The Arminian Magazine--Fall, 1993

PLUGGING THE HOLES --Vic Reasoner

A review of my book The Hole in the Holiness Movement appeared in the January/February, 1993 Convention Herald. I have been asked to respond. I must begin by noting that the author, Edsel Trouten, called me on January 11 to apologize for the article. Apparently the Convention Herald editor ran the article without Trouten's knowledge or permission.

In his "Explanatory Note" on p. 5 of the March/April, 1993 Convention Herald Trouten disclosed that "the reviewer considers Bro. Reasoner to be a precious brother in Christ. The exchange was an exchange of ideas not an attack on his person." I am not sure why Trouten, and not the editor, assumed responsibility for the mistake.

I also consider Bro. Trouten to be my friend. We can disagree and still be brothers. However, since the official publication of the Inter-Church Holiness convention chose to publish his review, I am assuming that Bro. Trouten was used to state the position of the IHC. Endeavoring to avoid any personality clashes, I want to continue our "exchange of ideas."

I am surprised that the IHC printed the review because:

(1) It is not conservative.

The Convention Herald cover for March/April, 1992 depicts nine church leaders. I am unsure why Augustine and Martin Luther were portrayed since both were opponents of Christian perfection. However, it is obvious with Wesley in the center, surrounded by Francis Asbury and William Booth, that the picture is an interpretation of the caption, "a heritage to keep and to share." In the forefront of the picture are three IHC leaders: Glen Griffith, H. Robb French, and H. E. Schmul. The apparent connection is that the IHC considers itself to be the legitimate heir of the Wesleyan legacy.

However, it is not the only such organization that considers itself to be Wesleyan. Groups such as the Christian Holiness Association have a much larger constituency. The main distinction is that the IHC is an umbrella organization for the conservative holiness movement.

Conservative, as used in this context, means a desire to preserve tradition. In this case, the tradition to be preserved is the Wesleyan heritage. The book review admits that "John Wesley did teach Pentecostal regeneration." However, the conservative holiness movement today does not accept that doctrine. The reviewer uses a liberal rationale to explain the discrepancy:

To say that Mr. Wesley did not teach what is accepted by modern holiness writers today is not the same as saying he would not have accepted it had he had an opportunity to see and think through a clearly developed presentation of this later Spirit-centered sanctification theology.

This is a classic liberal argument which can have many applications. Let's consider another variation:

To say that the apostles did not teach what is accepted by the modern church today is not the same as saying they would not have accepted modern liberal theology if they had been given an opportunity to see and think through a clearly developed presentation of higher criticism.

Is the IHC committed to preserving our Wesleyan heritage or not Or do they appeal to Wesley only when he supports their agenda

(2) It ignores the consequences of faulty theology.

The review conceded, "It is agreed by nearly all Wesleyan scholars that Wesley did believe and teach that the disciples were born again on the day of Pentecost." But then the review continued, "One is tempted to ask, 'So what' and 'What does that prove'"

I believe that doctrine has consequences. The consequence in this case is spelled out clearly on the back cover of the book. "When the Holiness Movement began teaching the baptism of the Holy Spirit as a second blessing they departed from historic Methodism and opened the door to Pentecostalism."

Inside the book I devoted an entire chapter to the rise of pentecostalism. I attempted to demonstrate that within one generation of a new holiness emphasis on Spirit baptism the Pentecostal Movement began and it arose from within the holiness movement. I also said it would not have ever happened if we had maintained our Wesleyan doctrine.

Charismatics are a major market for the sale of turn of the century holiness books which have been reprinted. The charismatics find the pentecostal language in them and then claim pentecostalism began with the Wesleyan revival.

Whether the IHC believes Pentecostalism to be in error is an issue for them to decide. When Bro. Trouten attended a Wesleyan/Holiness Study Project in 1990 and wrote a report for the IHC, it drew fire because some people perceived that the IHC had compromised on the charismatic issue.

The reader might be interested to know that when Fundamental Wesleyan Publishers paid to run a book advertisement in the Convention Herald they would only run it on the condition that a phrase be excluded. The layout read, "When the Holiness Movement began teaching the baptism of the Holy Spirit as a second blessing, did they depart form historic Methodism and open the door to Pentecostalism" Check for yourself. The ad in the Convention Herald for November/December, 1991 does not contain the reference to Pentecostalism.

Either I failed to make my point of the IHC is trying to avoid my point.

(3) It misquoted my book.

The review stated, "Reasoner is forced to admit that 'John Wesley saw the Holy Spirit in the entire sanctification process' (p. 58). By turning to page 58 you can read for yourself, "John Wesley saw the Holy Spirit in the entire salvation process."

While the modern holiness movement does not believe you have the Holy Spirit until you are entirely sanctified, I was pointing out that Wesley did not agree with that teaching. Furthermore, the modern holiness movement insists that entire sanctification is a crisis, not a process.

