced by the movement. Many of these have been
absorbed into various amalgamations, but a large number still maintain separate
existence. Perhaps a score of these identify today with the Christian Holiness
Association (CHA)—a Holiness counterpart to the National Association of
Evangelicals that has its roots in the National Campmeeting Association. At
least as many much smaller bodies work with the Inter-Church Holiness
Convention, which comprises groups that have been formed largely in protest
against post-World War II socialization of the dominant Holiness churches (this
is the so-called “radical” or “conservative” Holiness movement). About a
dozen Holiness churches were swept into Pentecostalism to form the
“Holiness-Pentecostal” churches. Beyond this are a number of independent,
separatist groups extremely difficult to identify. It is almost impossible to estimate
the constituency of these denominations. American membership of CHA affiliates
is over a million. “Holiness-Pentecostal” churches comprise another million.
One can also identify a few hundred thousand other adherents. But these figures
would still be deceptive. While most church membership statistics are inflated,
the opposite obtains for Holiness groups. Because of strict membership
requirements and vigorous evangelism, attendance is often much higher than
membership. It is common for Sunday school attendance, for example, to be double
the size of membership. As a result, Holiness churches claim several million
adherents—a sizable sector of American Protestantism. II The major concern of the
“mainline” or CHA Holiness churches has been the doctrine of “Christian
perfection” or “entire sanctification.” This doctrine encourages the
seeking of a “higher Christian life” of “victory over” or “cleansing
from” intentional or voluntary sin. This is usually achieved in a “second
blessing” or a crisis experience subsequent to conversion. In the, more
classically Wesleyan expressions of the doctrine, this crisis is embedded in a
gradual process of sanctification or growth. In the late 19th century such an
experience was called the “baptism of the Holy Ghost,” a terminology still
preserved in such groups as the Church of the Nazarene. It was this development
that eventually led to Pentecostalism, but most Holiness churches have shied
away from this “Pentecostal” language for fear of identification with
glossolalia movements. (Interestingly, in view of their own history, ethos and
theology, the Holiness people are among the strongest critics of classical
Pentecostalism.) The ethos of Holiness churches
reflects American revivalism and the spirit of the camp meeting—though
attenuated, of course, over the years. There has been an affinity for the
“gospel song,” combined with a tradition of classical Wesleyan hymnody and
Methodist ritual. The movement has produced some 200 colleges, at least
half of which are still in existence. Two small 100,000-member denominations,
the Wesleyan Church and the Free Methodist Church, each support half a dozen
colleges, including such thriving institutions as Houghton College (New York)
and Seattle Pacific College. Four seminaries (Asbury in The Holiness movement differs from
fundamentalism and evangelicalism in that it is more oriented to ethics and the
spiritual life than to a defense of doctrinal orthodoxy. Indeed, one of the
distinctive features of the Holiness traditions is that they have tended to
raise ethics to the status that fundamentalists have accorded doctrine. This
theme was certainly explicit in the early abolitionist controversies and has
consistently re-emerged since. The emphasis given the doctrine of sanctification
has led naturally in this direction. The Holiness ethic has been
described as the “revivalist” ethic of “no smoking, no drinking, no
cardplaying, no theatergoing.” Such themes have, of course, characterized the
Holiness movement—as have large doses of anti-Catholicism and anti-Masonry.
Some of these concerns are still worth some defense, but the Holiness churches
have been slandered by observers who fail to penetrate beneath these themes. III The earliest issue of the Holiness
movement was abolitionism. The early editors of the Guide to Holiness were
abolitionists. Oberlin College went so far as to advocate “civil
disobedience” in the face of the fugitive slave laws (leading to the
Oberlin-Wellington Rescue Case—an important event in the history of American
civil liberties). The Just as in the 1960s, in Haven’s
time agitation on the race issue led to concern for the role of women. In
addition to erasing the color line, Phoebe Palmer defended the right of
women to preach in The Promise of the Father (1859). Her book became the
fountainhead of innumerable writings that argued that “Pentecost laid the axe
at the root of social injustice.” IV Another recurrent theme in Holiness
churches has been involvement with and ministry to the poor and oppressed.”
