AHM or Wesley - Which is more influential?

[Charles W Christian]

An exchange between Jon T and Dr. Milhuff got me thinking again. Like many folks, I'm sure, I have had moments when the "grass looked greener" in another denominational pasture. The things that have sometimes captured my attention in other denominational settings include what I have perceived to be a stronger or "purer" (if I may say it this way) Wesleyan kind of emphasis. Dr. Milhuff suggests that Nazarenes are more a part of the American Holiness Movement than we are purely Wesleyan, and he may indeed have some good points to make here. On the other hand, Jon argued that many Nazarenes would suggest -- or at least prefer -- the opposite: we would like more influence from the broader and older Wesleyan tradition without as much "filter" through the American Holiness Movement of the late 19th/early 20th century.

What about you? If my post makes any sense (and I'm not sure it makes as much sense as I would like for it to), then could we discuss the nuances/differences in the two approaches, and could we also share which "direction" we would like to see the Nazarene move toward? Furthermore, we could also comment on which direction we actually see the denomination moving, etc.

Thanks!

Charles

[Jeremy D. Scott]

In response to what I've seen as the actuality of your question, I think it depends on where you're at (regionally). However, I'd say that today the CotN is just as much, if not more affected, by the general evangelical church than either of the two things you mentioned. And this indeed affects how members of the CotN speak of holiness (or how they don't speak of it at all).

While in regards to the two you mentioned, I lean toward Wesley, I prefer over the two that the CotN would seek what it means to pursue God's holiness in and amongst the culture and society in which we live today.

[Hans Deventer]

What about you? If my post makes any sense (and I'm not sure it makes as much sense as I would like for it to), then could we discuss the nuances/differences in the two approaches, and could we also share which "direction" we would like to see the Nazarene move toward? Furthermore, we could also comment on which direction we actually see the denomination moving, etc.

I think the Wesleyan revival took on an American flavour on the other side of the Atlantic. This American modification, of perhaps better, cultural adaptation, worked quite well among the early American Methodists. In the second half of the 19th century, especially the tent revival atmosphere and its accent on the "now" had a big influence, including the AHM's theology.

We are now in a place that the atmosphere has gone. And some become somewhat embarrassed by it and seek to return to a more original Wesleyan approach. Which leaves the AHM's proponents in high alert because we are losing our distinctive doctrine! I wonder if they'd accuse John Wesley himself of that, were he around. But of course the truth is that the Methodists lost it to a large extent. The fear is not unfounded.

So we find ourselves in a situation where the new way isn't all that clearly ahead of us, while historical examples abound of movements that have lost their fire. I think we can't go back. What worked between 1850-1950, doesn't work anymore. And we're not yet all that clear on what will work between 2000-2050. But we have no choice! We can only go ahead.

Personally I like the Wesleyan emphasis better than the AHM's emphasis. That's probably because I'm not an American. And I think the Wesleyan emphasis is a better basis for developing a 21st century Holiness movement. But the questions still abound, as do the risks.

[BobHunt]

Hans, your comments make me think about the town that is a few miles east of us, Winona Lake. In the town is an old tabernacle, with the name Homer Rhodeaver over it, and I think an old tent revival evangelist by the name of Billy Sunday once held meetings there in front of the old sawdust aisles. Its a little different than what we are customed to today. In those days, Im sure there was a lot of old fashioned hell fire and brimstone preaching when the sinner would grip the back of the seat in front of him til his knuckles turned white.
Today, we are so used to scarey and bizarre things, movies etc. that it takes a lot to really move people. Maybe we have changed, because it seems to me it moves people so much more to word paint a picture of just how much God loves us, and loves the sinner and wants him/her to come to Him.

[Doug Kitchen]

I think the Wesleyan revival took on an American flavour on the other side of the Atlantic. This American modification, of perhaps better, cultural adaptation, worked quite well among the early American Methodists. In the second half of the 19th century, especially the tent revival atmosphere and its accent on the "now" had a big influence, including the AHM's theology.

We are now in a place that the atmosphere has gone. And some become somewhat embarrassed by it and seek to return to a more original Wesleyan approach. Which leaves the AHM's proponents in high alert because we are losing our distinctive doctrine! I wonder if they'd accuse John Wesley himself of that, were he around. But of course the truth is that the Methodists lost it to a large extent. The fear is not unfounded.

So we find ourselves in a situation where the new way isn't all that clearly ahead of us, while historical examples abound of movements that have lost their fire. I think we can't go back. What worked between 1850-1950, doesn't work anymore. And we're not yet all that clear on what will work between 2000-2050. But we have no choice! We can only go ahead.

Personally I like the Wesleyan emphasis better than the AHM's emphasis. That's probably because I'm not an American. And I think the Wesleyan emphasis is a better basis for developing a 21st century Holiness movement. But the questions still abound, as do the risks.

We are now the International CotN for sure ( ~60% nonamerican). Even in the US there are many more international CotN's.

The term American Holiness Movement is focused too much on cultural aspects. The description of theology and practice as "Wesleyan" is also too focused on a time long gone by.

If we could sift out the cultural aspects of both approaches (and the fairly ancient english that is used to describe them) I think we would all come to more agreement. Whatever the cotn comes up with will need to be translated accurately into at least 100 cultures and circumstances.

In the US (and probably western europe as well), progressive ideas around sanctification must necessarily become more important than crises since we are living much longer than in 1900. e.g. A mid life crises in 1900 happened at the age of 20, now it happens around 40.

dinner calls...

Doug

[Hans Deventer]

Maybe we have changed, because it seems to me it moves people so much more to word paint a picture of just how much God loves us, and loves the sinner and wants him/her to come to Him.

Amen.

[Ryan Scott]

I think the issue isn't over which is most influential, but in what areas are each more influential. Theologically the AHM was irresponsible and careless; it can't hold a candle to the depth and longevity of the Wesleyan tradition. However, I think practically, a lot of the vitality, adaptability, willingness to change, try new things, and be practical were given great advance through AHM efforts across the US.

Granted, Wesley did lots of unorthodox things in taking his message to the people, but it just wasn't the same kind of willingness to buck tradition in areas where tradition had become hindering.

To me the beauty of having a strong Wesleyan theology mixed with a slightly rebellious practical commitment from the AHM heritage makes our distinctive denomination stronger.

The problem is when we try to make everything one or the other.

[Jon Twitchell]

In response to what I've seen as the actuality of your question, I think it depends on where you're at (regionally). However, I'd say that today the CotN is just as much, if not more affected, by the general evangelical church than either of the two things you mentioned. And this indeed affects how members of the CotN speak of holiness (or how they don't speak of it at all).

Ah...yes... let's not forget the number of Baptarenes who sit in our pews each week!

:)

Q. I've never heard of the Church of the Nazarene, what's that?

A. Well, it's a lot like a Baptist church.


(Don't laugh... you know you've heard an exchange once or twice that went just like that!)

[Jamie Wayne]

Maybe that's why I often think myself closer to Wesley than many Nazarenes, for we both come from Anglican backgrounds, and neither of us were influenced by the "American Holiness Movement."

