Oord, Thomas Jay and Michael Lodahl -- Relational Holiness

[Marsha Lynn]

I gave this book to my daughter for Christmas and only managed a quick read before she took it with her to Denver, but I will definitely buy a copy for myself. Ever since I first read A Theology of Love by Mildred Bangs Wynkoop I have wished someone would publish a new version of that book in a form more accessible to the average reader. This book fits that description very well. It's short and very readable, clearly presenting the view that says the core of the holiness doctrine is love for God and for others. It discusses the other aspects of holiness that have sometimes been seen as central to the doctrine -- law-keeping, purity, being set-apart, perfection, total commitment -- and tells why none of these is sufficient to be considered the core of the doctrine. (The above list is from memory since I gave the book away, but all these aspects and maybe some others are discussed.)

I highly recommend this book. Each chapter ends with discussion questions and a bibliography for further reading. It's the most attractive summary of holiness I think I've ever encountered. This is the doctrine that justifies supporting the continued existence of the Church of the Nazarene in today's world. One certainly doesn't have to be a Nazarene or even of the Wesleyan persuasion to believe it and experience it, but I'm glad there are groups that embrace it as central to their message.

Marsha

[Brad Mercer]

Hans recommended that book highly, too. I obviously need to get a copy of it. Any book that both of you recommend, is a book I should read.

Thanks,
Brad

[Hans Deventer]

I most certainly enjoyed the book and recommend it. The only thing that kept me from giving it a 10 on a scale from one to 10, is that I would have loved to read a chapter on entire sanctification within the framework of holiness as love. Then it would have been perfect. Now I would give it 9 points.

[Jenny Mitchell]

May I add my own support of the book? I loved it. I've had a class with Dr. Lodahl, so there wasn't much in there I hadn't heard before, but I have added it to the list of books my homeschooled kids need to read before they graduate from high school.

[Brad Mercer]

I just finished reading Relational Holiness. It is, indeed, a very good, important book. Lots of other books can be written as follow-ups to that book, dealing with, as Hans suggested, entire sanctification within the "holiness as love" paradigm, as well as dealing with the idea of sin within that paradigm, how that core notion shapes our concepts of church structure, spiritual growth, and so on.

But a good, short, clear book like this, written by Nazarene theologians and teachers, and endorsed as it is (in three forwards/prefaces and innumerable blurbs in the first couple of pages) by practically everyone in leadership in the denomination, is a vital cornerstone to reviving the Nazarene doctrines of holiness and entire sanctification, making it again something as compelling, attractive, powerful and transforming as it was a hundred years ago.

We don't need to see it die with the last defender in a tiny fortress somewhere; we don't need to water it down or abandon it; but we do need what these guys are offering if we are to see it do for our grandchildren and their culture what it did for our grandparents and their culture.

Brad

[Jeff Scott]

I got to hear Dr. Oord speak this past spring when he returned to ENC for a short visit. I've been wanting to read this book since then. Perhaps I will now!

Jeff

[Brad Mercer]

A possible caution on this book. It may be a more helpful book for long-time Nazarenes than for the unchurched newcomer to your church.

I ran into a very new family from out church at Walmart a couple of days ago. The husband/father is very intelligent and curious, but very new to the church, and with very little church background.

He said the first page (I think he was talking about the forward that starts out: "Holiness is:") is an impossible standard, and the thrust of the book sounded to him like works righteousness. Obviously he's heard enough religion to pick up that phrase somewhere, but the default cultural setting among Anglos in Texas is Southern Baptist.

At any rate, the book certainly doesn't strike me that way at all, and I predict that by the time he's been a part of NewStart for a year, it won't strike him that way either. But, although it consciously wants to communicate effectively to the person who is not a trained theologian, it's still basically an in-house discussion for people who know what the arguments are within our camp. I'll probably be reluctant to see it as the one book I'll hand a brand new person in the church to explain what we're about.

Brad

[Andrew Henck]

I received a free copy of Relational Holiness at NSLC (Nazarene Student Leadership Conference) in Nampa, back in April as we listened to Dr. Oord give a talk as the keynote speaker. I thoroughly enjoyed it...

[Billy Cox]

But a good, short, clear book like this, written by Nazarene theologians and teachers, and endorsed as it is (in three forwards/prefaces and innumerable blurbs in the first couple of pages) by practically everyone in leadership in the denomination, is a vital cornerstone to reviving the Nazarene doctrines of holiness and entire sanctification, making it again something as compelling, attractive, powerful and transforming as it was a hundred years ago.


Two things...

