The Church of the Nazarene identifies itself as a “holiness” denomination. This signifies two realities. First of all, our roots grow out of a tradition known as the “Holiness Movement” that arose in 19th-century America. We relate ourselves closely to other denominations that were born out of the same tradition. Holiness is an integral part of our historical identity. Yet, this “holiness” historical context also necessarily implies a “holiness” theology that undergirds subsequent historical events. The denominations and other associations of the movement all claimed—and claim—a particular understanding of a “doctrine of sanctification,” which can also be articulated as a “theology of holiness.” The very word “holiness” became an abbreviation for both of these realities—the “holiness movement” and “holiness doctrine.”
The roots of this holiness doctrine can be traced back to the Early Church writers, particularly in the East—those patristics who wrote in Greek. Aspects of the doctrine can be found throughout the history of the Middle Ages, the Reformation, and Anglicanism. John Wesley, of course, was the one who articulated a fully developed doctrine of sanctification; his theological vision, as well as his historical placement, led to the formation of the Methodist denomination—established in America in 1784. And yet, when Wesley’s theology of “Christian perfection” met the 19th-century cultural, religious, and historical context, theological changes necessarily arose.
In the last few decades a debate has arisen. This must be acknowledged at the very beginning of our explorations here. There have been scholars and preachers who have seen the 19th-century changes as grand improvements on Wesley that are to be celebrated and held fast. On the extreme opposite side, there are scholars and preachers who see such changes as a theological disaster, and cry for a return to Wesley’s 18th-century articulation. There are other scholars and preachers who no doubt stand somewhere in the middle, often confused about the crucial issues, interpretations, and ultimate distinctives of the debate itself. Sides of the debate can be associated with names of scholars who represent them. The debate in some cases has been engaged fervently. Foremost, it is important here to simply recognize that the roots of the Church of the Nazarene grow from both sources, Wesleyan and Holiness. We are a Wesleyan-Holiness denomination. It will be the attempt of this author to give both of these sources due attention. It is her opinion that besides taking what is best from both, there is another critical agenda for the denomination today: how to best articulate a theology of holiness for the 21st century. Both the cry “back to Wesley” and “back to the holiness revival” need to be redirected toward the future.
Another crucial facet of holiness theology in today’s context needs to be articulated before we begin. For various reasons—which will be presented and pondered in the lessons to follow—holiness theology, particularly the doctrine of entire sanctification, is losing emphasis in the churches of our denomination. There is either a generalized apathy, or such confusion about key definitional elements, that constructive, clear, healthy, realistic, and God-centered articulations of the doctrine are harder and harder to find. If this doctrine is our clear “distinctive” as a denomination, it is not too strong to say that there is no assurance that it will be passed well, if at all, to the next generations. The only true way we can reclaim and reproclaim our distinctive doctrine is through the preparation and education of our clergy. The author has committed herself to this project in light of what she believes to be a present “crisis” as articulated above. It is hoped that this specific module will provide a means of such crucial preparation for preaching and teaching holiness now.
The structure of this module is not without an underlying support, namely, the Wesleyan quadrilateral. This is a methodology that holds to the primacy of Scripture. Yet, Wesley believed that the Scriptures should be interpreted dynamically: Scripture has been interpreted by tradition—a history of interpretation that requires some fidelity; it witnesses to an experience of Christ and the Christian gospel that is dynamic and communal in character; it should be understood, organized, and effectively communicated through the aid of reason. Thus, the lessons in this module will examine the theology of holiness from the perspective of: Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. It will also examine related doctrines that are intricately involved in a strong interpretation of holiness—the doctrines of humanity, sin, and salvation. It will deal with the realm of “holiness ethics” and finally make some recommendations for articulating the theology of holiness and the doctrine of entire sanctification in the present context. It is extremely important that those preparing for ordained ministry in the Church of the Nazarene catch, hold, and employ the dynamism of the Wesleyan-Holiness theological paradigm, particularly in its expression of the doctrine of sanctification. This module is designed with our future denominational identity firmly in mind.
This module contributes to the development of the following abilities as defined in the U.S. Sourcebook for Ministerial Development.
CN 22—Ability to articulate the distinctive characteristics of Wesleyan theology
CN 23—Ability to identify and explain the Doctrine of Holiness from a Wesleyan perspective
CN 27—Ability to identify the formative influences of the American Holiness Movement and the Church of the Nazarene
CP 10—Ability to synthesize, analyze, reason logically for discernment, assessment, and problem solving, and live with ambiguity
CP 11—Ability to analyze the validity of arguments and to identify their presuppositions and consequences
CP 21—Ability to envision, order, and participate in contextualized, theologically grounded worship and to develop and lead appropriate services for special occasions (i.e. wedding, funeral, baptism, and Lord’s Supper)