I often find myself wondering how the Nazarene church got so far away from Wesley, especially when it comes to the Church and the Sacraments, for examples.

I don't know how much more I may have to add to this conversation, but I'm sure interested in what additional thoughts there will be in this thread.

[David Pettigrew]

Could it be these are two sides of a coin? I think in order for people to truly turn and walk towards God, they need a "God moment", and I think the AHM supplies us with that moment in the experience of ES. The problem is when our walk towards God ends in that moment, rather than begins in it. Wesley knew how to connect people who had an God moment with one another.

I think our current mission statement is far more Wesleyan than AHM.

[Thomas Oord]

Charles and others,

Thanks for posting this interesting thread!

For what it's worth, I think the positive lasting legacy of the AHM (and similar revivalist/holiness movements around the world) is its call-of-the-moment for radical decision and total commitment. Chuck M. and others (including many evangelists) worry that the denomination will lose its focus on this call. I share that worry, but I don't share the view that Wynkoop, Wesley, and others lead us away from that call, rightly understood.

What has turned some of us sour on some aspects of the AHM are the claims made about what happens as a result of a person making a decision or commitment at a particular moment. Too often, the claims were simply unbelievable or incredible. This created what Wynkoop called "the credibility gap," which was the gap between what people said would happen subsequent to a radical commitment and the lifestyle people actually lived.

If I were to make a gross generalization about the influence of the AHM and Wesleyan thought, I'd say that the denomination is turning gradually away from the view that the most important element of the Christian life is the moment of decision and toward the view that the most important element of the Christian life is ongoing growth in service and love.

For my part, I want to keep both elements as part of our identity as members of the Church of the Nazarene. And I'm working to promote a theology that, in my opinion, preserves the best of both traditions.

Tom

[Mike Schutz]

I often find myself wondering how the Nazarene church got so far away from Wesley, especially when it comes to the Church and the Sacraments, for examples.

I think it is important to understand that this was not a matter of "drift." There was no conscious attempt to be a "Wesleyan" movement. That many (not most) of the folks who became Nazarenes were from the Methodist Episcopal Church was almost beside the point. They were crisis-oriented holiness folks, many more conversant with the "altar theology" of Phoebe Palmer than the writings of John Wesley.

In regards to the sacraments, it seems that there are primarily two reasons for our current state:

1. Crisis-oriented holiness was the primary focus of the various groups, and other issues were considered secondary. It was simply assumed that folks would continue to do what they had always done.
2. The attempts to replicate on Sunday morning in "regular" worship the experiences of camp meeting led to a focus on personal response through coming forward for emotional prayer and consecration, rather than the Eucharist.

[Charles W Christian]

I think it is important to understand that this was not a matter of "drift." There was no conscious attempt to be a "Wesleyan" movement. That many (not most) of the folks who became Nazarenes were from the Methodist Episcopal Church was almost beside the point. They were crisis-oriented holiness folks, many more conversant with the "altar theology" of Phoebe Palmer than the writings of John Wesley.

In regards to the sacraments, it seems that there are primarily two reasons for our current state:

1. Crisis-oriented holiness was the primary focus of the various groups, and other issues were considered secondary. It was simply assumed that folks would continue to do what they had always done.
2. The attempts to replicate on Sunday morning in "regular" worship the experiences of camp meeting led to a focus on personal response through coming forward for emotional prayer and consecration, rather than the Eucharist.

Mike (and others) --

I think the Eucharistic legacy of Wesley and the Wesleyan tradition has been largely ignored in the CotN, at least historically. Our Manual statement, for example, does not quite address the depth that Wesley brought to the discussion of the Eucharist and the Sacraments. I think Rob Staples' book has done a lot to help try to recapture that, but I'm not sure how it has caught on in general among most Nazarene pastors and congregations.

This is an area ripe for exploration and (re)discovery!

Thanks,
Charles

[Susan Unger]

Ah...yes... let's not forget the number of Baptarenes who sit in our pews each week!

:)

Q. I've never heard of the Church of the Nazarene, what's that?

A. Well, it's a lot like a Baptist church.


(Don't laugh... you know you've heard an exchange once or twice that went just like that!)

Oh yes...have had this conversation before. When I tried to compare my church to a more well known one to someone unfamiliar with the nazarene church, a third person said "baptist". I said "NO....I am NOT a baptist!"

[Mike Schutz]

One of the Methodist pastors in our community - in recommending that a woman in her church volunteer at our compassionate ministry center - was asked by the woman, "What's a Nazarene?"

She said, "Nazarenes are just like Methodists - only more highly caffeinated."

[Susan Unger]

What has turned some of us sour on some aspects of the AHM are the claims made about what happens as a result of a person making a decision or commitment at a particular moment. Too often, the claims were simply unbelievable or incredible. This created what Wynkoop called "the credibility gap," which was the gap between what people said would happen subsequent to a radical commitment and the lifestyle people actually lived.

You're describing the church I grew up in. This "credibility gap" led to a legalistic church that did a lot of damage to me [and to themselves] from which I am just now starting to heal.

I'd say that the denomination is turning gradually away from the view that the most important element of the Christian life is the moment of decision and toward the view that the most important element of the Christian life is ongoing growth in service and love.


Thank goodness!

I think the Eucharistic legacy of Wesley and the Wesleyan tradition has been largely ignored in the CotN, at least historically. Our Manual statement, for example, does not quite address the depth that Wesley brought to the discussion of the Eucharist and the Sacraments. I think Rob Staples' book has done a lot to help try to recapture that

It has been so well ignored that I didn't know it existed until this spring - and I am a second generation nazzie with a BA from ONU.

I often find myself wondering how the Nazarene church got so far away from Wesley, especially when it comes to the Church and the Sacraments, for examples.

I agree ~ And this more sacramental view of things sounds quite interesting.

[Hans Deventer]

Could it be these are two sides of a coin? I think in order for people to truly turn and walk towards God, they need a "God moment", and I think the AHM supplies us with that moment in the experience of ES.

? I thought Wesley wrote a thing or two on that moment as well?

18. "But does God work this great work in the soul gradually or instantaneously?" Perhaps it may be gradually wrought in some; I mean in this sense, --they do not advert to the particular moment wherein sin ceases to be. But it us infinitely desirable, were it the will of God, that it should be done instantaneously; that the Lord should destroy sin "by the breath of His mouth," in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye. And so He generally does; a plain fact, of which there is evidence enough to satisfy any unprejudiced person. Thou therefore look for it every moment! Look for it in the way above described; in all those good works whereunto thou art "created anew in Christ Jesus." There in then no danger: you can be no worse, if you are no better, for that expectation. For were you to be disappointed of your hope, still you lose nothing. But you shall not be disappointed of your hope: it will come, and will not tarry. Look for it then every day, every hour, every moment! Why not this hour, this moment? Certainly you may look for it now, if you believe it is by faith. And by this token you may surely know whether you seek it by faith or by works. If by works, you want something to be done first, before you are sanctified. You think, I must first be or do thus or thus. Then you are seeking it by works unto this day. If you seek it by faith, you may expect it as you are; and expect it now. It is of importance to observe, that there is an inseparable connexion between these three points, --expect it by faith; expect it as you are; and expect it now! To deny one of them, is to deny them all; to allow one, is to allow them all. Do you believe we are sanctified by faith? Be true then to your principle; and look for this blessing just as you are, neither better nor worse; as a poor sinner that has still nothing to pay, nothing to plead, but "Christ died." And if you look for it as you are, then expect it now. Stay for nothing: why should you? Christ is ready; and He is all you want. He is waiting for you: He is at the door! Let your inmost soul cry out,

Come in, come in, thou heavenly Guest! Nor hence again remove;

But sup with me, and let the feast Be everlasting love. http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/sermons/043.htm

I think I can expect it now without Phoebe Palmer.