If you threw a handful of gravel in the air at General Assembly, you would probably hit some people that are NOT enamored with Oord's take on holiness...especially if you are standing near any of the delegations from the Olivet region. When I was at NTS at the same time as Tom Oord, there was a Dunning camp and there was a Grider camp. Would you like to venture a guess which camp Tom represents? Those camps still exist in some form or another in the Nazarene world.

I happen to agree with Oord, but I also know that there are leaders in the denomination who are very fearful of the field of belief that Oord represents.

Secondly, the spirit (notice small 's') that characterized the birth of the Nazarene Church is irretrievable. We cannot recapture it. It's just as gone as the American bicentennial celebration.

It is only by pressing forward (like the early Nazarenes did) that we can be a compelling, attractive witness for holiness.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

...It is only by pressing forward (like the early Nazarenes did) that we can be a compelling, attractive witness for holiness.

With all of the downplay on the freshness of Oord and Lodahl's book, what would "pressing forward" look like from your viewpoint?

[Hans Deventer]

I happen to agree with Oord, but I also know that there are leaders in the denomination who are very fearful of the field of belief that Oord represents.

And far more than either of these views or the fact that they differ, THIS is ons of the huger problems of our church: fearful leaders.

The very thought that we would need to be fearful of either of these views is the biggest threat of all.

[Brad Mercer]

And far more than either of these views or the fact that they differ, THIS is ons of the huger problems of our church: fearful leaders.

The very thought that we would need to be fearful of either of these views is the biggest threat of all.

Absolutely. I'm convinced that whatever is not out of love is ultimately out of fear. If leaders don't lead out of a radical optimism regarding the love of God for us and the power of that love, they lead out of fear. We seek to coerce and command performance on the basis of duty or punishment because we fear ultimately that God is not love, that his love for us does not produce a loving response in our followers, that our followers will therefore not follow, and that we will therefore be exposed as worthless -- unlovable and unloved. And fearful leaders tend to produce fearful followers, if they produce followers at all.

(Typed quickly before I've had my morning tea or morning shower, but I think that's what I think.)

Brad

[Wilson L. Deaton]

.... The only thing that kept me from giving it a 10 on a scale from one to 10, is that I would have loved to read a chapter on entire sanctification within the framework of holiness as love. Then it would have been perfect. Now I would give it 9 points.

I did a complete sermon series on this book and must agree with you.

As I came to the final message it seemed the series was incomplete.

I decided to append a final sermon. I introduced--using Rob Staples terminology--the difference between substance (what?) and structure (when and how). I then explained that we had been talking for several weeks about substance but that I wanted to add one week on structure....

It would have been much easier if Oord & Lodahl had put in a "structure" chapter themselves from the relational perspective. (Of course, there are probably those who say if I still care about structure that I missed the point. I don't see it that way...)

Wilson

[Hans Deventer]

It would have been much easier if Oord & Lodahl had put in a "structure" chapter themselves from the relational perspective. (Of course, there are probably those who say if I still care about structure that I missed the point. I don't see that way...)


Neither do I. The most beautiful theology is useless unless at some point the rubber hits the road. That is what "structure" (or "circumstance", as Mildred Wynkoop called it) is. Essential.

[Thomas Oord]

Thanks to all of you for your evaluation of the book that Mike and I co-wrote. It's both exciting and humbling to read your thoughts.

Mike and I are finding that Relational Holiness is helpful to many people -- which is, of course, very gratifying. While the book doesn't answer every question and there were some issues we purposely bypassed, I think it provides an accessible framework for understanding holiness as the heart of the Christian tradition. At least that's the hope.

One of most enjoyable results of the book, for me, is the number of pastor's conferences I've been able to lead that focus on the issues of holiness in particular and Relational Holiness in general. The book seems to be a way that many pastors -- especially younger ones -- can reclaim the tradition with which they identify.

The book has even been translated into Spanish, and I traveled to Venezuela recently to speak to pastors and district superintendents about Relational Holiness. As well as the book is being recieved in the US, it seems to be even more welcome outside the US. My time with Nazarenes in Africa this summer also supports this.

By the way, I'd love to answer any questions you all might have about the substance, structure, audience, or impact of Relational Holiness. I'll check back to this blog periodically to see if anyone takes me up on this offer...

Thanks again to all of you!

Tom

[Anita F. Henck]

Good to see you posting here. I'm glad you found the comments on the book to be helpful.

You can participate on any of the Naznet boards -- not just the book review one!

If you're ever going to be at APU, let me know ... it's big enough that we don't always know who is visiting or speaking at Haggard School of Theology!

Blessings,
==anita==

[Hans Deventer]

By the way, I'd love to answer any questions you all might have about the substance, structure, audience, or impact of Relational Holiness. I'll check back to this blog periodically to see if anyone takes me up on this offer...

YES!! How do you see entire sanctification within the framework of relational holiness? That was the one thing I missed in the book.

