Wesleyan theology

Review: Holiness

/ rtrube54 / 7 Comments

Holiness: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Theology, Matt Ayars, Christopher T. Bounds, and Caleb T. Friedeman. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2023.

Summary: A biblical, historical, and theological argument within the Wesleyan tradition for holiness understood as “entire sanctification” or Christian perfection, able not to sin and to wholeheartedly love God and neighbor.

This book caught my attention for the simple reason that it seems to have fallen out of fashion to speak of Christian holiness, often equated with a “holier than thou” attitude and a kind of Pharisaism of outer holiness and inner corruption. It is far more “authentic” to be honest about our sins than to discuss our longing to grow in Christlike holiness.

This is a book by a group of Wesleyan scholars who take seriously statements like “be holy as I am holy,” “be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect,” and “may the God of peace sanctify you entirely.” They refuse to believe that these only refer to some post-mortem state but are possible to fulfill within this lifetime. They argue that this is not an idea only first propounded by John Wesley but is grounded in scripture and present throughout the history of the church. They also examine versions of holiness theology and argue for a “semi-Augustinian” theology and a “middle way” of seeking until one receives, recognizing the priority of divine grace.

The book is organized into four parts;

Holiness In the Old Testament. in successive chapters they examine the teaching on holiness in the Pentateuch, the Historical books and the Prophets, and the Wisdom Literature. The emphasis is on holiness as otherness and Israel’s inability to fulfill the law and the prophecy of a new covenant writing this law on the hear, empowering what is commanded.

Holiness in the New Testament. Chapters are devoted to holiness in the Gospels and Acts, the Letters of Paul, and the General Epistles and Revelation. The holiness of Jesus and his command to be perfect are discussed, the latter best understood as being fully developed in a moral sense through the work of Jesus and the power of the Spirit. Likewise, while Paul recognizes that people do sin, holiness is the norm, meant to be worked out in every aspect of life (entire sanctification) as the Spirit works within us and bears his fruit in our lives. The authors point to similar calls to holiness in the General Epistles and Revelation.

Holiness in Christian History. Three chapters discuss in succession early Christian history, the Middle Ages, and the Pre-modern and Modern Eras. They examine the differing ideas of the patristic writers and the shared sense that the love of God leads to freedom from sin, obedience to Christ and love of neighbor. They note the confining of perfection to the monastics in the Middle Ages and a renewed focus in the Reformation, culminating in Wesleyan and Anabaptist/Pietist Circles.

A Theology of Holiness. Three chapters discuss holiness and human sin, holiness and redemption, and the when and how of holiness. They begin with God’s intention for us, and the guilt power and being of sin. They discuss justification, sanctification, and glorification, and the possibility of entire sanctification, being perfect in love for God and neighbor, and allow that within such sanctification, there may be continuing progress toward maturity, as well as falling back. Finally they discuss the three ways–shorter, middle, and longer, rejecting the former as too dependent on human initiative, and the latter reflecting insufficient faith in the grace of God to transform.

I think this book makes an important contribution to highlighting the call of God for his people to be holy and for God’s empowering of the life to which we are called in Christ. It offers an attractive vision of unreservedly loving God and neighbor as within reach of the ordinary believer. They rightly observe that we can be far too accepting of sin that God would have us put to death.

I still find myself with questions that I would love to discuss with Wesleyan believers. Where is discussion of the idea of total depravity in the doctrine of sin (it is only mentioned in the final chapter in the context of discussing “semi-Augustinianism”), terminology that is avoided in the authors discussion? The pervasive presence of sin in every aspect of human existence raises question for me about the “perfection” of love. I recognize the ways I’m blind to sin apart from God revealing that sin, and the ways I self-deceive. How are such aspects of sin reckoned with in a doctrine of entire sanctification?

Likewise, I’m puzzled by “semi-Augustinianism.” Can something be semi-Augustinian without also being semi-Pelagian? It seems that the distinction is the role of prevenient grace in empowering human will. It points up to me a question that still would seem to distinguish Wesleyan from Reformed doctrines of sanctification, namely between those that prioritize grace, as do these authors and those that would contend that our sanctification, as is our justification, is all of grace.

At the same time, none of this should prevent the believer in the pursuit of a holy life and to experience liberty from not only sin’s guilt but its power in one’s life. Likewise, the authors emphasize not only what we are freed from but what we are freed and empowered to–namely the unrestrained love of God and neighbor–and that this is God’s intention for us in Christ. This is part of our rich inheritance in Christ that seems neglected or even denigrated in some quarters. I’m grateful for these Wesleyan voices bringing these matters for wider consideration.

