KUHN, KOHLBERG AND KINLAW:
REFLECTIONS FOR OVER-SERIOUS THEOLOGIANS

He wanted very much to be reassuring and congratulatory. If there ever was a man who loved the Lord with all his "heart, soul, mind and strength," it was this septuagenarian saint. We had grown to love and appreciate each other through key conversations over the last few years, several times with him as my counselor. Now he was responding to the seminar I had just given as president of WTS at last spring's Christian Holiness Association convention in Kankakee, Illinois.

"Neglected Holiness Teachings in St. Mark" was the title of the seminar. The study presented Mark 8:31-10:52 as a narrative exposition of the central call to discipleship in Mark, "If any one will come after me, let him deny himself, take up the cross and follow me" (8:34). The presentation drew among others the following conclusions:

1.In these chapters Mark addresses issues of considerable import to the holiness movement. Some of these are:

2. Mark deemed the first disciples' experience useful for Christian instruction in spite of the essentially "pre-Christian" situation and the historically unique character of that experience.

3. Special concern for Holy Spirit language is absent from Mark’s presentation, but the entire book is set in the context of the Messiah's ministry by the power of God's Spirit.

4. Evidence emerges that the call to discipleship is a livable, realizable goal.

5. Mark's emphasis in these chapters is not on victory, though victory is implicit in the victory of Christ and the continued validity of the call to discipleship, but rather on the disciple as a servant and on the content of that "service."

6. Mark presents the "following" of the Messiah as accomplished by a synthesis of God's grace and the disciple's faith.

7. Mark presents continuity in the call to discipleship from start to finish, parallel to the other "Be what you are" models in the New Testament.

Concluding remarks emphasized the seminar did not present a full-blown New Testament view of Christian holiness. The study rather focused on the contributions St. Mark could make to this theme in New Testament theology.

My sainted friend, a veteran of years of holiness preaching, sought to be warm and accepting as he suggested a time where we might discuss the seminar more fully. At that later meeting, this brother was able to express deep concern at several points. What he heard sounded more Calvinistic than Wesleyan, he thought. He was alarmed not to have heard the trade phrases of the holiness movement, particularly those referring to the baptism of the Holy Spirit and its power to effect entire sanctification and also to the instantaneous nature of the second blessing.

At the conclusion of what turned out to be a seminar for me, surveying important concerns of the holiness movement and the various Biblical passages to which they are attached, I confessed ambivalence to my friend. "In spite of the conclusions you heard from the Mark study," I tried to encourage him, "I agree with your main theological concerns and am willing to use the language you use in settings where that will communicate best. But I would only grant a third of the Biblical base you cite for those concerns."

As it happened this brother's disease reflected concern which surfaced elsewhere at CHA last Spring. A survey of 171 "holiness leaders" conducted by Wesley Duewel, Vice-president of CHA, showed (with 73% response) widespread perception that there is a lack of frequent, clear presentation of the holiness message, lack of commitment to and emphasis on holiness distinctives by ministers graduated from "holiness seminaries," and similar absence of clarity and commitment in other slices of the movement-such as youth workers, hymn writers and laity.1 The results of the survey were aired in a plenary session of the association, with urgent concern expressed for the rectifying of these perceived departures from the movement's clear historic witness.

The misgiving in my older friend's "questions" and the somber tone of the survey presentation reminded me of other discussions to which I have been privy in WTS and at various academic institutions where it has been my privilege to serve. With an air of earnestness betraying the conviction that far more than doctrinal clarification was at stake, we have discussed questions such as the inerrancy of Scripture and the relationship of Christian perfection to the baptism/fullness of the Holy Spirit (but by no means limited to these). Clearly some of the participants felt deeply that the actual quality of Christian character to be produced in the adherents to the doctrine under discussion, the level of devotion to the Master to be anticipated in them, and perhaps even their eternal destiny lay in the balance. Warnings sprinkled throughout the conflabs led one to know that not only faithfulness to the founders of an institution or movement were at issue, but the prospect of betraying the Gospel itself loomed before us.

Theological statement deserves careful attention, of course, as Dr. Bassett observed in his presidential address to this society last fall. While genuine theology, especially Protestant theology "does not permit itself to be confused with revelation itself" and "understands itself to be the time-and-place-bound reflection of believers . . . it is to be taken seriously as witness, even as vehicle for common witness."2

But for several reasons, I have come to the conclusion that the approach to the relatively narrow kinds of theological distinctions being drawn in the evangelical Wesleyan movement and the holiness movement that significantly overlaps it is far too serious. Therefore, with some trepidation and with the aid of Doctors Kuhn, Kohlberg and Kinlaw, I offer three main "reflections for over-serious theologians," hoping to provide perspective for ongoing dialogue.