[Thomas Oord]

Anita,

Good to hear from you! I'll try to poke around on Naznet one of these days when I've got more time.

With regard to APU, there's actually something in the works for me to come speak there in November. Craig Boyd is setting it up. Have you had a chance to meet Craig yet?

Tom

[Anita F. Henck]

Tom--
Yes, Craig Boyd is pretty prominently available in the new faculty orientation. APU is very committed to faith integration in the classroom and so his office and its resources are very prominent. And, he was a part of a departmental dinner with our faculty over the summer.

I'll watch for announcements of your arrival next fall!

You can email me at ahenck@apu.edu.

==anita==

[Thomas Oord]

Hans,

Thanks for your question about entire sanctification. It's an important one, and it's something we didn't develop for a number of reasons. Here are a couple...

1. The phrase "entire sanctification" (actually, it's "sanctified entirely") is found only once in the entire Bible. And in that single instance, it is far from clear what Paul means by the phrase. Of course, "relational holiness" isn't found in the Bible either. But we hoped that new terminology would help capture what we think is the core notion of holiness: love in relation to God, others, and self.

2. We avoided the terminology mainly, however, because the phrase has as many meanings as "holiness." Among younger folk, I find entire sanctification typically identified with total commitment. Others identify it with the cleansing from sin. Still others with the ridding of a sinful nature. And there are more. All of these notions are important, but we were trying to find a wider context in which to speak biblically about holiness.

In sum, Mike and I would both affirm entire sanctification. But we'd want to be a clear as possible what exact meaning a person has in mind when they use that terminology.

Does that help any?

Tom

[Hans Deventer]

Does that help any?

Somewhat. But I realize my question is hardly fair, it would probably take another book to answer it and I'm really not sure to what extent you have the time to lay the groundwork for such a book here.

Anyway, to answer your question, if I understand Wesley correctly, entire sanctification for him is mainly being completely filled with God's love.

"Then will I circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord they God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." How clearly does this express the being perfected in love! --how strongly imply the being saved from all sin! For as long as love takes up the whole heart, what room is there for sin therein? (The Scripture Way Of Salvation, III, 14)

The question then is, how does this fit into the idea of the dance as you mentioned in the last chapter of the book? Where is the instant Wesley described in "Dancing cooperatively with the Master changes, little by little, the dancers themselves. The relations that dancers have with the Master and each other literally change them into different persons" (p139)? I believe this is true, but I have trouble defining a moment in this process that could be called being sanctified entirely.

Does this help in explaining where I come from and what I mean by "entire sanctification"?

[Wilson L. Deaton]

By the way, I'd love to answer any questions you all might have about the substance, structure,

Greetings!

Thanks for joining us and thanks for the response you have already given to Hans. However, I would like to delve just a little deeper....

As I noted earlier in my own post, I did a sermon series on the book and felt it incomplete so I continued with an addtional sermon...

I used the quote, "To be holy is to love--to love God, neighbors, and God's creation, including ourselves. We are holy as God is holy when we love as God loves."

This is how I tied that to entire sanctification (I didn't use all the same language I'm using here but you get the point):

I used Romans 7 and talked about how we might want, desire, see the need, etc., to love as God loves, but that we find that we fall short, fail, etc.

We discover that we can't simply "will ourselves" to love in that way.

Two problems prevent us: 1) Our fallen nature inclines us in the other direction; and, 2) Our spirit is willing but our flesh is weak meaning that we need to be empowered.

I summed up by saying that entire sanctification solves both of these by cleansing and empowering.

Thus entire sanctification ceases to be an end (which we have historically made it) but rather a means to an end. God uses entire sanctification to make it possible for us to love as he loves, etc.

Would this line of thinking be in sync with your concept of relational Holiness? I guess basically, I'm seeking a little nod of affirmation that I "got it," or a little straightening out, whichever is appropriate.

Thanks,
Wilson

[Larry Wilson]

Guess I had to read this book since Dr. Oord was one of my daughter Noel's favorite profs at ENC, and my younger daughter made sure I sat down to lunch with her favorite prof, Mike Lodahl, when I visited PLNU this year!

I was not disappointed. Yes, I wish the omissions weren't there since I have a lot of questions about some of our traditional approaches to holiness. But, there is such a resonance, just with the title of the book, that I find this a good exposition of the heart of holiness.

I guess I can understand why there are still "camps" that are nervous about this approach and terminology, but I think their anxieties are not necessary. This can only make our understanding, and our living of holiness more robust and genuine!

[Thomas Oord]

Somewhat. But I realize my question is hardly fair, it would probably take another book to answer it and I'm really not sure to what extent you have the time to lay the groundwork for such a book here.

