THE DILEMMA OF THE SUPREME PURSUIT

by
Albert L. Truesdale

The presidential address delivered by Dr. John Knight, Jr. at the 1979 WTS meeting at Marion College1 harbored a dilemma that I believe presently confronts denominations and theologians that identify with the doctrine of entire sanctification taught by the "holiness movement." Although the address did not directly enunciate the dilemma I wish to advance, the clear attempt to cast the reality of Christian holiness in catholic and holistic terms contains the dilemma implicitly, and demands its explicit statement. If the catholic temper of the address could be dismissed as a-typical among Wesleyan thinkers, then the dilemma could also be dismissed as not representing any significant issue in the holiness movement. But I believe the tone of the president's address, and the modes of expression chosen to articulate his understanding of Christian holiness to be paradigmatic among many thoughtful Wesleyans. It is precisely the presence and apparent attractiveness of this more holistic articulation of Christian holiness vis a vis the more narrowly defined exegetical, doctrinal, and experiential understanding of entire sanctification traditionally advanced by the holiness movement that forces the dilemma into the open.

The dilemma is stated here with hopes that it will spark further discussion. I wish to make it clear that my discussion is prompted by a compelling fidelity to the New Testament's call to, and our Lord's gracious provision for, Christian holiness. I propose to state the dilemma as I see it, give some preliminary reasons for its emergence, and describe what I see as two possible responses to it.

The dilemma may be stated as follows: The more holistic (comprehensive and inclusive) the forms chosen for articulating the reality of Christian holiness, the less adequate as vehicles for expression are the accustomed exegetical, doctrinal, and experiential categories (commonly called "the distinctives") employed by the holiness movement. Or the dilemma may be stated another way: the more insistent is the holiness movement on defending its traditionally definitive "distinctives," the less comprehensive, and more parochial, its articulation and propagation of Christian holiness becomes.

The impetus behind the dilemma is that for many Wesleyan thinkers the standard formulations of Christian holiness that have become characteristic of the holiness movement are inadequate to the present vision of the Christian life that grasps them.

Now, as we know, in order to have a true dilemma there must exist a situation involving choice between equally unsatisfactory alternatives, but where a choice must be made. As I see it, the nerve center of our present dilemma is that on the one hand the holiness movement insists on maintaining its distinctives, in which case access to the desired catholicity and comprehensiveness is jeopardized, and on the other hand it insists on the catholic legitimacy of its understanding of Christian holiness, which, if pursued consistently, entails a readiness to modify or revise accustomed distinctives.

The first horn of the dilemma-loss of catholicity-has generally been wholly objectionable to the chief framers of the holiness movement's understanding of Christian sanctification. They have refused to identify their characteristic doctrine of entire sanctification as a theological provincialism or culdesac (a point beyond which further advance or progress seems to be impossible). Because of their fundamental catholic commitments they have abhorred such a classification of their position. But for many others in the holiness movement, especially at the popular level, maintenance of the "distinctives" at the expense of catholicity has normally not been viewed as a significant loss.

Bringing the dilemma to expression, and facing its sharp implications, was unnecessary so long as the holiness movement viewed itself in a polemical situation vis a vis the Calvinists and Liberal Theology, and perhaps so long as it possessed a relatively unsophisticated exegesis, understanding of church history, and history of dogma. But with (1) the appearance of the Neo-Reformation renewal of biblical theology and classical Christian doctrines including sanctification (e.g. in Bonhoeffer, Barth, and Thielicke); (2) the emergence of an Evangelical ecumenism that blunted the earlier polemicism; and (3) the more catholic education of many present-day thinkers in the holiness movement, continuance of the polemical posture and avoidance of attention to the latent dilemma has become increasingly unacceptable.

More internally to the holiness movement, the dilemma has been forced by two related developments. First, as holiness thinkers have turned their attention to the monumental examinations of the meaning of Christian existence in the world carried out by the theological giants of this century, they have been forced to question the adequacy of their theological formulations that deal with sanctification. Second as these thinkers have become more alert to the corporate nature of the church, redemption, sin, and guilt, and as they have reflected on the theological and ethical significance of corporate evil and social solidarity, the highly individualistic way in which the customary doctrine of entire sanctification handles these matters has increasingly disclosed an inherent deficiency.

The dilemma, as I see it, results from the desire by numerous present-day holiness thinkers to reverse the rigidly defined exegetical, doctrinal, and experiential modes for expressing Christian sanctification that have become generally standardized in the holiness movement. But standing against such a revision Is the fact that within the holiness movement the reality of Christian holiness has become so closely identified with its narrowly drawn formulas that any attempt to expand or revise them is immediately viewed as an abandonment of the New Testament call to holiness. Consequently, efforts to incorporate insights gained from other theological traditions, or theological movements, from psychology or social theory, as well as attempts to adjust to the more dynamic, and less rigid, expressions of Christian holiness found in the Wesleys, are immediately foreclosed.

Reduction of the Wesleyan understanding of Christian holiness to narrow and inadequate doctrinal and experiential formulas, though unfortunate, is certainly not without parallels in the history of religious movements, and ideas. Repeatedly, attempts to state by credal definition, or orthodox formulation, the rich, ecstatic, creative, and multi-dimensioned character of major religious or philosophical breakthroughs have run the danger of losing much of the original breadth and imagination. If examples are needed, remember Protestant Orthodoxy of the seventeenth century, the inability of some Barthians to retain the theological openness of Barth himself, the failure by some of their "disciples" to retain the creativity and breadth of Plato, Kant, Hegel, and Kierkegaard. The repeated failures by the successors of a highly creative era to provide a form sufficient to the original dynamic have left clearly distinguishable tracks in the sands of religious and philosophical history. But it does seem that we successors to ideas could be alert to this failure and could determine to submit our cherished forms to continuous scrutiny by the dynamic that gives them meaning and life.