Before proceeding, a disclaimer must be registered. Some will already have begun to position themselves with respect to the perceived viewpoint of the paper. In particular, some "old timers" will have concluded they are in for another unfeeling broad-side, and some "young timers" will have settled in to enjoy the fray with a tinge of sadistic, though sanctified glee. My own concerns are by no means so easily divided. The "over-serious theologians" addressed in the paper include the entire constituency of the WTS and the CHA, not some few persons marked by a particular age or traditional loyalty. Furthermore, in my judgment the concerns of the "holiness leaders" surveyed by Mr. Duewel are well founded and need very much to be heard and sympathetically responded to. If it were not overly redundant, this disclaimer should be placed at several points in the paper. Here, I can only ask the reader to take it seriously and come back to it now and again, if he or she thinks the "battle lines" are being too clearly drawn.

Enter Dr. Kuhn-Thomas S. Kuhn, that is, to assist with the first reflection for over-serious theologians. "Take heart! The crisis we perceive carries promise for tomorrow!" In his fascinating work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn analyzes the nature of scientific advance, attempting to understand the process by which presently accepted scientific views, methods and equipment came to be in place.3 While Kuhn's work was not intended to be applied to fields beyond science, I found his work stimulated my reflection on developments within the constituency of the Wesleyan Theological Society and the Christian Holiness Association of which this body is a commission.

Kuhn's analysis, which has drawn both lavish praise and severe Criticism,4 runs something like this. A scientific community proceeds in the context of a paradigm, "an entire constellation of beliefs, values, techniques and so on shared by the members of a given community."5 This ruling theoretic construct governs research, sets agendas for inquiry, defines anticipated results. Anomalies are dealt with by specific adjustment of the paradigm or by ad hoc explanation, or are simply left as unresolved problems.6 When a sufficiently large number of anomalies inexplicable by the prevailing paradigm have accumulated, a crisis of confidence in the problem-solving ability of the paradigm arises. Out of this disequilibrium and loosening of stereotypes a new paradigm will emerge, eventually to displace its predecessor as the ruling construct under which normal science is carried on. Often insight for the new paradigm comes to those who are "either very young or very new to the field whose paradigm they change," for they lack commitment to prior practice and to the traditional rules of the field.7 So they are able to see both the problems and possible solutions in new light.

As the crisis progresses and transition is being made to the new paradigm, proponents of competing paradigms frequently "talk through" each other, 1) because they disagree about the problems that paradigm must solve to be acceptable, 2) because the vocabulary and apparatus of the traditional paradigm is borrowed but used in new ways, and 3) because they in reality practice their trades in different worlds, looking from the same point but seeing different things.8

"The transfer of allegiance from paradigm to paradigm is a conversion experience that cannot be forced."9 Long term resistance, "particularly from those whose productive careers have committed them to an older tradition" is rooted in confidence that "the older paradigm will ultimately solve all its problems, that nature can be shoved into the box the paradigm provides."10

The conversion often requires a generation or more and may involve matters completely outside of scientific inquiry, idiosyncrasies of autobiography or personality. Nationality and reputation of the innovator or his or her teachers sometimes are factors. Faith in the paradigm's ability to solve future problems and also those problems which led to the crisis are the most effective persuaders.11

In this viewer's opinion, anomalies arising from two major and at times related sources have brought the holiness movement to the sort of kairotic moment described by Kuhn, a "crisis" registered in the perceptions uncovered by Mr. Duewel and in the concern of my questioning friend. On the one hand, the paradigm for Christian perfection expounded in Fletcher's Last Check and eventually espoused by those who became the holiness movement, came more and more to be propagated by persons less and less interested in rigorous Biblical exegesis or serious theological reflection. The resulting extravagance in testimony and writing and preaching now enshrined in many of the holiness classics produced such a chasm between what was advertised and what the saints actually experienced that the credibility of the entire paradigm was widely called into question. Confusion was and in many places still is sufficient that numerous ministerial conventions and denominational seminars came to be devoted to explaining the meaning of Christian perfection to the professionals who should already have had the best chance of understanding their movement's central distinctive. Ten years ago Mildred Wynkoop called this first anomaly "The Credibility Gap."12

On the other hand, a generation of holiness students arose who committed themselves to the historical-critical study of Scripture in a way impossible for the preceding generation. That earlier generation's rebound from classic modernism led them to associate such critical methods with theological liberalism and often to reject advanced theological education itself. As holiness students began to "go back to school," scholars emerged who pressed their use of historical-critical method into defending and elaborating the traditional paradigm in academically respectable ways, quite parallel to Kuhn's view of the function of research in most "normal science."