Anyway, to answer your question, if I understand Wesley correctly, entire sanctification for him is mainly being completely filled with God's love.

"Then will I circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord they God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." How clearly does this express the being perfected in love! --how strongly imply the being saved from all sin! For as long as love takes up the whole heart, what room is there for sin therein? (The Scripture Way Of Salvation, III, 14)

The question then is, how does this fit into the idea of the dance as you mentioned in the last chapter of the book? Where is the instant Wesley described in "Dancing cooperatively with the Master changes, little by little, the dancers themselves. The relations that dancers have with the Master and each other literally change them into different persons" (p139)? I believe this is true, but I have trouble defining a moment in this process that could be called being sanctified entirely.

Does this help in explaining where I come from and what I mean by "entire sanctification"?

Hans,

Sorry to take so long to reply. I've been visiting family in WA this week.

You're right that answering this question would take a book! And I agree with you (and Wesley) that sanctification should primarily (but not exclusively) be identified with love.

I like the notion of moments in terms of sanctification. And I suppose that one could say that our first conscious decision to respond to God's call to love is our first moment of entire sanctification. Unfortunately, however, the word "entire" has so often been equated with the notion that something permanent occurs that I'm wary of using it.

I've been using the phrase "turning points" lately to capture what I think is an important notion that some moments are more "momentous" than others. We look back on these events as profoundly shaping, but not absolutely determining, our lives. My decision to attend college was one such turning point. But this turning point needed to be reaffirmed over and over.

Well, I'm starting to write that book.... I'd better stop!

Tom

[Thomas Oord]

Greetings!

Thanks for joining us and thanks for the response you have already given to Hans. However, I would like to delve just a little deeper....

As I noted earlier in my own post, I did a sermon series on the book and felt it incomplete so I continued with an addtional sermon...

I used the quote, "To be holy is to love--to love God, neighbors, and God's creation, including ourselves. We are holy as God is holy when we love as God loves."

This is how I tied that to entire sanctification (I didn't use all the same language I'm using here but you get the point):

I used Romans 7 and talked about how we might want, desire, see the need, etc., to love as God loves, but that we find that we fall short, fail, etc.

We discover that we can't simply "will ourselves" to love in that way.

Two problems prevent us: 1) Our fallen nature inclines us in the other direction; and, 2) Our spirit is willing but our flesh is weak meaning that we need to be empowered.

I summed up by saying that entire sanctification solves both of these by cleansing and empowering.

Thus entire sanctification ceases to be an end (which we have historically made it) but rather a means to an end. God uses entire sanctification to make it possible for us to love as he loves, etc.

Would this line of thinking be in sync with your concept of relational Holiness? I guess basically, I'm seeking a little nod of affirmation that I "got it," or a little straightening out, whichever is appropriate.

Thanks,
Wilson

Wilson,

Yes, you got it!

I should add one more thing (that will probably muddy the waters!). I am wary of the word "nature" with regard to this inclination of which you speak. I accept that we are inclined, but "nature" suggests either a thing that needs to be removed, an abstraction that cannot be changed, or something that "soaks" up evil and now needs to be cleaned. I don't like any of these notions.

I think the biblical word that is translated "nature" is better translated "habit" or "pattern of living." Although habits incline us toward one direction, they can be changed. And I want to talk about the capacity for God to empower and for us to respond to God so that we can truly be changed. The word "habit" helps me in this; "nature" doesn't work as well for me.

Perhaps I'm being nit-picky, but I can clearly remember praying to have a sinful nature removed that apparently wasn't, given that I still commited sin after praying that sincere prayer.

Tom

[Thomas Oord]

Guess I had to read this book since Dr. Oord was one of my daughter Noel's favorite profs at ENC, and my younger daughter made sure I sat down to lunch with her favorite prof, Mike Lodahl, when I visited PLNU this year!

I was not disappointed. Yes, I wish the omissions weren't there since I have a lot of questions about some of our traditional approaches to holiness. But, there is such a resonance, just with the title of the book, that I find this a good exposition of the heart of holiness.

I guess I can understand why there are still "camps" that are nervous about this approach and terminology, but I think their anxieties are not necessary. This can only make our understanding, and our living of holiness more robust and genuine!

Thanks, Larry. I am very happy that you found the book helpful!

You're right that there are some who are nervous about the language. But I think we're seeing a new day.

By the way, Noel was one of my favorite students!

Tom

[Hans Deventer]

Thomas, did you plan to attend the Global Theology Conference in The Netherlands this year? I presume that might be a place to work out some issues that might end up in the next book :basic01

[Thomas Oord]

Thomas, did you plan to attend the Global Theology Conference in The Netherlands this year? I presume that might be a place to work out some issues that might end up in the next book :basic01

Hans,

Yes, I'm planning to attend. How about you?

