The Holiness Movement I Dread
I'm going to try to keep up with all you full-time academic types, or at least until someone from my church calls to see if I might anoint their sick hamster with oil.
I agree (for once) with Dad/Keith (we're trying to disagree more lately) on the issue of the biblical presence of sanctification not being the issue. Likewise I agree that the fundamental issue is a hermeneutical one.
As far as “Earle Wilson” rallying the troops at a camp-meeting--well, the camp-meeting holiness movement, for all its “reenactment” appeal, is the holiness movement I dread. Holiness must be reborn within new wineskins, and I’m of the camp that things the sooner we toss out that bathwater and put the baby in something more relevant the better. I wish Earle and Norm and Keith and Ken and John and Chris and Me would all spend more time developing an active and even evangelistic paradigm for holiness that might be propagated within other models.
I’m most concerned that Emergent churches and Church Plant leaders often do not have any well-developed idea of “how holy” the church should be. They’re developing their theology in this area in a total vacuum. For this reason, I think the “history of holiness” is far less helpful than the “biblical concept of holiness” which, for all it’s hermeneutical intricacies, is still firmer ground to stand on than the camp-meeting tabernacle.
posted by David Drury @ 1:39 PM
8 Comments:
David,
The desire to talk about new wineskins is precisely the reason for my original post. I did not grow up in the Holiness movement so I don't "feel" the baggage though I am aware of the issues to which you have pointed.
What sort of language do you employ? What are some neglected biblical contexts that may help us? I am intentionally using "contexts" rather than text because a renewed appreciation for biblical holiness has to work above the realm of the "prooftext" to be credible.
By the way, I have posted a number of reflections on holiness and character on my main blog at www.realmealministries.org . In particular there are a series of reflections titled "Temptation of a Leader 1-6" as well "Created for So Much More" and "What Do you Want on Your Tombstone?" that are some initial steps in developing a new type of "holiness" message/sermon. The last essay includes some pictures from the Wilmore cemetary of the graves of John Wesley Hughes (Asbury College founder/president) and Henry Clay Morrison (Asbury Seminary founder/president).
Clever title Dave...
Is the following the baby (from Schenck's post)
1. Victory over sin
2. Full surrender/burial of self subsequent to conversion for most.
Seems like defining the baby is important before tossing out the bathwater. (though I admit we are really deciding if we want to go out into the back yard of our history and find the baby and bring it back inside...since both the baby and the bathwater have been out there in the sun for quite some time.)
Is Schenck's summary of the baby it?
Added to the list of things I've heard recently with regard to correctives of the past, one is the connection to mission and evangelism (including social action) you and John mention. Another is to connect holiness to the church and to a kind of corporate holiness I know Keith has been reflecting on.
But as I think about re-presenting the individual holiness in a way that gets around the perceived "hypocrisy" of the past, I thought of the title (with no intention of further pursuit): "You can do the right thing (and like it)"
Cut away all the "ideas without real consequences" and "non-concrete theology of holiness" and aren't you left (on an individual level) with living a life that has integrity, a life of lovingkindness and courage in the promotion of God's agenda?
I would want to add "empowerment for service" or perhaps even a bit stronger "fully unleashed for service."
I don't think that the baby is complete until we focus on the possibilities of the Sanctified Life other than the absence of a negative, i.e., perpetual enslavement to sin. I don't want to minimize the importance of victory over sin, but I see this as a means to a greater end -- full advancement of the Kingdom through a missional community whose ethos reflects the character of God.
Hey guys... thanks for replying. I'm checking this baby once a week only (by baby I mean this blog, not checking my holiness).
To reply on the great questions so far... I think they are all interrelated.
The new wineskins and terminology are directly connected to an integrated view of the Holy Bride of Christ that incorporates missional living, social action and the biblical context.
I wonder if there is a great opportunity for this in the "new wave" of churches out here? There is a little "holy discontent" (thanks for the Summit, Hybels) in the emergent church about the lack of real transformation of lives in the mainline evangelical church (which it is now, BTW).
I wonder if the wineskins that can carry the baby today (mixed metaphor here I come) are found in that holy discontent. For my part, I think my generation is "mad" about the state of affairs but they can't quite put their finger on what's wrong... only that a lot of things are missing and look wrong with the church today.
I wonder if: LACK OF A HOLY BRIDE OF CHRIST is the umbrella problem that those of us hoping to stitch up new wineskins might grab onto.
Brian - don't know you from Adam but glad to now be interacting here. Thanks for the link to your stuff. I'll check.
dd
Hey Professor Russell :-) -
I checked out your web-pages and MAN ALIVE! You've got some great stuff on there.
I thought I would have a lot of amazing academic but relevant stuff to read from Schenck and my brother John--but now I can add you and it becomes a trifecta!!!
I'll be lurking!
dd
Thanks for the kind words, David. Glad to be in conversation with like-minded Christ-followers.
Post a Comment
<< Home