Their students have often been unconvinced by the defense, but by their mentors' devotion to scholarly study of Scripture have been brought to a willingness to press for an approach to Biblical study that would stand the scrutiny of professional exegetes outside the movement as well as inside. Thus, while they were committed to the central concerns of Wesleyan theology and often of the holiness movement itself, they were more concerned with whether or not the theology proposed could be squared with untendentious exegesis than they were with whether or not it sounded Calvinistic, Charismatic or whatever. This second strand of the crisis could be called "The Exegetical Gap."

My own guess would be that the perceptions gathered by the CHA survey are not all that wide of the mark. But the conclusions being drawn from those perceptions are, in my judgment, too somber. There is little enthusiasm among recent students from the holiness movement to repeat the previous generation's exact phrases or to mouth their testimonies quite as confidently, primarily because the paradigm won't quite square either with reality or with contemporary exegetical demands.

But it would be a serious misunderstanding of these students to construe them as non-Wesleyan or even non-holiness. They have not become Calvinistic, have not changed families and do not wish to. It is a mark of the movement's success, not its failure, that those emerging from the crisis or probing an altered paradigm seek to stand in the tradition, not outside it. That the generations "talk through" each other is unavoidable in some cases.

In 1977 I was asked to write a chapter in a proposed work to be called The Wesleyans, the chapter to be entitled "Wesleyan Theology: Is It Biblical?"13 The work has yet to see the light of day, not totally, I hope, due to the quality of my essay. My judgment was that while Wesley was capable of the kind of rigorous exegesis associated with Luther,14 his true gift lay in his broad comprehension of the deep unity of the Bible's major themes.15 The result was a vision of redemption that captured the genius of the Biblical covenants where grace and law, faith and works, holiness and love, sovereignty and responsibility, objectivity and subjectivity, individuality and corporateness, converge to sustain a relationship with the living God both secure and candidly dynamic.

And my silver-haired friend, uncomfortable with a historical-grammatical approach to the Scriptures, had still by reverent immersion in the Word imbibed those grand themes as well. So I meant it when I affirmed that my heart beat with his on his major theological concerns. But try as he would, he could not persuade me that Malachi's promise, "The Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple" (Malachi 3:1), has the foggiest relationship to an instantaneous work of grace first, second, or fifth. That sort or exegesis will not stand in the market place of Biblical studies today and will convince no one but those already in the paradigm. The intriguing fact is that he need not convince me of an "instantaneous" work of grace, for I am already agreed, in spite of what he thought he heard from Mark, but not on the basis of Malachi 3:1 or any other abused text or tense.

Perhaps it would be well here to return to Thomas Kuhn's study to draw the analogy more carefully between the scientific revolutions he describes and development within the contemporary Wesleyan/holiness movement. The processes described above by which Kuhn sees one paradigm displacing a preceding one was extracted from such major scientific revolutions as the Copernican revolution or the quantum physics revolution. But Kuhn says essentially the same processes go on at various levels in the scientific community. Paradigm shifts in scientific specializations arise out of the same sorts of problems and occasion the same "world view" alterations, sending, albeit more limited, side effects rippling in all directions through that specialization. The "discovery" of oxygen leading to the oxygen theory of combustion (vs. the phlogiston theory) and the "discovery" of X-rays by Roentgen are examples of such paradigm shifts within specializations.16

Of course, in the larger faith community there are theological revolutions going on, and have been for the last several centuries, of the magnitude of the Copernican revolution. In these major paradigm shifts the theistic question itself has been and is at stake. Whether theology can continue as theology without the "God of the Fathers" is the issue.

The paradigm shift underlying the present ferment in our movement is not that larger question, but rather a transition within the theological specialization of Biblical studies. The shift to a thoroughly critical study of Scripture within the evangelical scholarly community has rippling effects beyond the specialization, but is not immediately to be linked with the rejection of the God of the Fathers or the jettisoning of the larger Wesleyan paradigm.

When I confessed I could only grant a third of the exegetical foundation my friend cited, he felt such a confession depreciated the last generation's exegetes. The choice in his mind was between accepting the exegesis of the holiness classics or calling them inferior exegetes. But those are not the choices and no depreciation of our predecessors' work is necessary. Here again Kuhn helps one. It has been fashionable in scientific circles, he says, to look rather patronizingly at the primitive and sometimes mythological viewpoints of "scientists" whose paradigms no longer govern scientific inquiry. Kuhn contends that a more responsible accounting of these past figures demands the admission that their work was no less scientific and no less adequate than current views, given the paradigms under which they functioned.17

In some cases, no doubt, one would have to call some of the past exegetical work of the holiness movement unworthy, as one would have to say of some of our own work today. But not so in most cases. It is not a matter of patronizingly looking back on our predecessors and judging their work inadequate. It is rather a matter of the questions in the light of which their work was conducted. They could not answer questions their paradigm did not allow them to raise. They cannot be faulted for not working within a paradigm which, for various reasons, they could never accept. It is not that Steele or Chadwick or Wood were poor exegetes. Such a judgment would betray both ignorance and arrogance, I think. But a paradigm shift has occurred within a specialty affecting their work. And that paradigm shift must now be taken into account. We are now accountable to questions they were not prepared to entertain.