Unfortunately, the theme of the conference is probably not conducive to working out these details. But I may be wrong.

Perhaps you have some advice for me: I've got a couple days to travel in the country after the conference. I'm Dutch by name, but I've never been to the "homeland." I thought I'd visit the little town that my family says we originated from: Sloten. And I thought I'd visit the Amsterdam museums and the Hague.

Any advice on what I should be sure to see? Any advice on securing a couple bed and breakfast homes?

Tom

[Wilson L. Deaton]

I think the biblical word that is translated "nature" is better translated "habit" or "pattern of living." Although habits incline us toward one direction, they can be changed. And I want to talk about the capacity for God to empower and for us to respond to God so that we can truly be changed. The word "habit" helps me in this; "nature" doesn't work as well for me.


The idea of "habit" does help as you said.

However, all metaphors breakdown at some point and I see some problems with this one. For example, there is a sense in which our inclination toward sinning causes our acts of sin. A habit model would reverse the relationship--the repeated acts of sin cause the inclination. Secondly, it is hard for me to think in terms of being born with a habit.

Having already acknowledged that all metaphors breakdown, I would like to suggest one of my own. In this technological world we could think of our "inclination toward sin" as being a "default value."

This is brief explanation of how that would work:

My mapping software has a default start point as my home address. Anytime I request a map it automatically starts there. I can, of course, change it and get a map for a different starting point. The next time, however, my home address is there again. In this analogy, we can say that we have a default toward sinning. That still gives room for free will (combined with prevenient grace) making it possible to choose not to sin even though I'm inclined toward the sin. Furthermore, even if we choose and act rightly, the next decision we have to make is still defaulted toward sin. Still further, my software allows me to change the default itself. Once I do that, a new starting point will always appear (but I can still choose otherwise). Being entirely sanctificed changes our default (from self-centeredness to love, for example). We can still choose to sin but our direction comes up against sinning.

Wilson

[Thomas Oord]

The idea of "habit" does help as you said.

However, all metaphors breakdown at some point and I see some problems with this one. For example, there is a sense in which our inclination toward sinning causes our acts of sin. A habit model would reverse the relationship--the repeated acts of sin cause the inclination. Secondly, it is hard for me to think in terms of being born with a habit.

Having already acknowledged that all metaphors breakdown, I would like to suggest one of my own. In this technological world we could think of our "inclination toward sin" as being a "default value."

This is brief explanation of how that would work:

My mapping software has a default start point as my home address. Anytime I request a map it automatically starts there. I can, of course, change it and get a map for a different starting point. The next time, however, my home address is there again. In this analogy, we can say that we have a default toward sinning. That still gives room for free will (combined with prevenient grace) making it possible to choose not to sin even though I'm inclined toward the sin. Furthermore, even if we choose and act rightly, the next decision we have to make is still defaulted toward sin. Still further, my software allows me to change the default itself. Once I do that, a new starting point will always appear (but I can still choose otherwise). Being entirely sanctificed changes our default (from self-centeredness to love, for example). We can still choose to sin but our direction comes up against sinning.

Wilson

Wilson,

Thanks for your excellent post. I'll offer a few brief comments in response...

1. I want to affirm that repeated acts cause the inclination.

2. I don't want to affirm that we are born with the inclination. I think this notion derives from Augustinian anthropology, and it gets us in trouble when we consider the love of God and the possibility of loving creatures.

3. I like your creativity with regard to the default idea. Unfortunately, my worries with the metaphor stem from #2 above. I think God's prevenient grace is always present and therefore the possibility for our default to be a loving response.

Thanks again for your excellent post!

Tom

[Mike Schutz]

Tom,
Greetings!

Thanks for your participation.

It seems that we would all benefit from an explanation as to how you view original sin.

Grace and peace,
Mike

[Thomas Oord]

Mike,

Yes, we're heading toward that venerable notion: original sin.

This notion has been profoundly shaped by Reformed ideas of sin and human depravity. And the way we talk about it leads naturally to wonder if it is a thing that somehow gets transferred from person to person. (Augustine was convinced it passed by way of sperm. No wonder he had such sexual hangups!)

I think a Wesleyan should simply say that the notion of original sin is simply a phrase that describes the apparent empirically-confirmed fact that all humans -- except that one Nazarene -- have sinned and fall short of God's sinless glory.

Of course, the natural question that arises is this, "Why has everyone -- except that one Nazarene -- sinned?" Here is where Wesleyans must be oh so careful. We don't want to blame it on nature, which is God created, sustained, and animated. We don't want to say the Devil makes us sin, because that shifts responsibility outside ourselves. We don't want to say our culture, environment, or society forces us to sin -- although we can say that these influence us toward good or evil.