Specifically, this principle must be applied to the forms through which the holiness movement attempts to express the reality of Christian holiness, and to guide its communicants in Christian formation. The biblical, theological and experiential forms utilized by the holiness movement simply must be subject to formation at all points by the reality they seek to express. (I am making a conscious distinction between form and content.) Failure to open the forms to necessary reflection, revision and growth can and does open a frustrating breach in our ranks between our theological formulations on the one hand, and the dynamics of Christian life and the elasticity of the New Testament on the other. Beating the drums more loudly in defense of the formulations will not resolve the problem.

The cost of a failure to submit our doctrinal forms to penetrating examination is at least twofold: (1) Continuing interchange with the broader Christian community about the meaning of Christian holiness is forfeited; and (2) the freedom of the Holy Spirit to work in the believer in a manner that takes seriously the historical and psychical fabric of the individual Christian may be seriously impaired.

One supposed resolution of the dilemma calls for continuing to declare fidelity to the "holiness distinctives" that have been carefully delineated by the holiness movement, and that are presently its identifying features, on the one hand; and for proceeding to discuss, teach, and preach Christian holiness in terms that are much more catholic, holistic, and dynamic than the stated distinctives actually allow for, on the other. To put the matter another way, this resolution means that those who appropriate it will agree to live with a disjunction between their formal and material theological principles. On the confessional level allegiance to the traditional formulations will continue to receive voiced support. But on the functional level much more dynamic biblical, theological, historical (and perhaps psychological and sociological) factors will be the actual molders of theological thought and Christian proclamation. Necessary courtesies will be paid to the customary "distinctives" but the theologizing and proclamation that follow will display a dynamic and catholicity that the "distinctives" cannot support. This approach to the dilemma is now traveling incognito among us. But its disguise is fairly easy to unmask.

Perhaps this is the way to deal with the dilemma. I am sure that this is the much safer way. But this approach is unsatisfactory if for no other reason than its clear lack of theological honesty. It certainly leaves us victimized by a sort of exegetical and theological schizophrenia. It is also a form of theological special pleading; we allow for ourselves what we would not permit in others, a lack of systematic coherency. It is also obvious that this approach utterly strips us of any credible apologetic base.

But intense pastoral interest also moves me to reject this supposed resolution. Many pastors and lay people are incapable of our sophisticated gymnastics. Striving for a coherence in their discipleship that this "resolution" cannot provide, they may, in frustration, abandon the New Testament call to, and gracious provision for, Christian holiness. The cessation may be prompted by the failure of the doctrine of entire sanctification in its standard formulation to actually take the measure of life in the late twentieth century, or of the dynamic of the Spirit's life in us. No failure could more clearly betray the desire of John Wesley to preach a message of God's love that actually graces and redeems the conduct of everyday human existence.

Those who are engaged in teaching on either the college or seminary level must also admit that pedagogical responsibilities for the cognitive veracity of students make this option untenable.

Another and more satisfactory resolution is available and I propose it for consideration. The only adequate resolution of the dilemma, as I see it, is to engage in a sustained critique of our understanding and teaching of Christian holiness that reflects a living examination of Christian life from every perspective that promises to contribute to its richness. Our "distinctives" must be open to revision at any point where they fail to reflect the rich dynamic of the Spirit's activity in the Christian through grace and love. The true distinctives of Christian holiness will prove themselves to be such by rejecting all tendencies toward reductionistic rigidity, and by embracing the enlivening and transforming activity of the Holy Spirit, by embracing Him as Lord over our theological formulations.

Such a continued cultivation, it seems to me, is an imperative for following the living God. Admittedly, this is the much more taxing option. But only in this way can the necessary creative exegetical, historical, and theological work be done that gives promise of a credible, effective voice for "holiness denominations" in the Christian future. This means defining "distinctives" not in provincial terms but in Christological and soteriological ones that unceasingly work at expressing the breadth, and sufficiency for life, of the gospel of God disclosed in our Lord.

To so state the "distinctives" of Christian holiness that our confessional affirmations harmonize with the dynamic that grasps, excites, and drives us would, I believe, be a mobilizing approachement. It would help us to teach our people that the doctrines we use to describe Christian holiness are not ends in themselves, but more or less adequate statements about the way into the life of Christian holiness, and indicators of what expansive directions this full life in Christ should take, without attempting to capture that life in a series of definitive formulas. It would allow us to embrace the catholicity that is our true heritage, and to eschew the alien provincialisms that have never adjusted their burdens to our backs anyway. It would allow us to approach our pedagogical responsibilities with a logical, exegetical and theological clarity that our present dilemma denies us. Additionally, it would make possible a profitable ecumenical discussion with our Christian brothers and sisters of other communions by allowing us to learn from them what the Holy Spirit is teaching them about the meaning of Christian holiness. It would also make possible a recovery of the sense of urgency and convincability in proclamation. And relatedly, it would provide an understanding of Christian holiness fundamentally and thoroughly informed by grace, love, and faith.

Notes

1John A. Knight, "The Supreme Pursuit," in Wesleyan Theological Journal, 15:1 (Spring 1980), pp. 7-18.