But I am convinced Wesley's thought and the major concerns of the holiness movement can stand the more grueling exegetical test, though not simply by retracing the exegetical journey of the previous century. Several path-finding works in our generation demonstrate, I think, that an unshackled return to Biblical study leads to conclusions compatible with the themes Wesley perceived in Scripture also, not because they are Wesleyan, but because at those points Wesley was Biblical.

From a Baptist background in the 1950s Robert Shank conducted a thorough study of the issue of unconditional (i.e., "eternal") security of believers, reviewing the exegetical history of all relevant passages and doing his own careful work on them as well. The result was the famous work, Life in the Son, in which he confesses to be "one whose study of the Scriptures led him to abandon a definition of doctrine he once cherished." The quest brought him to an essentially Wesleyan position on that question-not because conditional security is Wesleyan, but because it is fundamentally Biblical.18

More recently Daniel P. Fuller has written of his pilgrimage out of a firm commitment to covenant theology, with Luther and Calvin's sharp distinction between Law and Grace. He worked to the conclusion that "in Pauline and other Biblical theology, true faith is not merely accompanied by good works as something coordinate with it, but that faith itself is the mainspring for producing works. . . . Sanctification, like justification, must be by faith alone."19 He came to see that the antithesis between law and grace "is only apparent and not real. This, then," he says, "makes the enjoyment of grace dependent on faith and good works," but in such a way that no door is open to human endeavor in which one may boast.20

Fuller's quest was initiated by hard-nosed, exegetical questions on such texts as Romans 3:27; 9:31-32 and 10:4, questions that simply would not go away and could not adequately be handled by his covenant theology, certainly not by dispensationalism with which he also does battle in the book.

A third path-finding book appeared between these two, Thomas C. Oden's Agenda for Theology.21 Out of the bankruptcy of modernity with its unfulfilled promises and the persistent urging of his students for more adequate answers to their own emptiness, Dr. Oden came to issue a call for "post-modern orthodoxy." He proposes a critical return to the apostolic faith and what he calls the "ecumenical consensus" documented in the creeds, liturgies and spiritual directions of the first millennium church. He commends the breadth and power of that early consensus and calls for Christian community now centering in the presence of the resurrected Christ and living in moral and spiritual responsibility.22

I do not want to put words in Oden's mouth, but he also seems to me to be a witness to the power of Biblical faith and its ability to draw persons from long treasured paradigms, when once the faith is seen for what it is.

It appears to me the time is ripe for precisely the sort of "new paradigm" look at Scriptures in the holiness movement that is seen in these pathfinders. It is also my contention that precisely here lies hope for the very rebirth of the holiness movement for which the surveyed leaders seemed to long. But it will never come by repetition of the old paradigm or by recourse to the traditional exegetical supports in some cases, for some will no longer hold water in the market place.

The issue of the relationship of the baptism of the Holy Spirit and entire sanctification is an important case in point. At this point, among others, serious erosion is perceived. In spite of all the rhetoric, the main exegetical work of Robert Lyon and Alex Deasley, published in WTJ, 1979,23 has not yet been adequately answered, and, in my opinion, cannot be. In my judgment they have done the sort of foundational work that can endure cross-traditional scrutiny and stand. In spite of the fact that some passages remain problematic when viewed from the perspective of questions holiness folks are trying to answer from them, their work makes it untenable in my judgment, directly to equate the various pentecostal experiences in Acts with what we call entire sanctification. Luke's intentions lay in completely different directions, as Wesley himself recognized.

That is, in my opinion, an exegetical concession long overdue in the holiness movement. The fact that their work "sounds Calvinistic" is irrelevant if the exegesis is sound. The granting of the case can only strengthen the movement's ability to press in the open market its more fundamental, Biblical distinctive: the witness that by God's grace we can live in the fullness of the Pentecostal grace and Spirit. The concession parallels those forced upon Shank and Fuller and Oden by the apostolic witness, critically encountered.