We should simply say with the James that we CHOOSE to sin when we allow our own desires for personal pleasure reign instead of God's desire for the common good.

But why do we choose to sin? It seems to me that any other answer than, "Because we use our God-given freedom wrongly," leads us to insuperable problems. It ends up calling God's good creation evil, or putting ultimate power in the Devil's hands, or blaming others.

Well, I'm once again writing too much. Sorry.

Tom

[Roland Hearn]

Mike,

Yes, we're heading toward that venerable notion: original sin.
Tom

Tom, I have read your book and loved it. I don't think it went far enough in some areas but it is certainly addressing the foundational issues well.
This, the idea of original sin or carnality, is the one area where I think that Wesleyan's have not processed enough to come up with a workable theology.
The one problem we are going to have to address is the universality of sin as you have mentioned. It is not good enough to say we simply all choose sin without some kind of explanation for it otherwise we have a very difficult time suggesting why in all of human history only the One has been free of the struggle of sin. There would simply have to be someone somewhere that does not choose sin. Just on the law of probability. And then does it become possible that Jesus' sinlessness was simply a matter of chance?
Here is the construct that I think genuinely works in every situation. Our psyche is designed for God. He is the only adequate source for a healthy sense of self and the world around us. Being born apart from relationship with Him, something that Jesus was not, leaves us scarred at the very core of our being. That scar is psychological and therefore emotional and definitively spiritual. Long before we have a relationship with God we have an almost fully developed sense of ourselves. Our understanding of ourselves is formulated in that relational vacuum and we have no apparent source for truly understanding ourselves as God does. Sin ultimately is our attempt to medicate the pain or fix the discomfort of that situation. Encounter with God at a point later in life that allows us to experience a complete relationship with him means we are spiritually made right. It is a life long journey to correct the damage done to our psyche of forming our understanding of ourselves apart from the most important ingredient - relationship with Him.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

1. I want to affirm that repeated acts cause the inclination.

2. I don't want to affirm that we are born with the inclination. I think this notion derives from Augustinian anthropology, and it gets us in trouble when we consider the love of God and the possibility of loving creatures.

3. I like your creativity with regard to the default idea. Unfortunately, my worries with the metaphor stem from #2 above. I think God's prevenient grace is always present and therefore the possibility for our default to be a loving response.


I wrote a paper back in college titled, "Original Sin As an Inadequate Term." My approach was logic-based, built on the idea of a sanctified Christian who has backslidden and gone deep into sin. I argued that if, after a while, that person comes back to Christ, he will again need to deal with "original sin." If that is true, then that must mean that he had somehow re-developed "original sin," which makes it not very "original." (What can say? I was a "youngster" when I wrote that paper.)

Your #1 and #2 above would fit right in to this scenario! I had imagined that we re-developed "original sin" if we backslid, but it never occured to me that the same mechanism might be responsible for us having it the first time.

I've read your response to Mike's inquiry below. Thanks for the elaboration. I would like to push a little further, however. Could you address the issue of Paul's, "Adam theology" in Romans and Corinthians? In what sense was Adam's fall also my fall? What really happened to me due to Adam (other than the "death penalty")? In what since were "many made sinners" through his disobedience? Etc.?

Thanks again for joining this conversation.

Wilson

[Thomas Oord]

Tom, I have read your book and loved it. I don't think it went far enough in some areas but it is certainly addressing the foundational issues well.
This, the idea of original sin or carnality, is the one area where I think that Wesleyan's have not processed enough to come up with a workable theology.
The one problem we are going to have to address is the universality of sin as you have mentioned. It is not good enough to say we simply all choose sin without some kind of explanation for it otherwise we have a very difficult time suggesting why in all of human history only the One has been free of the struggle of sin. There would simply have to be someone somewhere that does not choose sin. Just on the law of probability. And then does it become possible that Jesus' sinlessness was simply a matter of chance?
Here is the construct that I think genuinely works in every situation. Our psyche is designed for God. He is the only adequate source for a healthy sense of self and the world around us. Being born apart from relationship with Him, something that Jesus was not, leaves us scarred at the very core of our being. That scar is psychological and therefore emotional and definitively spiritual. Long before we have a relationship with God we have an almost fully developed sense of ourselves. Our understanding of ourselves is formulated in that relational vacuum and we have no apparent source for truly understanding ourselves as God does. Sin ultimately is our attempt to medicate the pain or fix the discomfort of that situation. Encounter with God at a point later in life that allows us to experience a complete relationship with him means we are spiritually made right. It is a life long journey to correct the damage done to our psyche of forming our understanding of ourselves apart from the most important ingredient - relationship with Him.