[Billy Cox]

Could it be these are two sides of a coin? I think in order for people to truly turn and walk towards God, they need a "God moment", and I think the AHM supplies us with that moment in the experience of ES. The problem is when our walk towards God ends in that moment, rather than begins in it. Wesley knew how to connect people who had an God moment with one another.


This sounds like the diplomacy one exercises when a woman asks, 'do these pants make my butt look big?'

I believe that AHM is fundamentally flawed because it inevitably leads to 'Now What?' theology, legalism, self-righteousness and outright falsehood. I see nothing salvageable in AHM, and so it is not a side of the same coin as Wesleyanism, but is a poorly crafted counterfeit - perhaps not evil enough to be an express ticket to Hell, but far from holy.

Like the 1st century Pharisees, AHM started with noble intentions but ended up full of dead men's bones.

[Hans Deventer]

I see nothing salvageable in AHM

I'm not sure there needs to be anything salvageable there. If it is seen as a cultural adaptation of the holiness message, then that adaptation will change with a change of culture. The message in itself will not. We're not preaching in Latin in Rome anymore either. And the changes go so much faster nowadays.

So I'm not looking back in anger as if nothing good happened. It's not my style, but that says very little if anything at all. But the times they are a changing.

[Chris Patton]

It seems that one of the inherent flaws of the AHM was that it was specifically focused around a couple of events and that was the extent of its theological scope. In working to fill in the other pieces, it was ambivalent, drawing from a variety of backgrounds, Wesley, reformed, popular evangelicalism. Thus the AHM is influenced by what is popular b/c it does not see anything important in any part of theology other than certain events.

This amalgam of backgrounds seems to be problematic even if one views it as unimportant. I would agree that contemporary evangelism (even fundamentalism) is very influential in our church, but I would say that it may be because the AHM had no stake in the game as long as we talked about a second definite work of grace.

And all of this leads to a problem of identity

[Jamie Wayne]

Chris,

That sounds much like the "baptistification" of Evangelicalism.

It sounds like getting back to the Anglican roots of Wesley could help off set some of those "problems" - of course, I'm biased, though.

Jamie

[Houston Thomas]

I agree with much of what has been said in this conversation. I also strongly lean toward Wesley.

But discussions like these indicate to me how different the constituency of Naznet is than the constituency of much of the American denomination. I can only speak from my experience on the ONU region but I am certainly in the minority. Folks here are really concerned about the "crisis moment."

I would imagine the situation would be similar in most of the Midwest and South?

[Susan Unger]

I agree with much of what has been said in this conversation. I also strongly lean toward Wesley.

But discussions like these indicate to me how different the constituency of Naznet is than the constituency of much of the American denomination. I can only speak from my experience on the ONU region but I am certainly in the minority. Folks here are really concerned about the "crisis moment."

I would imagine the situation would be similar in most of the Midwest and South?

I agree with you. This naznet thread is lightyears different from the church I grew up in. But to me that makes this thread and all of naznet a breath of fresh air.

[Ramesh Deosarran]

If one looks carefully it would not be too difficult to find Wesleyan theology in the Holiness movement. What was the aim and purpose of Wesley’s theology? I think the answer is simple – personal salvation. This salvation rests squarely on Christian perfection.

The American Holiness Movement of the 19th c adopted the Wesley’s theology with some modification. They did not deviate from the following:
• Inspiration and authority of the Scriptures
• The nature of man
• Original sin
• The deity of Christ
• The Trinity
• Christian perfection

Where did they deviate? The shift was in the practical procedures. In other words, how do you arrive at experiential holiness and what was involved in the experience.

I think it is interesting to note that those who blamed the AHM for moving away from Wesley’s enthusiasm and theology found it easy to embrace contemporary concepts that did not align with Wesley’s theology. The result is not much different from today. We dwell more on the little splinters and ignore the things that are more substantive.

What are some of the modifications of the AHM?
• “second blessing” can be experienced now
• A simplistic way of entering the experience
• Emphasis on Pentecost and baptism with the Holy Spirit

At the beginning of the 20th c the Church of the Nazarene came into existence. The doctrinal emphasis was that of Wesley. However, there was also the influence of the AHM. While there were influences from left, right, and center, its theology was traced back to Wesley.

There is something classical about Wesleyan theology in the Church of the Nazarene. We have emphasis on missions – home and world. We also emphasize Sunday school and evangelism. However, the doctrines such as the inspiration of the Bible, original sin, Trinity, Christian perfection and other fundamental doctrines are considered as classical. They go back to the beginning of the Church.

For decades the salvation message of the Church of the Nazarene was the same everywhere. Is it the same today?

[Chris Patton]

If one looks carefully it would not be too difficult to find Wesleyan theology in the Holiness movement. What was the aim and purpose of Wesley’s theology? I think the answer is simple – personal salvation. This salvation rests squarely on Christian perfection.

I would disagree that the aim and purpose was "personal" salvation. I would argue that the aim and purpose of Wesley's theology was salvation--but that was writ large, far beyond just a personal (individual?) event. His view of society at large and the view of the restoration of all creation seems a more appropriate way of talking about Wesley's theology in scope and context.

In that sense the AHM moved far away from Wesley in conflating social holiness and the salvation of the world into personal piety and individual salvation only.

[David Pettigrew]

Guys and gals, I'm on the same page with you, but I definitely believe God was in what happened at the end of the 19th Century. I'm not willing to throw out the baby with the bath water. The AHM served as a "correction" to the Methodist movement, which had largely abandoned personal, practical, and social holiness. Today, we are serving as a "correction" to AHM's abuses and extremes.

And there you have yourself all of church history in a nutshell. One movement reforming the extremes of the previous movement, until it becomes extreme and needs reforming itself. The same thing will happen with what we're trying to do now, I'm sure, in revisioning our theology. Why should we think we're any better than those before us?

I think it's somewhat arrogant to thumb our noses at our holiness forefathers, who found an experience that radically transformed the way they did life. They were considered the liberal extremists of their day.

I am a victim of the abuse of their teaching, but I don't blame Bresee, Palmer, or Hills because I was raised to believe "holiness or hell."

[Hans Deventer]

I think it's somewhat arrogant to thumb our noses at our holiness forefathers, who found an experience that radically transformed the way they did life.

I'm not thumbing any nose at all. I wish we had the same zeal and transforming experience of our spiritual forefathers. And then apply it to our time and age.