____________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher for review.

Review: Evolution and Holiness

/ rtrube54 / 4 Comments

Evolution and Holiness

Evolution and Holiness, Matthew Nelson Hill (Foreword by Darrel R. Falk). Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2016.

Summary: Evolutionary sociobiology proposes a genetic basis both for selfishness and altruism yet does not provide a sufficient warrant for altruism. The author proposes ways that Wesleyan theology and practice of holiness both intersects with scientific theory and offers a capacity for human goodness that goes beyond genetic dispositions.

Recent research on genetics and sociobiology proposes that at a genetic level we have evolved with “selfish” or perhaps “altruistic” genes that play a role in our behavior. Some would go so far as to say that these genetic traits determine behavior. Most would propose that environmental, along with genetic factors contribute to our behavior, indeed explain our behavior. Often these explanations are made in ways that preclude theological explanations of altruistic behavior.

Matthew Nelson Hill makes the contention in this monograph that Christian, and particularly Wesleyan, understandings of human nature, and growth in holiness is neither unrelated or antithetical to sociobiology, but there are profitable points of intersection between science and theology. Theologians may profit from this work. At the same time, theology offers helpful correctives.

After an introductory chapter that outlines the aim and contours of his argument, in chapter two, he surveys sociobiological theories of altruism, and the mix of genetic propensities to preserving and passing along our own genes, and the inborn tendencies to altruistic behavior toward kin and social group. Then in chapter three, he explores the limitations of these theories to fully explain altruism. He explores the influence of culture, the problematic uses of language, and the reductionistic character of some sociobiologists (particularly E. O. Wilson) who make assertions beyond the scope of their discipline.

He then moves in chapter four to dealing with a fundamental issue in this discussion: is human behavior fully determined or do we have the capacity to overcome our inclinations or even move beyond the best of these? He argues for a compatibilist understanding of free will that recognizes an evolved capacity to consciously act in ways that contradict or transcend genetic or environmental influences. This sets up his exploration of Wesleyan holiness teaching that reckons with human nature and enables the embrace of Wesleyan “perfection.” Chapter five explores the sanctifying grace that is God’s initiative, with which we may cooperate, drawing ever closer to God in affection and life, with the aim of being perfected in love. Then chapter six explores how Wesleyan societies and “bands” provide an environment that supports this growth in holy affection and life. The concluding chapter recapitulates this study and makes brief observations of how other traditions might engage this discussion.

This work is valuable in several ways. Hill gives us a concise overview of sociobiological theories, a helpful assessment and critique of reductionist and totalizing assertions, and a compatibilist discussion of genetics, environment and free will that suggests ways theology and science may intersect. Finally, the discussion of a Wesleyan theology of sanctification, often an object of argument, in the framework of a discussion of altruism was a breath of fresh air. The appendices that introduce us to Wesley’s ideas of Christian perfection, and the ordering of his societies may be a first introduction for some to Wesley in his own words.

I did find myself wrestling with some questions concerning how I think some of this was framed. The language of “selfish” and “altruistic,” which is a vivid way to describe a genetic tendency to preserve and perpetuate either one’s own genotype (selfish) or that of related or unrelated others (altruistic) seems to slide easily from the behavior of our genes to human behavior. It also seemed to me that the writer tended to equate fallen human nature with genetic influences that undermine altruism. At the same time he argues for a free will that may be empowered by grace to overcome and go beyond natural tendencies. I wonder if it is right to suggest that our fallenness is written into our genes? I wonder if the defect is not in our genes but our will? Both preservation of our selves and our kin or wider social group seem inherently good. If we indeed have a will, is it not this that turns these instincts to selfish ends or ends of holy love under grace?

That said, and I hope I have accurately understood and represented the writer, I greatly appreciated this work as a model of the kinds of fruitful dialogue that I believe can occur between science and theology. I appreciate that he neither impugns the motives of scientists, nor denies scientific findings but rather brings them into a theological conversation. It is a frank conversation that challenges imprecise language and instances of overreach while listening to and representing the science fairly. This is the work Christians who do not believe science and faith are at war must do to make good that claim. Wouldn’t it be wonderful, if in the process, more friendships between scientists and theologians were formed?