Roland,

Thanks for the kind words about the book. As you understand, it wasn't written to address every question. But I hope it hits at the core of holiness.

I agree that we Wesleyans don't have an answer to original sin -- in the sense that we don't have a good reason why everyone -- except Jesus -- has chosen to sin. Of course, I don't know that everyone has sinned. But I'm guessing that is the case.

I like your construal of the matter. It's part of what I like to call "the estrangement" explanation. And I think it fits well with a notion of relational holiness.

If I were to nitpick, I'd disagree with you and say that no one is born outside a relationship with God. In fact, I think that no one can exist without being related to God. But I would say that sometimes these relations are improper, because we have failed to respond appropriately to the God who calls us to right relationship.

Thanks for chiming in!

Tom

[Thomas Oord]

I wrote a paper back in college titled, "Original Sin As an Inadequate Term." My approach was logic-based, built on the idea of a sanctified Christian who has backslidden and gone deep into sin. I argued that if, after a while, that person comes back to Christ, he will again need to deal with "original sin." If that is true, then that must mean that he had somehow re-developed "original sin," which makes it not very "original." (What can say? I was a "youngster" when I wrote that paper.)

Your #1 and #2 above would fit right in to this scenario! I had imagined that we re-developed "original sin" if we backslid, but it never occured to me that the same mechanism might be responsible for us having it the first time.

I've read your response to Mike's inquiry below. Thanks for the elaboration. I would like to push a little further, however. Could you address the issue of Paul's, "Adam theology" in Romans and Corinthians? In what sense was Adam's fall also my fall? What really happened to me due to Adam (other than the "death penalty")? In what since were "many made sinners" through his disobedience? Etc.?

Thanks again for joining this conversation.

Wilson

Wilson,

Thanks for your continued conversation. I'm enjoying the exchange -- even though I'm supposed to be finishing syllabi right now!

Let me respond briefly to what you call "Adam theology." The central question in my mind is this: does someone's sin in the past CAUSE or REQUIRE me to sin? Some in the Reformed tradition would say "yes." To them, Adam's sin began a chain reaction that we all are born a part of. I see Adam's sin, however, not as a physical cause but as a bad example. (To use the language of philosophy, Adam's sin is a formal cause but not an efficient cause).

Let me give an example: Suppose my daughters saw me kick my dog for eating on the table. In the future when my daughters saw the dog eating on the table, they may feel an inclination to follow the example of their father. But what I had done in the past doesn't change them ontologically nor cause them in the sense of physical causation. I think Adam's sin is similar. And I think we can interpret the Apostle Paul's words in this light -- although it will take some careful reading to undue habit of reading the text with the other interpretation in mind!

I don't know if that helps any, but I hope it does....

Tom

[Roland Hearn]

Roland,

Thanks for the kind words about the book. As you understand, it wasn't written to address every question. But I hope it hits at the core of holiness.

Absolutely, I didn't mean my comment to sound as much like a criticism as it obviously did looking back at it, I was writing quickly. Of course if you addressed every issue you would be writing something akin to a systematic theology and writing many volumes. Not that the relational holiness issues do not deserve that kind of a treatment. It is a matrix through which everything else can be filtered. Wynkoops TOF does give a good foundation for that.


I agree that we Wesleyans don't have an answer to original sin -- in the sense that we don't have a good reason why everyone -- except Jesus -- has chosen to sin. Of course, I don't know that everyone has sinned. But I'm guessing that is the case.

Of course, outside of scripture that apparently indicate the universality of the need for a savior and the observational reality of people without exception operating in ways that are genuinely sinful (of course the relational holiness model does pose the opportunity to redefine sin not in terms of law breaking but in terms of love or the negation of it) we need to hold open the theoretical possibility of living apart from sin. It is akin to the "tree falling in the forest making a sound if no one is listening" in application, however.


I like your construal of the matter. It's part of what I like to call "the estrangement" explanation. And I think it fits well with a notion of relational holiness.
I recognize that the ideas are not new but it isn't often that the concepts are followed through to all of their logical conclusions in terms of the roles of the church, the goal and impact of relationship and effective missiology to reflect on a few.


If I were to nitpick, I'd disagree with you and say that no one is born outside a relationship with God. In fact, I think that no one can exist without being related to God. But I would say that sometimes these relations are improper, because we have failed to respond appropriately to the God who calls us to right relationship.Tom

Yes, well said. No one can exist outside of relationship with God but neither do we by default have the quality of relationship that God has indeed called us to. When I talk of "being born apart from relationship with Him," that is really what I mean.