[Chris Patton]

I think there is a difference between arrogance (they got it totally wrong) and a healthy critique (they didn't get it perfect, and how do we adapt it for our day and time). Even Wesley was concerned, towards the end of his life, that the second generation of "methodists" would move away from the first generation's zeal for the poor, salvation of the world, etc. Was that arrogance on his part? I don't think it was, but rather an honest assessment of the situation, albeit from the front end not the back end.

[David Pettigrew]

Perhaps it is arrogant of me to thumb my nose at those so arrogantly thumbing their noses at the AHM :)

[Hans Deventer]

Perhaps it is arrogant of me to thumb my nose at those so arrogantly thumbing their noses at the AHM :)

Ah, but confession is always healing, brother :rolleyes:

[Susan Unger]

Guys and gals, I'm on the same page with you, but I definitely believe God was in what happened at the end of the 19th Century. I'm not willing to throw out the baby with the bath water. The AHM served as a "correction" to the Methodist movement, which had largely abandoned personal, practical, and social holiness. Today, we are serving as a "correction" to AHM's abuses and extremes.

I can see your point here - that it was needed at the time.

[Chris Patton]

I can see your point here - that it was needed at the time.


Even saying what David has said can dismiss the radical legalism that quickly sprang out of this movement. I don't know that this kind of legalism, especially that usually focusses on outward appearance and women is ever needed, I don't care what time we are talking about.

Chris

[Ramesh Deosarran]

I would disagree that the aim and purpose was "personal" salvation. I would argue that the aim and purpose of Wesley's theology was salvation--but that was writ large, far beyond just a personal (individual?) event. His view of society at large and the view of the restoration of all creation seems a more appropriate way of talking about Wesley's theology in scope and context.

In that sense the AHM moved far away from Wesley in conflating social holiness and the salvation of the world into personal piety and individual salvation only.

I was not trying to empty the Pacific Ocean drop by drop. Nevertheless, you are correct to point out the wider context of Wesley’s theology. I do not disagree with you on that. However, salvation is fundamentally personal. The Gospel call summons an individual to accept salvation. There is a universal call but also a direct call. Both calls can be two sides of the same coin.

I see Wesley’s theological perspective from a different pair of lens. The emphasis is on a simple, plain doctrine. I think his purpose in the “society at large” was to help people enter into a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ. How do you get to a wider scope and context without addressing the personal?

[Chris Patton]

I would agree with your points. However I think the AHM dropped off the larger scope in many ways focusing on the individual exclusively. Wesley would have been very inclusive in the scope of his ministry. In many ways the AHM, while working to bring salvation, worked to bring people into the tent and keep them there, forming a much more exclusive view of salvation.

[Jamie Wayne]

...salvation is fundamentally personal.

In the cosmic sense, perhaps.

[Ramesh Deosarran]

In the cosmic sense, perhaps.

How is it not personal?

[Jamie Wayne]

How is it not personal?

How is it not cosmic?

[Ryan Scott]

How is it not personal?

No one said it wasn't, but you also can't divorce personal salvation from corporate salvation.

[Mike Schutz]

FOOTNOTE:
This is one of those threads where I really wish we were all in the same room, sipping tea or diet cokes, and talking face to face with one another. Dr. Oord would facilitate, so that everyone would have their chance to participate.
If that kind of face to face discussion was happening, in this thread and many others, those who happened to be in the room would leave at the end of the day with great optimism for the CotN. They would say, "Look how passionate they are, how much these things matter. And look at how they love one another."

And now back to our regularly scheduled lives.

[Ramesh Deosarran]

No one said it wasn't, but you also can't divorce personal salvation from corporate salvation.

Here is the “I said” “He said” account:

I said, “I think the answer is simple – personal salvation. This salvation rests squarely on Christian perfection.”

Chris said, “I would disagree that the aim and purpose was "personal" salvation. I would argue that the aim and purpose of Wesley's theology was salvation--but that was writ large, far beyond just a personal (individual?) event. His view of society at large and the view of the restoration of all creation seems a more appropriate way of talking about Wesley's theology in scope and context.”

I said, “… you are correct to point out the wider context of Wesley’s theology. I do not disagree with you on that. However, salvation is fundamentally personal. The Gospel call summons an individual to accept salvation. There is a universal call but also a direct call. Both calls can be two sides of the same coin. … The emphasis is on a simple, plain doctrine. I think his purpose in the “society at large” was to help people enter into a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ. How do you get to a wider scope and context without addressing the personal?”

Chris said, “I would agree with your points. However I think the AHM dropped off the larger scope in many ways focusing on the individual exclusively. Wesley would have been very inclusive in the scope of his ministry. In many ways the AHM, while working to bring salvation, worked to bring people into the tent and keep them there, forming a much more exclusive view of salvation.”

Then we have Jamie:

Quoting me … ...salvation is fundamentally personal.

He said, “In the cosmic sense, perhaps.”

“Perhaps” is a maybe. You are not sure. Thus:

I asked, “How is it not personal?”

Jamie asked,” How is it not cosmic?”

I did not say it was not cosmic. I agreed to the wider context with certainty and not a “perhaps.”

Now we have Ryan:

“No one said it wasn't, but you also can't divorce personal salvation from corporate salvation.”

Please read the above.

Here ends the “I said” “He said.”

[Chris Patton]

As far as the question goes, which was more influential in the CoN, Wesley or AHM, I would say the AHM has been more influential in focusing our church and its soteriology only on an individual, personal view of piety and salvation to the neglect of a wider view of salvation and restoration. I agree that Wesley held the two together. I do think that the AHM divorced them, to our detriment.

But for good or ill, the AHM has had much influence in our church. The specific focus has thus opened the door for other theological strands, as the AHM was not concerned with a necessarily holistic view of Christianity in breadth and scope.

Wesley could never be accused of being too narrow, having written books on health and medicine as well as synthesizing other books for his constituency that dealt with literature, politics, philosophy, and science.

As a side note, I have read and heard that different geographic regions of the USA have been more or less influenced by each of our strands. I wonder which has influenced other world areas?

[Ryan Scott]

I've been reading the thread all along, Ramesh. No one said it wasn't personal, people have said salvation is more than personal and that is true. When someone tries to single out one element or the other (personal or communal) they remove a vital element of salvation. So to say "salvation is fundamentally personal" is denying the vitality of corporate salvation. If someone where to say, "salvation is fundamentally corporate" they would be denying the vitality of personal salvation.

Ultimately, salvation is fundamentally personal and corporate. If one becomes favored over the other, it ceases to be a proper view of salvation.

[Ramesh Deosarran]

I've been reading the thread all along, Ramesh. No one said it wasn't personal, people have said salvation is more than personal and that is true. When someone tries to single out one element or the other (personal or communal) they remove a vital element of salvation. So to say "salvation is fundamentally personal" is denying the vitality of corporate salvation. If someone where to say, "salvation is fundamentally corporate" they would be denying the vitality of personal salvation.

Ultimately, salvation is fundamentally personal and corporate. If one becomes favored over the other, it ceases to be a proper view of salvation.