But such a concession is by no means the end of the line for those who wish, as I do, to link Christian perfection with the fullness of the Spirit. The work of Lyon and Deasley supports the conclusion that the New Testament presents life in the Spirit in a "Be what you are" scheme parallel to the Pauline indicative-imperative link. The transitions described by 1) dead to sin/alive to God and 2) old man/new man language are widely recognized (Romans 6, Colossians 3, Ephesians 4). The key Wesleyan contribution to the understanding of these "Be what you are" schemes is the expectation of their fulfillment here and now. Neither Wesley nor the holiness movement brings to the texts views of law-grace or overly pessimistic ideas of sin unconquered by grace that force them to draw back from the apostles' plain call. Wesley's understanding of the power of God's grace, enthusiastically propagated by the holiness movement, allows the interpreter to share the apostles' own apparent conviction that life in the "new man" is entirely possible now, life "alive to God" and "dead to sin" is a livable reality now, and life "full of the Holy Spirit" is an actual possibility now by grace and faith. Indeed they are not simply possibilities. These constitute normative discipleship.

Further it is not an abuse of Luke's work to appropriate pentecostal language in expounding the work of God's Spirit in the entire sanctifying process. Nor is it inappropriate to use the first disciples' histories to illumine our own biographies with God. The Gospel of Mark's major exposition of the call to discipleship rests on the assumption that the disciples' own foundering to "be what they were," should prove helpful to the church. Thus, if one ventures to describe the "experience" of the disciples, to ask what actually happened to them at Pentecost in terms of the psychology of religious experience or the biography of spiritual formation, I would not hesitate to say they were "entirely sanctified" or "perfected in love," using terminology from my heritage. Their biographies were unique, spanning the dispen9ation9. Those first disciples were not technically "Christian," the Christian kerygma (as for example in I Corinthians 15:1-3) as yet being unknown. But they were true believers in the Messiah, disciples in the making. In the Gospels they stand over against the Pharisees, Herod, Pilate and other Christ-rejectors. These men and women had left all to follow Jesus, and in significant ways were not "of the world." Granting all this, I have no difficulty understanding their experience at Pentecost, when all the pieces finally fell into place, as tantamount to entire sanctification.

But these are not Luke's concerns. If one proceeds to claim the same "experience" for the other converts at Pentecost to whom the "gift of the Holy Spirit" was promised and for the Samaritans, Paul, Cornelius and the Ephesians, by some lexical link with Pentecost, one has, I think, missed the point of Luke's story of the "spreading flame" and ventured into a sort of exegesis that will not stand. Luke has no such ethical or "Christian experience" interests, as sympathetic exegetes like I. Howard Marshall make clear.24

Luke does have at the core of his presentation the reality of the fulfilled promise of the Father. Linking the vast Old Covenant hope of the day when God's Spirit would be poured out to the promise of John the Baptist and Jesus himself, Luke proclaims the day has dawned, the promise in all its marvelous power has been fulfilled. The message has spread in ever widening circles from the upper room, carrying with it all the potential of the mighty acts of God in redemption.

It is this grand vision which the holiness movement's exegetes so clearly caught. And the power accompanying its proclamation to call men and women to full life in the Spirit is long since proven. There is no reason why the grand sweep of that pentecostal vision need be abandoned, why the language of Pentecost must stop serving the message of full salvation. But, and here is the issue, it will have to be done from an altered Biblical paradigm, in slightly altered forms on a different exegetical base than the last century developed. My own judgment is that concerns registered by the holiness leaders surveyed may well be best met by those who 1) grant the exegetical case to Lyon and Deasley, and then 2) proceed to demonstrate the ways in which the essential contours of the holiness movement's vision of life in the fullness of the Spirit can be rebuilt and articulated from the altered Biblical paradigm. In my humble opinion, precisely those students most eager to refute the 1979 papers stand most likely to succeed in reconstructing such a vision that will pull two generations of Wesleyans together around the fulfilled promise of the Father.

To all of us who have the high privilege of participating in the disquieting time of crisis, when old stereo-types are dislodged by questions no longer satisfactorily answered and when new creative work can give rebirth to the entire endeavor of which we are a part, I say "Take heart!" Take heart, for the very crisis we perceive carries more promise than anything we have seen in recent years for the renewal of an effective Wesleyan and holiness witness in the world. The challenge for those from an older paradigm will be to perceive the truly Wesleyan vision of their offspring. The task for those who have espoused an altered paradigm, to communicate the reality of a heartbeat synchronized with their mentors.