(4) It employs "guilt by association."

a. Because I quote "five point Calvinists"

The review criticizes me for using commentators like James D. G. Dunn and F. F. Bruce because "they are ardent opponents of the message of holiness." I am sorry my point was missed. In chapter three, I examined the six references in Acts to the giving of the Holy Spirit. The classic Methodist commentators did not associate any of those references with a second work of grace. In that context I quoted Dunn and Bruce as reputable evangelical scholars to show that they interpreted the passages in the same way.

I certainly would not accept every doctrinal position held by commentators like Dunn and Bruce, but they are accepted as some of today's best evangelical scholars. I used their exegesis without accepting their doctrinal conclusions. The point is that the old Methodist commentators and some of the best modern evangelical commentators agree.

But when you check the holiness commentaries they have put a different twist on every passage in question. Is it necessary for the defense of their doctrine that the holiness movement reinterpret the Scriptures Are holiness commentators like Godbey and McLaughlin good exegetes or are they attempting to read into the passages their own presuppositions My primary loyalty is not to the holiness tradition, but to the authority of Scripture. I do not want to preach anything that cannot be proven by Scripture.

b. By accusing me of "buying into the dispensationalist's argument."

I attack dispensationalism by name in my book (p. 17) and refer to its teachings as unWesleyan (pp. 96-97).

However, the conservative holiness movement has bought into dispensationalism lock, stock, and barrel. In his little book Power from on High, Leslie Wilcox asserted that "however valuable the idea of dispensations may be from the standpoint of prophecy it has led to a totally false impression in regard to the method of salvation" (p. 28).

The Wesleyan position is the exact opposite. H. Ray Dunning wrote in Grace, Faith, and Holiness that he did not know of one Wesleyan scholar who would subscribe to a dispensational eschatology (p. 585). However, a Wesleyan by the name of John Fletcher wrote a good deal about the dispensations of salvation. It has nothing to do with John Darby, C. I. Scofield, or Hal Lindsey.

If you want to look through Fletcher's "Portrait of St. Paul," you will read, "The true minister believes and preaches the . . . three great dispensations of grace (Works, 3:166). The dispensation of the Holy Spirit is now in force (p. 181) and the evangelical pastor defends the dispensations of the Spirit against all opposers (p. 184)." Fletcher did not teach "multiple ways to be saved." Man has always been saved by grace through faith. But before Pentecost believers were Jewish and after Pentecost they were Christians.

Most of my book was completed six years ago. I have continued to gather material and I think I could write a better book today. In fact I am now writing a doctoral dissertation on this whole issue. but with all of its imperfections I still think my book will open your eyes to some problems we have for too long been trying to avoid.

FROM OUR MAILBAG

February 4, 1993

Dear Brother Vic,

Last week I received in the mail a copy of THE ARMINIAN containing your article, "The Spirit of Tolerance." I was pleased to receive the periodical, as I am deeply concerned to see a renewed and wide-spread appreciation of our Methodist roots.

Your plea for tolerance within conservative holiness ranks is, of course, desperately needed. Actually the issues which divide us are often of minuscule significance, but we are being shattered by them. It seems to me that our movement everywhere needs a dynamic recovery of the transcendent issues which gave us origin in the great Wesleyan Revival of the 18th century. A glowingly resurgent Wesleyanism would place the emphasis where it needs to be placed - upon the great themes of sin and grace, of "pardon, holiness, and heaven" which so warmed the hearts of our spiritual ancestors - rather than upon petty matters which deflect us from the central focus which God has committed to us. By "resurgent Wesleyanism," I do not mean a revived emphasis upon secondary and occasional opinions which Mr. Wesley and his colleagues may have expressed, but major attention upon the great over-arching emphases which are implicit in our birthright.

Methodism in its origin was truly the "old religion of the Bible" and of the primitive church, as Mr. Wesley stated. Never was it a petty exercise in sectarian preoccupation with exotic and cultic notions. Rather, it was - as you and I both believe - a renewed articulation of the central themes of New Testament Christianity. Wesley was ever cautious that his entire movement be based on Holy Scripture as it was interpreted by the ancient and universal "one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church" as expressed in its creeds and accredited spokesmen in the historic mainstream of orthodox Christianity.

In the "conservative holiness movement," of course, we have done just the opposite. Each "split" has carried us that much further from the "historic mainstream" of Christian Tradition until sadly we have become feuding, wrangling, embittered, schismatics, obsessed by all types of eccentric "pet issues," notions, and "hobbies." In a sense, we have drifted a long ways from our roots in either the Reformation or the ancient Catholic legacy. And our preoccupation with petty matters has separated us into warring and sometimes hostile camps. Surely a renewal commitment to the central issues of our Methodist heritage would reunite us on the basics, while allowing great charity for differences in opinion in other matters.

Like you, I have great problems with modern "fundamentalism," even though I am grateful to that movement for its commitment to the verity of Holy Scripture. I dislike its narrow mind-set, its frequent uncharitableness toward those who may differ from its limited vision, and its harsh negativism. Generally, fundamentalism's approach to the atonement, conversion, and eschatology is at odds with the historic Wesleyan view. Its usual rigid dispensationalism is certainly contrary to Wesleyanism's bright certainty in the ultimate triumph of the gospel.