When I used the word “personal” I did not intend to belittle the corporate aspect of salvation. However, I was called on this and agreed with Chris. Salvation is corporate. I do not have an issue with salvation as corporate. To say that salvation is personal does not deny corporate salvation. It is personal because we do not experience salvation for each other. We have to personally enter into relationship with Christ. Without this personal acceptance there is no salvation in Christ.

Look at Phil. 2:11 “every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.” This is personally accepting the lordship of Christ. Those who do not accept Him now with know that He is also their Judge in the final day.

[Hans Deventer]

When I used the word “personal” I did not intend to belittle the corporate aspect of salvation. However, I was called on this and agreed with Chris. Salvation is corporate. I do not have an issue with salvation as corporate. To say that salvation is personal does not deny corporate salvation. It is personal because we do not experience salvation for each other. We have to personally enter into relationship with Christ.

I was going to write: "so it's all a matter of misunderstanding", but then you wrote:

Without this personal acceptance there is no salvation in Christ.

Look at Phil. 2:11 “every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.” This is personally accepting the lordship of Christ. Those who do not accept Him now with know that He is also their Judge in the final day.

I don't quite understand the last sentence, but I will be as bold as to say that I believe there are those who did not confess Jesus Christ as Lord with their tongue, and still will make it to heaven. As there will be those who DID confess Jesus Christ as Lord with their tongue, but won't make it to heaven.

Matt 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

And those who do "the will of my Father" without knowing Jesus, will find He died for their sins as well.

There simply is no faith without "doing the will of my Father". No confession without it will save you, given time and opportunity, as Wesley used to say.

[Jamie Wayne]

Neither can we forget the cosmic element of salvation:

1 Corinthians 15:24-28

24 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For "God has put all things in subjection under his feet." But when it says, "all things are put in subjection," it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. 28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.

I think that the only sense that we can fully say that "salvation is fundamentally personal" is in the sense that salvation is fundamentally linked to the person of Jesus Christ.

[Jamie Wayne]

It's funny, Hans, how you and I can so vehemently clash on certain issues, yet on nearly everything else we are so much in agreement that it's sometimes scary.

[John Kennedy]

Having spent the first 35 years of my life in the CoN and the next 33 in reasonably close contact, the question of which has had greater impact is a classic no-brainer - the AHM has overwhelmingly dominated. I spent about half of the last 33 in a sister denomination, Free Methodist, that, IMO, was significantly closer to the classic Wesleyan end of the spectrum.

I think, as I have observed before, there are a significant number of Nazarenes who, when they hear from either camp, come away saying, "Hey, what are you guys talking about?" My father, who along with my mother, was a long-time Nazarene pastor, used to wryly observe that "Nazarenes make real good Baptists".

It is increasingly evident that the largest American Protestant church is the 'Stealth Baptist' denomination. A truly ecumenical group, it undoubtedly includes a fair number of Nazarenes.

[Ramesh Deosarran]

I don't quite understand the last sentence, but I will be as bold as to say that I believe there are those who did not confess Jesus Christ as Lord with their tongue, and still will make it to heaven..

I agree with you conditionally. Example - I had a cousin who was born retarded to some extent. He died at the age of 43. He was not rational and never reached the age of accountability. As long as I remain faithful to God, I believe I will see him in heaven.

[Ramesh Deosarran]

Neither can we forget the cosmic element of salvation:

1 Corinthians 15:24-28

24 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For "God has put all things in subjection under his feet." But when it says, "all things are put in subjection," it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. 28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.

I think that the only sense that we can fully say that "salvation is fundamentally personal" is in the sense that salvation is fundamentally linked to the person of Jesus Christ.


Questions:
1. In the cosmic element of salvation, who are included and who are excluded? I am not including those who are irresponsible and children in innocency. They are already covered by the blood.


2. How would you exegete I Cor. 15:24-28?

3. Apart from linking salvation to Jesus Christ, is there another way for personal salvation?

[Jamie Wayne]

Questions:
1. In the cosmic element of salvation, who are included and who are excluded? I am not including those who are irresponsible and children in innocency. They are already covered by the blood.

It's not merely a question of "who" are included or excluded, because salvation does not merely pertain to human beings. If we conceive of salvation merely in terms of being "saved" from "hell," then it would be easy to forget that the world is fallen due to man's sin - not just mankind. The restoration of relationships doesn't end with an individual's relationship with God and to each other, but with the entire cosmos.

As to "who" will be saved, that is not for me to say, Ramesh, but I will wholeheartedly say that the "blood" was sufficient for everyone, including those whom you mentioned - though I do not mean that to suggest that God requires blood, either, as if He couldn't be satisfied any other way.

I don't entirely agree with Moltmann pertaining to these issues, but I hope that he's right (or close to it).

2. How would you exegete I Cor. 15:24-28?Very carefully. :)

Suffice it to say that this passage speaks to salvation being much more than simply "getting out of going to hell."

3. Apart from linking salvation to Jesus Christ, is there another way for personal salvation?1. Salvation is by grace alone.
2. Grace comes from God.
3. Jesus Christ is God.
4. Therefore, salvation is by Jesus Christ alone.

I could expand the argument to include such elements as the hypostatic union, communicatio idiomatum, and perichoresis, but if your question is whether or not there is salvation apart from the Person of Jesus Christ, then my answer is no.

Since salvation is much more than "getting out of going to hell," there is no other way for me to conceive of "personal salvation."

I can, however, affirm that God, via prevenient grace, enables and encourages us to choose Him, giving us free will and allowing us to choose Him despite our depravity; in this sense, God does not do the choosing for us, and our choice is a personal one. The choice is personal; salvation most certainly is not.


Getting back to the original question of the thread, and tying this all back in, it is probably more the American Holiness Movement than has promoted the view that salvation is "personal" in the sense of being between an individual and God only (or mostly, at any rate); I think that Wesley's view was much focused on the "individual and God." Wesley's view also seems much less exclusive than that of the American Holiness Movement. While Wesley was certainly interested in "holiness," I think that the legalism present in the CotN probably comes more from the American Holiness Movement, as manifested in "personal" rules of holiness, e.g., not drinking, gambling, etc... Those "rules" have made "holiness" more an issue of what an individual doesn't do rather than promote the restoration of relationships. That sort of thinking plays into the idea of "personal" salvation.

I'm simply rejecting that soteriological notion in favor of something much grander in scope - salvation as "personal" is nothing compared to salvation as corporate, salvation as "cosmic," and even various parts of what that means - salvation as global, as "green," as ecumenical, as truly liberating, as economic, as political, and much, much more.

What good is it if I've escaped hell in some "after life", but hell remains on earth?

Confess with your mouth all you want, but that's not saying much to someone when there's no sanitation system in their village and their children are starving to death. The last enemy to be destroyed is death - what good is it if my "soul" is "saved," but children are still dying because of disease due to poor sanitation and starvation? I'm not so sure that I want my "soul" to be "saved" when the world is in so much turmoil.

"Personal" salvation seems to mean something closer to the idea that only the "soul" is important, and some "personal" choice "saves" the "soul" from this mass of perdition in the future "in" heaven - not that this mass of perdition needs to be restored here and now, that it's not only the "soul" that needs "saved," but all of creation.