Exit Dr. Kuhn and enter Dr. Lawrence Kohlberg to assist with reflection number two for over-serious theologians. "Relax! God's Spirit and the dynamic of the Gospel itself transform human character. Theological definition does not bear the burden." Kohlberg is widely known for his promulgation of a theory of moral development involving growth through levels of moral reasoning: I. Preconventional (dominated by self-interest), II. Conventional (oriented to authority), and III. Post-conventional (orientation to principle).25 Extending work begun by Jean Piaget in the 1930s, Kohlberg began his study of human moral development with his doctoral research at the University of Chicago completed in 1958.26 Since then he has become a lively catalyst for moral development inquiry in this country, inspiring numerous studies related to our concerns. We will not stick with Dr. Kohlberg but will use him as an umbrella under which to reflect on the relation of doctrinal formulation to character development.

Persons in the Wesleyan/holiness movement have already begun to appropriate and also critique his work as attested most recently in Donald Joy 's work, Moral Development Foundations: Judeo-Christian alternatives to Piaget/Kohlberg.27 Among Joy's conclusions in other studies using Kohlberg's structures is the contention that over-concern with the proper use of theological language is a sign of arrested, not advancing moral development.28

Years before Kohlberg's work, Hartshorne and May did a now famous study relating Sunday School attendance to the development of moral values in children. They drew the disturbing conclusions that 1) Sunday School attendance had little affect on moral values, and 2) only general, not specific relations existed between moral knowledge and moral conduct.29 As recently as 1979, a Ph.D. dissertation at the University of Texas assessed the work of Hartshorne and May in their "Character Education Inquiry" and drew conclusions supporting the validity of their research.30

These general conclusions are supported by one of the most far-reaching studies of the beliefs, needs, values and practices of young people yet conducted by a religious body in North America. From 1958-1962 Lutheran Youth Research studied 2,274 selected Lutheran youth in the upper-Midwest, using the LYR Youth Inventory, directed by Merton P. Strommen and supported by six Lutheran bodies.31 The results of the entire study are presented in a fascinating work entitled Profiles of Church Youth, published by Concordia in 1963. Among the many significant conclusions the following are particularly relevant to our discussion.

And again,

More directly related to our interests is a dissertation project completed in 1981 for the D. Min. at Asbury Theological Seminary.34 In what, so far as I know, is the only work of its sort in our movement, Ronald Kelly studied selected groups from the Wesleyan Church he pastored and a neighboring Christian Reformed Church in order to test whether, in Mr. Kelly's words, "Wesleyans [were] measurably affected in their practical living by the doctrine of heart purity."35 The core of the study was an analysis of responses to three case/dilemmas in which the respondents were asked, among other things, to isolate the issues involved in the case/dilemma, give elements to be considered in decision making related to the case, and recommend a course of action.36

Mr. Kelly concluded that his Wesleyans and the neighboring Christian Reformed participants showed no significant differences in their responses to the case/dilemmas.37 In an additional part of the survey where respondents were able to describe their "growing edges" the Wesleyan group verbalized more about "loving or caring for others."38 Whether or not they are more apt to implement love than the Reformed group who phrased their growth points differently the study could not say.

To these studies I must add a reluctant conclusion from my own experience with the denomination of which I am a part. After fifteen years of ordained ministry, I confess seeing little evidence at any level of the church that we produce as a whole persons of loftier Christian character, more authentic devotion to Christ, more penetrating moral perception or more courageous moral action, more apt to love the Lord their God with all their heart, soul, mind and strength than any other group of persons who claim to take the Gospel seriously. Our lofty doctrinal claims and enthusiastic trumpeting of holiness distinctives make the very average results all the more disillusioning.

Kohlberg's theory of moral development is weak, among other points, precisely at his "inability to explain the moral energy necessary for developmental growth," as Paul Philibert puts it.39 Explaining the motivation that leads persons to want to do the moral acts of which they can reason, the why of it, is the problem.

It is clear enough that cognitive, doctrinal commitment cannot provide the "motors of morality," as Philibert phrases it. He concludes the three motors of morality are: 1) "marker events" which have "notable impact" and require adaptation,40 2) "relational commitments" calling for the "respect of another as a unique presence," and41 3) "religious experience/conversion," "The experience of God."41 Philibert's conclusion parallels Stommen's who discovered that it was Lutheran youth who were "earnest" about their pursuit of God whose values were altered, youth who somewhere in the process had been engaged by the living God. This laboring of the obvious is called for because of the equally obvious fact that while we know knowledge cannot produce godly character, we guard our cherished phrases, and define highly confined distinctives with a seriousness bordering on idolatry. The gist of this reflection is to remind us of what we are about in theologizing-the definition of who we are, the establishment of ground for common witness, the building of bridges to ever changing cultures who wish to know what we believe. And those are serious tasks, to be done with care and skill, but not with the sobriety attached to tending patients in an emergency room. If we can articulate theologically the Biblical claim that God has redeemed us and the entire cosmos in the person of His Son and calls us by the power of His Spirit to love Him with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, persons and cultures who hear and believe will be changed from glory to glory. Do not fear. "Relax! God's Spirit and the dynamic of the Gospel itself transform human character. Theological definition does not bear the burden."

