Dr. Chris Lohrstorfer is Associate Professor of Wesleyan Theology at Wesley Biblical Seminary and Senior Pastor at Hinds Independent Methodist Church in Raymond, Mississippi.
Holiness is the doctrinal distinctive that we all know we should have, often claim we do have, and seldom proclaim as though we have it. John Wesley famously saw the doctrine as the grand depositum of Methodism. He considered it the very reason why the Methodist revival was blessed by God and brought into being:
Ye know that the great end of religion is to renew our hearts in the image of God, to repair that total loss of righteousness and true holiness which we sustained by the sin of our first parent. Ye know that all religion which does not answer this end, all that stops short of this . . . is no other than a poor farce, and a mere mockery of God, to the destruction of our own soul. O beware of all those teachers of lies, who would palm this upon you for Christianity! Regard them not . . . (Wesley, "Original Sin," Sermon 44, 3.5)
Could we have moved from a grand depositum to a poor farce? I do not think Wesley would be happy with evangelical Christianity—and certainly not with what’s become of Methodism. His concern for the movement he founded seems to have come true. We have become “a dead sect having the form of religion but not the power” ("Thoughts Upon Methodism"). What went wrong? How did Methodism lose its doctrinal moorings?
When the doctrine of holiness arrived in America, Methodism had two reactions: a de-evolution, if you will, and an evolution.
Some advocates of Methodism did not feel holiness was socially acceptable enough, so they ignored it. Mainline Methodists wanted to be sophisticated, and the message of holiness is strange. Dying to self and preaching on the Holy Spirit’s work is messy. Methodists wanted to be upstanding and socially acceptable. Rather than preaching scriptural holiness and reforming the nation, they wanted moral rectitude and a social gospel. Not only that, but they wanted to be the same. They wanted to fit in with other mainline groups. Such a peculiar distinctive makes you weird, and, honestly, nobody wants to be weird. So, some Methodists either de-emphasized holiness or made themselves more like the people around them. They took up a generalized evangelical dogma, sacrificing the distinctive Methodist dogma that set them apart. They wanted to be safe, but holiness is not safe—at least, not socially.
Most people are afraid to talk about sanctification. They start by denying it: “Oh, we can’t be perfect” or “Sanctification is a life-long process.” They are afraid of the extremes, perhaps rightly so. It is almost as if Methodists came to the ball wearing overalls and suddenly realized that they spoke and looked funny. So, they started adjusting their clothes and their accents until they were just another face in the crowd.
That is the devolving side, but there was also an evolving side. There were some who, because it was de-emphasized by the mainline, began to over-emphasize holiness. As a result, they made all kinds of theological mistakes, but one of the most interesting is that by over-emphasizing sanctification, they evolved it. And they made it something other than Wesley would have. When one over-emphasizes holiness, the result is perfectionism, legalism, “come-outism.”
The bifurcation of salvation and sanctification was a huge mistake of the nineteenth-century holiness movement in America. To over-emphasize what they perceived was a devalued doctrine of sanctification, they began to preach a gospel that was often seen as “I get Jesus when I get saved, and I get the Spirit when I get sanctified.” Now, not everyone went that far, but I have actually heard that preached. Maybe it is not that obvious, but there seems to be a two-step process. Those who emphasize or over-emphasize holiness talk about “a second definite” work of grace. They stress that sanctification is not salvation. This is not Wesley’s view, and this bifurcation confuses people.
We must ensure that what we teach about holiness is not only biblical and historical but also practical and understandable. As Methodists, we want to ensure that we recover the doctrine of our founder, John Wesley. With these goals in mind, I suggest three tenets for reconstructing the doctrine of holiness: scriptural foundation, holistic salvation, and a focus on love.
This post is excerpted from Chris Lohrstorfer's "Reconstructing Holiness" in Reconstructing Methodism: Crucial Issues Facing the Global Methodist Church.
Dr. Matt O’Reilly (Ph.D., Gloucestershire) is Lead Pastor of Christ Church in Birmingham, Alabama, Director of Research at Wesley Biblical Seminary, and a fellow of the Center for Pastor Theologians. A two-time recipient of the John Stott Award for Pastoral Engagement, he is the author of Paul and the Resurrected Body: Social Identity and Ethical Practice, The Letters to the Thessalonians, and Bless the Nations: A Devotional for Short-Term Missions. Follow @mporeilly on X and @mattoreillyauthor on Instagram.
This page contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
Comments