Which has been more influential in the CotN, the American Holiness Movement or Wesley?

The American Holiness Movement.


Side note:

I think it would be great "in" heaven to listen to John Wesley at a round table discussion including Jurgen Moltmann and Bishop N.T. Wright...and I wonder what Wesley would say to Brian McLaren, who was invited to speak at the 2008 Lambeth Conference. I'd like to think that, were Wesley an Anglican today, he'd be at Lambeth trying to promote inclusiveness while maintaining orthodoxy.

[Jamie Wayne]

I will be as bold as to say that I believe there are those who did not confess Jesus Christ as Lord with their tongue, and still will make it to heaven.

I agree with you conditionally. Example - I had a cousin who was born retarded to some extent. He died at the age of 43. He was not rational and never reached the age of accountability. As long as I remain faithful to God, I believe I will see him in heaven.

I will be so bold as to say that I believe that there will be Buddhists "in" heaven, as well as Muslims, Hindus, and Jews, as well as all sorts of atheists and agnostics, and more.

I will be even bolder to say that I believe that some Christians upon arrival "in" heaven may wonder why there's so few Christians, relatively speaking...

[Hans Deventer]

I will be so bold as to say that I believe that there will be Buddhists "in" heaven, as well as Muslims, Hindus, and Jews, as well as all sorts of atheists and agnostics, and more.

I will be even bolder to say that I believe that some Christians upon arrival "in" heaven may wonder why there's so few Christians, relatively speaking...

Scary indeed, in both meanings: agreement and the fact in itself.

[Billy Cox]

I will be so bold as to say that I believe that there will be Buddhists "in" heaven, as well as Muslims, Hindus, and Jews, as well as all sorts of atheists and agnostics, and more.

I will be even bolder to say that I believe that some Christians upon arrival "in" heaven may wonder why there's so few Christians, relatively speaking...

Whenever I am around someone who is overly infatuated with conventional thinking, I suggest that they can't get into heaven if there is anyone whose presence in Heaven would make them angry. :basic03

[Ramesh Deosarran]

I will be so bold as to say that I believe that there will be Buddhists "in" heaven, as well as Muslims, Hindus, and Jews, as well as all sorts of atheists and agnostics, and more.

I will be even bolder to say that I believe that some Christians upon arrival "in" heaven may wonder why there's so few Christians, relatively speaking...


I am thrilled!

Daniel T Niles – The Preacher’s Task and the Stone of Stumbling.

… Hinduism accepts all religion as true and believes that individuals born in them will attain salvation if they honestly follow the spiritual path preached by them. The Vedas proclaim that “God is one though the sages call it variously.” In Sivagnana Siddhyar, an important scripture of Saivite Hinduiism, it is said: “Whatever God you worship, even as Him, Shiva will appear there.” Or, as it is stated in the Bhagaved Gita, one of the scriptures of the Vaishnavite Hinduism, “Howsoever men approach Me, even so do I accept them, for on all sides whatever path they choose is Mine.”

George A Barton – The Religions of the World

Hinduism – It has no rallying-point; it stands for no one great idea or ideal. Some of its ideas are beautiful; many of its ideals noble: but in general it lacks consistency and coherency. In most of its varied manifestations Hinduism suffers by the divorce of religion from life. Salvation is to be attained by intellectual absorption or by some ritual acts.”

Niles

“In Jesus not only was there revealed the mind and purpose of the eternal God, but there was also done in him a deed which brought salvation to mankind. It has be said that what we saw on Calvary what was always true of God. But this is only a partial statement. Something happened on Calvary for the first time. God’s redemptive activity within history reached its culmination there. So that a new possibility has been opened for man Jesus Christ. He is invited to participate of salvation of which Jesus is the beginning and the ending, the pioneer and the goal,”


August Karl Reischauer – In The Great Religions of the World

Buddha - “I have overcome all foes: I am all wise; I am free from stains in every way; I have left everything; I have obtained emancipation by the destruction of desire. Having myself gained knowledge, whom shall I call my master? I have no teacher and no one is equal to me; in the world of men and of gods, no being is like me. I am the holy One in the world, I am the highest teacher. I alone am the Sambuddha (Perfectly Enlightened); I have obtained coolness (by extinction of passions) and have obtained Nirvana. To found the Kingdom of Truth I go to the city of Kais (Benares); I will beat the drum of the immortal in the darkness of this world.”

Niles

“Buddhists are taught that all things are mind-made, that all god actions and bad actions arise from the mind, and that salvation – in the sense understood by any religion – must be sought by oneself through one’s own endeavour. They are also told that they must accept nothing for granted, that they must think out for themselves the truth or falsity, reality or non-reality, the good and the bad of all things. It is fundamental teaching of Buddhists that everything arises from a cause and that the law of cause and effect is universal…

In Christianity, one prays to God as the Saviour and the dispenser of all good things in life. In Buddhism, each one is expected , by his own efforts, to ennoble himself in accordance with the Noble Eightfold Path.”

Niles

Muslim - “The Muslim refusal of the Christian faith assumes that it is enough for God to deal with men and for man to deal with God in the way recorded for us in the Old Testament. All that was necessary was a final prophet who would give clearer teaching about the way to live according to God’s laws. God is merciful and sovereign, and man not only can but also ought to leave it at that. The Christian faith, on the other hand, arises from the fact that whatever man may think or be satisfied with, God has acted in Jesus Christ to open for man a new possibility apart from the law, whereby instead of the law being a gateway to God’s grace it becomes the avenue by which man can render grateful thanks to God for what God has freely done. It is not that Jesus Christ enables us to obey law but he delivers us from it and thereby open us the possibility of making obedience to the law our offering to him.”

Emil Brunner – Emil Brunner’s Conception of Revelation

“Jesus Christ is either the only Saviour of the world, or He is not a Saviour at all, but only a religious genius. The essence of Christianity, according to the Bible, consists not in its incidental affinities with other religions, but in its distinctive elements. The Gospel is related to other faiths as either-or. We cannot simultaneously affirm: there is salvation in none other; and the others, Buddha et al., represent the same thing as Jesus, only perhaps a bit less perfectly.”

Simply:
The Hindu is willing to accept Jesus as an incarnation of Brama.

Buddhism denies forgiveness or redemption. Its way of salvation is good works and renunciation through mental discipline.

Islam – There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is the prophet.

Christianity – Salvation is not by works or religious activity but by grace through faith. This grace is through Jesus Christ. Christianity does not compromise with other religions. Jesus Christ is the Way to God. There is no other way.

[Chris Patton]

I don't doubt that Jamie thinks that Jesus is the only way to God. I might guess that he is equivocating on what that way looks like. In other words, could Christ be at work in a person of another religion and they not have the language to say that it is Christ at work?

If there are indeed all manner of people other than Christians at the final resurrection, I think I would have to say that no matter their background, they are there because of Christ Jesus, no matter how conscious or unconscious their knowledge of Jesus and Jesus' way.

[Hans Deventer]

Christianity – Salvation is not by works or religious activity but by grace through faith. This grace is through Jesus Christ. Christianity does not compromise with other religions. Jesus Christ is the Way to God. There is no other way.