Exit Dr. Kohlberg and enter Dr. Dennis F. Kinlaw with reflection number three for over-serious theologians. "Rejoice! Where theological inquiry clarifies the vision of the living God acting to redeem His entire creation-including us, miracles of liberating grace occur!"

It would be a mistake from this essay to depreciate the theological task. One could reason, "You have claimed that theological definition makes little difference in character development. Of what good then is it?" One has to take seriously the conclusions of careful students of history who, having viewed the world from end to end, ask "Does history support a belief in God?" and then opine, "If by God we mean not the creative vitality of nature but a supreme being intelligence and benevolent, the answer must be a reluctant negative."43 But historical "evidence" does not clearly warrant such a pessimistic conclusion. Without accepting an overly simplistic idea of the uniqueness of Israel in the ancient world, for instance, one can still cite data to support the contention that God's revelation of Himself not only instructed Israel but significantly elevated her moral and social character. The same may be said for the faith of the New Testament community known early, for example, by the fact that they did not "expose their children," in a world where such remedies were common place.44 The thread continues observable through the whole history of the church, with Wesley's impact on decadent England arguing persuasively for a link between an authentic vision of God and the development of human moral character and positive social transformation. Of course there is merit to the theological task.

But only the grand vision of God who acts then and now in love to redeem His lost creation and who calls the redeemed to love Him with all their heart, soul, mind and strength, carries the power to break the world's mold and renew the mind of man. So, the grand vision of God's Spirit who breathes life into dry bones and who gives birth to the living Church by His fullness, making good the long awaited promise of the Father is no illusion. Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is life. But whether one is "filled with the Spirit" at conversion or entire sanctification, whether "receive/be baptized with/be filled with the Holy Spirit" are synonymous terms or no, whether Saul was converted on the Damascus Road or at Ananias' home, whether Cornelius was sanctified holy when he was "cleansed" in some way like the disciples at Pentecost-none of these doctrinal minutiae will increase or decrease the power of the overall vision. They are battles in a theological thimble.

Thus the entry of Dr. Kinlaw. At the same CHA convention where my conversation with the septuagenarian saint occurred, Dr. Kinlaw delivered an inspiring address from Exodus 3:1-15 and 20:1 ff. entitled "The Spirit Calls Us to Advance." The message painted a stirring picture of God's ability to call men out of bondage into responsible relationship with Him and to accomplish everything in their lives to which he calls them. Claiming our need to be neither doctrine alone nor experience alone, but knowledge of the living God, Dr. Kinlaw urged surrender to God until the "last corner of resistance to the will of God is committed to him for Him to conquer" (according to my notes of his address).

But those listening carefully for the holiness or Wesleyan movement's pet phrases to be repeated went away disappointed, for the flag words were conspicuous by their absence in this great holiness preacher. Nothing Dr. Kinlaw said could not have been said at a Keswick convention, a Southern Baptist conference or a Roman Catholic renewal convocation. In a conversation with him later, this leading exponent of Christian holiness agreed this presentation was a "broad strokes" vision characteristic of his ministry, developed over years of calculated attempts to communicate the call to Christian holiness effectively to the widest possible audience.

One could just as well have opened this section with "enter Mr. Colson," Charles Colson, that is, for he illustrates as well as Dr. Kinlaw that the Wesleyan message and the Pentecostal vision of the Holiness movement is alive and well. In my opinion, one would be hard pressed to name a truer son of Wesley in North America in our generation than Charles Colson. If his own ministry through Prison Fellowship and through his recent works, Life Sentence and Loving God is not an authentic call to Christian holiness and a testimony to the reality of perfect love expelling sin,42 I know not where one would look to find such a call. This is true in spite of the fact that Mr. Colson would be very uncomfortable with some of the theological claims we make, and probably could not sign the WTS statement of faith.

All of this to say that the future of the holiness movement does not lie in its success in perpetuating either a traditional exegesis of the book of Acts or a set of treasured phrases relating to the exegesis. The genius of the Wesleyan revivals and of the holiness movement's renewal was their success in setting before the masses the powerful "vision that transforms." Both Kinlaw and Colson admirably continue that holy calling. And, if Philibert's conclusions have any significance, we may be confident that when the promise of the Father is proclaimed in conjunction with life's "marker events," and brought clearly into life's significant human relationships, clothed in believable persons, the "motors of morality" will turn, leading men and women to be what they are in Christ.