Early abolitionist literature has striking parallels to today’s “liberation
theology.” The “free” in Free Methodist also stood for opposition to
church pew rentals, which served to exclude the poor. Such concerns were held to
be required by a proper reading of the Scriptures. Sociologists have told us
that Holiness churches are “churches of the poor”; they are more nearly the
product of the turning of certain church people to the poor. Like Wesley, such
men as Phineas Bresee, the dominant figure of the Church of the Nazarene, and A.
B. Simpson, founder of the Christian and Missionary Alliance, left socially
elite churches to minister among the poor of the inner city slums. The Salvation
Army was perhaps the profoundest expression of this theme. The “rescue
mission” movement and related programs were largely the product of Holiness
effort. An early Church of the Nazarene paper, titled Highways and Hedges, protested against “the steeple house church . . . too
busy chasing dollars” and expressed a pledge to go “into the streets and
lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor and the maimed and the halt and
the blind.” From today’s perspective it is
difficult to appreciate the vitality and creativity of these movements. They
were much more than just “relief” efforts. Norris Magnuson has shown in a
recent dissertation, “Salvation in the Slums” (University of Minnesota,
1968), how close contact with the poor moved the “mission workers” toward
new social and political positions that favored the oppressed. Some adopted
various forms of social radicalism. W. T. Stead, in his biography of Catherine
Booth, described her as a socialist and something more,” one who was “in
complete revolt against the existing order.” Peace was another common theme.
Thomas Upham, one of the more mystically inclined of early Holiness teachers,
wrote in 1836 the important Manual of Peace,
opposing the military chaplaincy, advocating “tax resistance,”
and calling for the abolition of capital punishment. Almost totally ignored in
the literature of pacifism are the several “peace churches” produced by the
movement. Also of significance are the Holiness witness against ostentation in
life style, the concern for simplicity, and the affirmation of radical equality
expressed in avoiding honorific titles in favor of “Mr.” or “Brother.” V Somewhat ironic—in view of this
history—is the fact that the past generation or so has seen great dilution of
these values—and this just at a time when many of these values were receiving
wider vindication in the larger cultural and church life! Prevailing social
forces, a generation or two of “progressive” leadership, and a desire on the
part of many to avoid identification with the caricatures of the movement have
effected profound changes. Many contemporary Holiness leaders have come to think
of their tradition as a variety of “evangelicalism” with a slightly
different belief structure. The result has been the development of patterns of
church life much like those against which the founders originally rebelled. But the earlier ethos remains
subliminally present and is breaking out again, especially among the younger
generation. Those working with college students report that students from
Holiness colleges respond more quickly to “discipleship” demands than some
“evangelicals” who are more conditioned to responding with verbalization or
doctrinal formulation. As an officer of the NAE Social Action Commission
recently put it, “Holiness people still have an ear for ethical issues.” Current stirrings of social concern
among conservative Christians have found reception in the CHA constituency. June
1973 saw an ecumenical conference on issues of war and peace under the
auspices of the CHA. Though the NAE would not touch it, the 1974 CHA annual
convention endorsed the “Chicago Declaration of Evangelical Social Concern”
without hesitation (though one member of the resolutions committee feared that
endorsement would imply that CHA had not held these values all along). Ron Sider,
though he has worked primarily among the “evangelicals,” is from a CHA
church; he was the major force behind the “Chicago Declaration” and the
earlier “Evangelicals for McGovern.” (Senator McGovern himself was the
product of a Wesleyan Methodist parsonage.) And Free Methodist Gilbert James of
Asbury Theological Seminary has been one of the strongest voices for social
conscience within conservative Christendom. Over a quarter of a century ago he
was editing a paper on race relations and social legislation. More recently he
has created Also worth noting is the Holiness
attitude toward ecumenism. This is a curious dialectic of “schismatic” and
“unitive” tendencies. Early Holiness leaders delighted in the
“nonsectarian” and interdenominational character of their meetings. Some
even hoped that the new movement would produce unity in Christendom. Such hopes
were, of course, doomed to failure; what resulted was more a redrawing of
denominational lines as the Holiness movement spread beyond Methodism. But the
separations that did take place were as much the result of being “put out”
as “coming out” of the established denominations. The Wesleyan Methodists
did not leave Methodism until the bishops began to use their arbitrary power to
crush even the discussion of abolitionism. Free Methodists were actually
expelled from the Methodist Episcopal Church (though the credentials of B. T.