I'm getting a "little" tired from statements like this, because they suggest that some here don't believe that. But I haven't found a single person here who didn't believe that Jesus is the way, and the only way, to God. I wish for a little more honesty, really.

The true discussion is, does it take full understanding what it means that Jesus is the only way, and a full confession of that fact to be saved? THAT is the issue, and I never ever want to hear somebody state here that "Jesus Christ is the Way to God. There is no other way." when that isn't the issue. :gen10

[Jamie Wayne]

I love quoting myself... ;)


1. Salvation is by grace alone.
2. Grace comes from God.
3. Jesus Christ is God.
4. Therefore, salvation is by Jesus Christ alone.

I could expand the argument to include such elements as the hypostatic union, communicatio idiomatum, and perichoresis, but if your question is whether or not there is salvation apart from the Person of Jesus Christ, then my answer is no.

[Jamie Wayne]

By the way, Ramesh, I see the work of the Holy Spirit when I read the vedas, the Upanishads, and the Gita...and when I read the Tao Te Ching, too - as well as the sutras. I see "them" expressing their experience with the Holy Spirit, and there is much that we can learn from "them." For that matter, I don't doubt that the Holy Spirit was working with Socrates, too!

[Ramesh Deosarran]

I'm getting a "little" tired from statements like this, because they suggest that some here don't believe that. But I haven't found a single person here who didn't believe that Jesus is the way, and the only way, to God. I wish for a little more honesty, really.

The true discussion is, does it take full understanding what it means that Jesus is the only way, and a full confession of that fact to be saved? THAT is the issue, and I never ever want to hear somebody state here that "Jesus Christ is the Way to God. There is no other way." when that isn't the issue. :gen10

I was treating this as a general discussion/debate. Honestly, I did not take anything personally. I am not attacking anyone's belief. Nevertheless, your point is taken.

[Jamie Wayne]

I am thrilled!

Christianity – Salvation is not by works or religious activity but by grace through faith. This grace is through Jesus Christ. Christianity does not compromise with other religions. Jesus Christ is the Way to God. There is no other way.

I maintain that if Jesus is the Way, then Christianity is not!

Christianity should, at its very best, point towards the Way.

Christianity saves no one, so whether or not Christianity compromises with other religions is irrelevant, really...the question is whether or not Christ is more gracious than many Christians!

How 'bout them apples? :)

[Ramesh Deosarran]

...the question is whether or not Christ is more gracious than many Christians!

How 'bout them apples? :)


Well, these apples are not quite ripe. Jesus Christ is grace. Why are you saying more gracious than?

[Jamie Wayne]

Well, these apples are not quite ripe. Jesus Christ is grace. Why are you saying more gracious than?

Because some Christians think Christ less gracious than I believe Him to be.

[Mike Schutz]

As we see on several threads these days, fundamentalism is still alive in the CotN. It is not easy to be a Wesleyan and a fundamentalist, but quite possible as a proponent of AHM.

[John Kennedy]

It seems rare for this forum to go for any significant period of time without postings on the 'AHM or Wesley' topic. Having spent the first 35+ years of my life in the church I had never heard much of anything but the AHM position.

I was aware from reading Timothy Smith's CALLED UNTO HOLINESS that Wesleyan doctrine had, seemingly, undergone some 'modifications' as it was being presented to an American audience. A few years before, a former Nazarene, John Peters, had written CHRISTIAN PERFECTION AND AMERICAN METHODISM, a book that looked at the issue from a little different perspective.

My own reading about Wesley furnished some contrast with the preaching I had heard all my life. Rob Staples book, OUTWARD SIGN.......took a look at some of the differences from a sacramental standpoint. I spent about 17 years in the Free Methodist Church and noted, what I felt was, a somewhat different emphasis and perspective that appeared to be a bit more classically Wesleyan. In the case of the FM Church, for instance, the communion ritual includes the General Confession, a prayer that might make some of the Nazarenes I grew up with a bit edgy.

I said all that to ask this: at what point did some of you become aware that there were two schools of thought . Was it something you read, an event that took place, etc?

Smith's book was published in 1962, with the Purkiser sequel, CALLED....II, coming along in 1983. This was just a few years after the 1958 Golden Anniversary celebration at Pilot Point. IMO the publication of the book was indicative of a denomination that felt secure enough to take a lovingly honest look at itself.

A source I regard as well informed related to me that the publication committee having final say in the matter was somewhat hesitant - there was a fear of ruffling some feathers. Finally the GS having jurisdiction reminded the committee that when you hire a real historian to write a history you shouldn't, in effect, expect a 'puff' piece.

Does anyone know if there are any plans for another history in connection with the denomination's 100th anniversary?

[Susan Unger]

Finally the GS having jurisdiction reminded the committee that when you hire a real historian to write a history you shouldn't, in effect, expect a 'puff' piece.

Funny!

Does anyone know if there are any plans for another history in connection with the denomination's 100th anniversary? Mark Quanstrom wrote one - Century of American Holiness [?] Something like that. It was the juiciest history book I've ever read [and I've read alot of them as one with a BA in history].

[Roland Hearn]

Charles,
Thanks for this thread. I think that at the deepest levels of our denomination this is the struggle we face. I also think in the weekly issues of being the church this plays almost no part at all, but it should.

Growing up in the church it just never occurred to me that there was any tension between Wesley and the historical roots of the church. All were quoted and spoken of with equal fondness. As I started more of a personal journey I began with that perspective. It was only later as I began to wrestle with an adequate way of being a communicator of the truths of love and grace that I began to see first tension and later opposition between the two points of view.

I think that it is possible to push the two perspectives to an extreme that makes them oppositional but if the AHM is seen in a cultural, sociological construct it makes perfect sense and fits with the overarching perspectives of Wesley but it does not lock in for all time ways and means of being the church nor perspectives on holiness. I think it is absolutely essential that we allow the crisis experience, so essential to the AHM, to remain a key part of our understanding. However I think that as we have moved along in time we are able to recognise that time is less of a component in crisis then focus of the will. The crisis became the emphasis of the AHM because something had gone out of Wesleyanism in general. The passion was lost for the transformed life and people were noting that transformation is the cornerstone of a correct understanding of faith. God does not leave us the way we were. This is essential to being Wesleyan.

For me one of the other essentials in Wesleyanism is the understanding of the dynamic of faith, understanding and methodology. Wesley was a pragmatist, he looked for what worked. I think any effort to enshrine methodology or function is to miss the point of the heart of Wesley. I don't think it is fair to claim to be a Wesleyan and only consider Wesley's way of doing things. I think he had a dynamic understanding of theology as well recognising that their was a genuine moving toward understanding God as the church wrestles with issues. I think to be truly Wesleyan is to struggle with how love and grace are best understood and communicated in this context.

We need to be Wesleyan as a movement without loosing sight of the genuinely wonderful additions our forebears have been to our understanding of how grace works now.

[Billy Cox]

I said all that to ask this: at what point did some of you become aware that there were two schools of thought . Was it something you read, an event that took place, etc?