[Brad Mercer]

Of course no one can exist outside of relationship with God but neither do we by default have the quality of relationship that God has indeed called us to. When I talk of "being born apart from relationship with Him," that is really what I mean.

God is certainly interacting with us in this world all the time. Maybe it would be clearer and more defensible to say that we do not (any of us), from birth, find in God our primary sense of worth. If we did, we would not universally behave contrary to love -- contrary to the heart of God -- and need a saviour.

Brad

[Thomas Oord]

I like the sound of that, Brad! Thanks.

Tom

[Brenda Jackson]

Brad

we do not (any of us), from birth, find in God our primary sense of worth. If we did, we would not universally behave contrary to love -- contrary to the heart of God -- and need a saviour.

I agree with Tom here about original sin, and the reason why we all fall is because of the sins of the fathers (and mothers) being visited (shown as example) on the children, and we all re-enact the fall of Adam in our own lives. Not only in the example but also in the failure to meet all of the valid needs of the child (impossible) which will without exeption bring about anger in the child. I wonder in what way the first sin is connected with Adams refusal to take responsibility for his action or whether it is as Eve's listening to Satan and doubting God?

A verse in scriptue describes 'the light that lightens every man that comes into the world' and I believe that every young child is in relationship with God until he/she falls. After the fall, this new source is in control, situated in the 'heart' though it can be overruled, to stop certain sins, if a benefit is realised or fear instigates it, but the person now depends on his/her own natural understanding because he has lost God given disernment from spiritual union. After that there is a yearning for something he actually had and knows is gone, rather than just a vague desire in his heart that God places within. He also yearns for holiness, not because he was holy, he was only innocent like Adam, and knew the presence of God partially ie 'in the evening' when God walked with Adam but he knew the presence. In order for God's highest desire for man to be in complete union all of the time, in the marriage union, not just the friend one like Adam, it was necessary that man willingly subjects himself to the work of Christ on this source to have it put out of action and the old source reintroduced bringing us to a point even higher than Adams' innocence but still living entirely without sin in any form even in the thoughts. This state will be kept entirely by God so long as man co-operates in his dependence on God and does not revert back to his human reasoning being on the throne as it were (though a useful tool a bad master) when he will lose his position because sin will follow and the source of mans life will be from the old or fallen man again who is subject to the deceptions of the devil once spiritual discernment is lost.

[Brenda Jackson]

The copy of Relational Holiness that Tom kindly offered to send me has just arrived, so thanks very much Tom. I am very keen to understand the current thinking in the Nazarene church on this subject so I can join in with the debate properly, so this book is very useful for me. I ordered a copy of Mark Olson's annotated Plain Account by Wesley too, so I will now be busy studying. I would like a book that explains the variety of different Nazarene views on the subject so if anyone knows please let me know. I already have the Five Views of Sanctification

[Jamie Wayne]

Dr. Oord,

As an Anglican attending a Nazarene church, I appreciate how your book explains holiness so much better than Article X does. You've put things together in such a way that other denominations could learn from this view of holiness, for sure, and so I appreciate the ecumenical aspect of your book.

Additionally, I really like how you've presented perfection in Aristotelean terms; that makes so much sense and it definitely seems to bypass the downsides of other notions of perfection.

Lastly, thank you so much for taking a Trinitarian approach. A Trinitarian approach would do so much good for Article X, but beyond that, it puts holiness in perspective as a product of our doctrine of God, rather than some aspect of soteriology. I especially like how you've put it in terms of perichoresis, where we are invited to join the Trinity in a love dance. I love it. Thank you!

Thanks,

Jamie

[Thomas Oord]

Jamie,

I'm sorry to be so long in responding to your post. I've been in Oxford giving a paper on John Wesley, science, and love.

Thanks for your very kind words on the book that Mike and I co-edited! I'm thrilled to hear of the common beliefs and emphases!

Question for you and any others who happen to read this: WHAT MIGHT BE ADDED SHOULD MIKE AND I WRITE A SECOND EDITION?

In appreciation...

Tom

[Hans Deventer]

Question for you and any others who happen to read this: WHAT MIGHT BE ADDED SHOULD MIKE AND I WRITE A SECOND EDITION?

For those who want to answer this question (and I would encourage you!), please do so here: http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?t=13689

[Scott Hilton]

I received this book as a Christmas present, along with "The Story of God" and "Theology of Love", so I have some good reading coming up ahead.

I recently had to fly to Fort Wayne Indiana and while on the trip I got to read through Relational Holiness. I enjoyed it very much. In fact, I am going back through it and highlighting ideas and thoughts in the book. This is something I do not do very often. I appreciate the fact that it is written in a fashion that non-studied folk like myself can understand.

If anyone was teetering on this book for some unkown reason, I would recommend getting it.

Blessings
Scott