So, take heart! The crisis we perceive carries promise for tomorrow! Relax! God's Spirit and the dynamic of the Gospel itself transform human character. Theological definition does not bear the burden. Rejoice! Where theological inquiry clarifies the vision of the living God acting to redeem His entire creation, including us, miracles of liberating grace occur.

Notes

1 "The Holiness Movement as Viewed by Holiness Leaders." Distributed and compiled by Mr. Duewel, the results were distributed to members of the Board of Administration of CHA with Board minutes and other documents from the April, 1983 convention in a June 13,1983, mailing. Two samples of the survey's findings are representative of the perceptions uncovered by the poll:

2Paul M. Bassett, "The Holiness Movement and the Protestant Principle," WTJ 18,1 (1983): 9.

3Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Second edition, enlarged, volume 2, number 2, International Encyclopedia of Unified Science (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1970).

4For example, Ian G. Barbour, Myths, Models and Paradigms: A Comparative Study in Science and Religion (New York: Harper and Row, 1974), pp. 102-118, as well as Kuhn's remarks in "Postscript-1969," op. cit., pp. 174-210.

5Kuhn, op. cit., p. 175.

6Ibid, pp. 10-13.

7Ibid, p. 90.

8Ibid, pp. 148-150.

9Ibid, p. 150.

10Ibid., pp. 151-152.

11Ibid., pp. 153-155.

12Wynkoop, Mildred Bangs, A Theology of Love (Kansas City: Beacon Hill, 1972), pp. 39-52.

13Edited by Donald Dayton and Howard Snyder.

14The Biblical message was corrupted, in Wesley's opinion, by "putting a wrong sense upon" the words of Scripture, "one that is either strained or unnatural, or foreign to the writer's intention in the place from whence [the words] are taken." The Works of John Wesley, Reprint of the 1872 edition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, n.d.), Vol. VII, p. 470. Cf. XI, p. 429.

15In much the way called for now by Archibald M. Hunter The Message of the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1944), pp.9-20,118-122, and more recently by John N. Oswalt, "Celebrating God's Call and Our Potential," WTJ 14, 2 (1979): 96-98.

16Kuhn, op. cit., pp. 53-60.

17Ibid, pp. 2-3.

18Robert Shank, Life in the Son (Springfield, MO: Westcott, 1959), p. vu.

19Daniel P. Fuller, Gospel and Law: Contrast or Continuum: The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), p. xi.

20Ibid., p. 63.

21Thomas C. Oden, Agenda for Theology (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1979).

22Ibid., pp. 3-4, 31-47, 126 and 157 ff., for example.

23Robert W. Lyon, "Baptism and Spirit-Baptism in the New Testament," WTJ 14,1 (1979): 14-26, and Alex R. G. Deasley, "Entire Sanctification and the Baptism with the Holy Spirit: Perspectives on the Biblical View of the Relationship," WTJ 14, 1 (1979): 27-45.

24I. Howard Marshall, "The Significance of Pentecost," The Asbury Seminarian (April, 1977), pp. 17-39, particularly pp. 31-34.

25As summarized in Donald M. Joy, "Human Development and Christian Holiness," The Asbury Seminarian (April, 1976): 11-13.

26Lawrence Kohlberg, "The Development of Moral Thinking and Choice in the Years 10-16," Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, 1958.

27Donald M. Joy, ed., Moral Development Foundations: Judeo Christian Alternatives to Piaget/Kohlberg (Nashville: Abingdon, 1983).

28Joy, op. cit., pp. 23-24.

29Hugh Hartshorne and Mark A. May, "A Summary of the Work of the character Inquiry," Religious Education, 25 7(1930): 607-619, and "A Summary of the Work of the Character Education Inquiry, Part II," Religious Education 25 8 (1930): 754-757.

30Earle Wayne Kenyon, "The Character Education Inquiry, 1924-28: A Historical Examination of Its Use in Educational Research," Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, 1979, Noted in David S. Steward, "Abstracts of Doctoral Dissertations in Religious Education, 1979-1980," Religious Education 76, 4 (1981) 422.

31The sponsoring bodies were the Augustan Lutheran Church, the American Lutheran Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, the Lutheran Free Church, the United Evangelical Lutheran Church, and the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.

32Merton P. Strommen, Profiles of Church Youth (St. Louis: Concordia, 1963), p. 85.

33Ibid, p. 241.

34Ronald D. Kelly, "The Relationship of Christian Practice to the Doctrine of Heart Purity in the Wesleyan Tradition," Unpublished D.Min. dissertation, Asbury Theological Seminary, 1981.

35Ibid., p. 2.

36Ibid., p. 60.

37Ibid., pp. 118-119, 130. 38I bid., pp. 60 ff.