Then fundamentalism's list of "fundamentals" is not enough. It has little or nothing to say of the church or sacraments or other means of grace. Mr. Wesley emphasized the sacraments as essential to the very nature of Christianity, referred to the Eucharist as the "Christian Sacrifice and Sacrament," taught the Real Presence in its celebration, required regular attendance at the Lord's Table in the "General Rules of the United Societies," and published Charles' hymns on sacramental worship. Indeed, I understand that Charles Wesley wrote more hymns about the Lord's Supper than any other subject! Probably the Wesleys would be as disturbed about the lack of continuing, effective, and reverent sacramental worship among us as anything else among contemporary fundamentalists or among us either, for that matter!

How I wish that a great number among us - old and young, clergy and laity, leaders and helpers - would remember Mr. Wesley's famous reminder that though we may not think alike, we still may love alike! God once shook the world through the burning witness of a vigorous and Spirit-anointed Methodism! It seems to me that we either must go back to being Methodists again or we will eventually disappear as a separate movement. Certainly, our roots in scriptural Christianity as we have received it from historic Wesleyanism are in desperate need of recovery. Here is our raison d'etre - the banner under which we must fight for Jesus, and it is a banner which is gloriously noble and an ensign of victory.

Yours faithfully in Christ,

Larry D. Smith pastor Old Salem Methodist Church, Axtell, Nebraska

UP WITH PREACHING --J. Grant Swank, Jr.

The church is in grave danger of losing its pulpit. It will not be yanked away by the atheists. It will simply side off the sanctuary platform because of lack of proper use.

What has been happening to the preached Word of late

It has been giving way to entertainment. Over-head projectors, singing groups, gospel film showings, drama, choreographed prayers, children's ditties, mimes and the like have clogged up too many worship hours.

This has meant that there has been little time for a substantive message from the Word. Of course, the laity rarely complain because they are enamored by the change of pace. Further, some of them have been stuck with boredom for so long that they welcome a bit of life from the front of the church building.

It addition, sound preaching has been replaced in some quarters with a extra overlay of liturgy. It does not take too much thought to realize that one hour is made up of sixty minutes. With that a given, a "clergyperson" can figure how he can whittle away his message to eight or ten minutes if he only includes one more liturgical movement.

Again, laity may not notice the change. At first, they may be enthralled with the extra religious rite. However, what they are sacrificing in preaching is usually not worth the added show.

Even in evangelical churches where liturgy does not weigh that heavily, some "clergypersons" have stretched their rundown of the bulletin's announcements, hardly realizing that laity can read those details just as easily as they read the daily paper. Some pastors simply add an extra hymn to wedge in the time so as to cut short the sermon.

What is this yielding today's congregation

We are losing out on the anointed preaching. God has promised to bless His messenger with eternal truth to convey to believers when that messenger puts forth prayer and earnest study to come upon the Sunday sermon. When tidbits are incorporated into a worship hour in order to sidestep a meaty message, the pastor is reneging on His divine call. He is a disappointment both to the Lord and His people. Eventually he will have to answer for his negligence.

We are fostering a spiritually ignorant people. Recent surveys indicate that the younger generation is not knowledgeable concerning the Bible. No doubt this is due to the slack-off on Sunday school attendance. But it is also due to the diluted preaching in too many pulpits. biblical doctrine is not being put forth. Instead, trite stories and pious mumblings are more in fad.

We are emptying our own pews. There is no need to strike out at the secular forces attacking Christendom. Certainly they are having the impact so as to increasingly diminish spiritual fervor. But in too many instances the bland pulpit has called for its own demise. Intelligent persons will finally give up on getting dressed up to trot off to some church for nothing but some sing- song called a sermon.

We still have time before we close the church doors. Then what can we do with the time left

We can determine that we will diligently prepare a Sunday sermon which will last at least twenty-five minutes. Time length in itself does not guarantee quality; nevertheless, it is a start.

We can spend more time studiously crafting the message and less time running about town. It is easier to be active than passive. It is more enticing to get behind the wheel of the car to gadabout than it is to work the brain with the Bible in prayer.

We can return to more doctrinal preaching. Instead of simply tickling ears we can start to build fires in the hearts of men and women. This takes more effort than simply giggling from the pulpit; nevertheless, it is what the Almighty has destined us to do as preachers of the inspired Word.

We can preach more authoritatively. Instead of merely giving forth sermons which sound like opinion-sharing, we can declare eternal verities. We are to pronounce the message of God. That takes more than smiling widely through a public relations stint on behalf of a local church institution.

We can shudder at what is actually happening today between the pulpit and pew. Then we can recoup our souls before God with the promise to do better. After all, we are the preachers for this generation; it is up to us. We cannot shift the responsibility to those who preceded us nor those who will follow. To the work in the name of the coming Christ. He stands at the door and waits. How will He judge us

Editor's Note: Rev. Swank pastors the Church of the Nazarene in Windham, Maine. This article is reprinted by permission of the author.

Dr. Rushdoony recently noted that the pulpit is the major media in America. Although the congregations across America each week outnumber the voters in any national election, we are failing to use the pulpit to educate our generation.