Roberts were later returned to his son with something of an apology). The
National Campmeeting Association fought hard for loyalty, but the influx of
non-Methodists, an increasing radicalization of Holiness bodies, and an
increasing polarization led ultimately to schism. But the main thrust of the formation
of Holiness churches has been “unitive.” Turn-of-the-century Holiness
churches were formed by the gradual coalescing of missions and local
organizations. The Church of the Nazarene and the VI Reaction to all these currents has
left the “mainline” Holiness churches somewhat at sea as they struggle for
new ways to express an updated identity. The process has been complicated by a
new intellectual and theological maturity. Seminary programs expanded rapidly in
the 1960s. The founding about ten years ago of a Wesleyan Theological Society
(it now has about 700 members) and an associated academic journal has
been another force. During the 1960s a sizable number of Holiness students
entered the most prestigious graduate schools in the country. Unlike an earlier
generation of students, most of these are retaining identification with the
movement. This new generation of theological
teachers is faced with two major theological problems. The first of these is to
re-express the distinctive doctrine of the Holiness movement with some fidelity
to Scripture and history in a manner that speaks to the modern age. This is no
easy task. In some parts of the movement the doctrine has fallen into disuse.
Such persons often tend to move toward the style and ethos of the Christianity
Today constituency. Others have moved in the direction of the Keswick
Movement and a doctrine of a “victorious Christian life.” Even those who
have remained most faithful to the doctrine have modified some of the cruder
forms of the “second blessing” theology by reaffirmation of the more subtle
classical Wesleyanism, with its themes of growth and process in sanctification.
But new interpretations are beginning to appear. Recent years have seen the
emergence of existential, relational, phenomenological, and even process
interpretations of Holiness theology! The most recent of these has been Love,
the Dynamic of Wesleyanism (Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 1972), by
Mildred Bangs Wynkoop, immediate past president of the Wesleyan Theological
Society. The other theological problem that
leaders and theologians of the Holiness movement face is the sorting out of the
relationship between the Holiness movement and modern fundamentalism. Holiness
bodies were deeply influenced by fundamentalism during the
fundamentalist/modernist controversy. Lacking a developed apologetic and a
theologically sophisticated intellectual tradition, many Holiness leaders
adopted the fundamentalist apologetic and doctrine of Scripture. The CHA was
reorganized and the Wesleyan Theological Society formed in the wake of the
emergence of NAE and the Evangelical Theological Society. Early CHA and WTS
doctrinal statements were modeled on NAE and ETS counterparts. Such men as
Stephen Paine, until recently president of But the Wesleyans were the only body
to go that far. The larger CHA bodies prefer to see themselves as
“conservative” rather than “fundamentalist” or “evangelical.”
Remnants of earlier reformist “postmillenialism” kept many from complete
capitulation to fundamentalist chiliasm. Restrained forms of biblical criticism
have found acceptance among Holiness scholars—so much so that many do not find
themselves at home in the Evangelical Theological Society. Recent years have
seen struggles to move to a more inclusive doctrinal statement. Both the CHA and
WTS creeds have recently been reformulated with the express purpose of avoiding
the characteristic expressions of the “evangelical” doctrine of Scripture,
as well as the endless specification of particular doctrines. What will finally come out of all
these currents remains to be seen. But there is little doubt that we are
witnessing the emergence into wider dialogue of what will prove to be an
increasingly important theological and ecclesiastical tradition.
[1]
Donald W. Dayton is
associate professor of historical theology at Northern Baptist Theological
Seminary in
|