I was barely aware of John Wesley until I attended SNU from '88-'92. I became more acutely aware of the two schools of thought when I moved to the KC area and began to encounter seminary students - especially some who had attended MNU and NBC - having almost as much contempt for the 'liberal' professors at NTS as they had for the apostate religion faculty at SNU. I remember wondering why in the world they came to NTS.

To their credit, most of those who had such hostile attitudes in their first year at NTS had a few years later 'unlearned' some of their doctrinal bigotry and had become far more generous in their orthodoxy.

Another turning point for me was in reading an article by Frank Moore and observing that he drew heavily upon John Wesley yet came to conclusions that were totally alien to what I had come to believe in my own learning about Wesley and in my own faith journey. It was then that I realized how profound the potential for division could be in the Church of the Nazarene.

More recently I am far less concerned about the theological divide; not because the Wesleyan point of view has done such a great job of promoting its message, but because the American Holiness Movement has run its course and is quickly passing away - with or without the counterpoint of the Wesleyan point of view.

[Billy Cox]

I think it is absolutely essential that we allow the crisis experience, so essential to the AHM, to remain a key part of our understanding. However I think that as we have moved along in time we are able to recognise that time is less of a component in crisis then focus of the will. The crisis became the emphasis of the AHM because something had gone out of Wesleyanism in general. The passion was lost for the transformed life and people were noting that transformation is the cornerstone of a correct understanding of faith. God does not leave us the way we were. This is essential to being Wesleyan.


I think that the AHM insistence on crisis is unsustainable, not because crisis is an invalid metaphor, but because a single crisis event is disconnected from authentic human experience - the credibility gap.

If a person at age 19 claims to have had *the* crisis event, where do subsequent crises fit into that system? Are they just trials and tribulations? Are they just 'blessings in disguise'; tests from a grandfatherly God? What if a life event such as the death of a child or the betrayal of a spouse later brings all of one's convictions crashing down? Was the crisis at age 19 a fraud? Was the God that the 19 year-old worshipped with such fervor a product of selfish ambition?

When the truths we cling to are shown by human experience to be half-truths at best, THAT is a crisis. The fact that we live long enough to experience a number of crises means that a 'one-and-done' model of religious experience will fail the credibility test with stunning regularity.

I don't buy the whole 'crisis followed by process' idea either - it seems to be a futile attempt to maintain a facade of unity in the face of overwhelming evidence pointing in a different direction. I am convinced that authentic Christian life is a process punctuated by multiple crises - each with transformative potential, but never is that transformation a foregone conclusion.

[Roland Hearn]

I think that the AHM insistence on crisis is unsustainable, not because crisis is an invalid metaphor, but because a single crisis event is disconnected from authentic human experience - the credibility gap.

If a person at age 19 claims to have had *the* crisis event, where do subsequent crises fit into that system? Are they just trials and tribulations? Are they just 'blessings in disguise'; tests from a grandfatherly God? What if a life event such as the death of a child or the betrayal of a spouse later brings all of one's convictions crashing down? Was the crisis at age 19 a fraud? Was the God that the 19 year-old worshipped with such fervor a product of selfish ambition?

When the truths we cling to are shown by human experience to be half-truths at best, THAT is a crisis. The fact that we live long enough to experience a number of crises means that a 'one-and-done' model of religious experience will fail the credibility test with stunning regularity.

I don't buy the whole 'crisis followed by process' idea either - it seems to be a futile attempt to maintain a facade of unity in the face of overwhelming evidence pointing in a different direction. I am convinced that authentic Christian life is a process punctuated by multiple crises - each with transformative potential, but never is that transformation a foregone conclusion.

What you say is reasonable Billy but it is not complete when you consider the weight of testimony, which is what Wesley did. There is almost always a pinnacle experience of surrender that outweighs and conditions all other experiences. I would note my own experience of entire sanctification at 11:41 on January 28 1986. Something profound happened in my life that transcended everything else before or since that culminated after six weeks of wrestling with God. However there were significant moments after that that included process and momentary realizations. I don't think my experience is prescriptive but it is consistent with the traditional view in many ways. I think the AHM model is disadvantaged by being precisely too prescriptive in light of human experience but I am loathe to discard that which has been genuinely revelatory for many many people. I want an understanding of sanctification that calls people to the wrestling with God, the clarity of encounter, the peace of settled issues but I don't want to say too definitively how one should arrive at such a point.

[Billy Cox]

What you say is reasonable Billy but it is not complete when you consider the weight of testimony, which is what Wesley did. There is almost always a pinnacle experience of surrender that outweighs and conditions all other experiences. I would note my own experience of entire sanctification at 11:41 on January 28 1986. Something profound happened in my life that transcended everything else before or since that culminated after six weeks of wrestling with God. However there were significant moments after that that included process and momentary realizations. I don't think my experience is prescriptive but it is consistent with the traditional view in many ways. I think the AHM model is disadvantaged by being precisely too prescriptive in light of human experience but I am loathe to discard that which has been genuinely revelatory for many many people. I want an understanding of sanctification that calls people to the wrestling with God, the clarity of encounter, the peace of settled issues but I don't want to say too definitively how one should arrive at such a point.


Well, as long as we are not being overly prescriptive of one individual experience to everyone, could we not leave room for the possibility that the 'pinnacle' experience could be at the middle of the journey or even near the end? We also have the fact that anecdotal evidence (testimony) tends to reinforce whatever patterns we expect to see. I don't think Wesley (the alchemist and pseudoscientist) would be above that tendency.

People in Wesley's day did not have a mental category for mid-life, or retirement, or even adolescence. Once a person started an occupation and married, the remainder of their life was a process of accepting their lot in life, producing offspring and embarking on the slow slide toward death. Could the testimony of entire sanctification in Wesley's day have been conditioned to fit within that cultural narrative?

Could it also be that one type of experience seems normative to us today because those who have a 'non-normative' testimony quietly fade away into groups that are less worried about systematizing the mystery of entire sanctification - or they keep their mouths shut and quietly ask God what's wrong with them? :basic03

I could be wrong, but I also seem to recall that in his later writings, Wesley was not as convinced that he had entire sanctification completely figured out.

[Roland Hearn]

Billy to be sure I would not be backed into a corner to start advocating the type of crisis experience that was mine. I would certainly give you all the things you ask for as possibilities. I would, however, suggest that while it is possible to miss manage crisis experience it is certainly possible to miss manage process theology to the point were one wanders around in uncertainty. I simply advocate the kind of encounter with God that deals with the central issues and allows us to live by His grace beyond the dictates of our own struggles. I have found many people including myself that began to push for more process and less crisis that did so because there were central issues in their own lives that had not been addressed. The witness of a life lived out in love is all that is needed to satisfy me that there is an adequate experience of God, a life lived in self dominated perspectives that argues for the inadequacy of grace has no real authority in the discussion. So I would simply say that I would give what ever room anyone needed to know God fully but to know God and the power of His grace needs to be the goal as far as I can see. And that is what the AHM brought to the discussion a genuine desire to fully embrace a transformational understanding of God and for that reason I would not fully reject that part of our heritage in our search for where we are headed.