This is the final post in my “Future of the Church of the Nazarene” series (at least for now) – inspired as a response to Josh Broward’s Will the Church of the Nazarene Split?  NOTE: SO MUCH MORE COULD BE SAID ABOUT THIS TOPIC THAT HASN’T and WON’T BE SAID HERE – THAT MUST BE FOR ONGOING CONVERSATION. My hope is that we’re having healthy and mature conversations. 

Here are my thoughts on the matter thus far:

(1) Nazarene Religious Orders – “A” Third Way

(2) Do We REALLY Need Religious Orders (Probably Not)

(3) The B-I-B-L-E (A Key to Nazarene Unity) 

(4) MUCH ADO about HOLINESS (Part 1) 

My essential thesis is that the way forward for the Church of the Nazarene is to establish its future on scriptural holiness. Organizationally, this means our Articles of Faith – specifically regarding scripture and sanctification as well as our form of governance, should be the foundation of our denomination.  This keeps more to the spirit of the early Nazarenes – who were passionate about scriptural holiness because they were passionate about the Missio Dei. 

Hear the word of the Lord from Matthew 7:24-29 (NLT) ²⁴ “Anyone who listens to my teaching and follows it is wise, like a person who builds a house on solid rock. ²⁵ Though the rain comes in torrents and the floodwaters rise and the winds beat against that house, it won’t collapse because it is built on bedrock. ²⁶ But anyone who hears my teaching and doesn’t obey it is foolish, like a person who builds a house on sand. ²⁷ When the rains and floods come and the winds beat against that house, it will collapse with a mighty crash.”

²⁸ When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching,²⁹ for he taught with real authority—quite unlike their teachers of religious law.

And…a hymn: “The Church’s one foundation is Jesus Christ her Lord. She is his new creation by water and the Word. From heaven he came and sought her, to be his holy bride; with his own blood he bought her and for her life he died.” – The Church’s One Foundation (v.1) by Samuel J. Stone. 

A few years back, when I was working on “Holiness & the Emerging Church” (see previous post) with fellow student leaders, discussing the denomination and our cardinal doctrine of entire sanctification (what it all meant & where it was all going), General Superintendant Emeritus Dr. Jim Bond said something simple yet revolutionary to us: 

“Holiness IS Christlikeness.” 

Why was (is) this so revolutionary?  If holiness is Christlikeness, then holiness IS perfect/complete/mature love with an ultimate goal to “love your enemies and do good to those who persecute you.” If holiness is Christlikeness, then it proclaims good news to the poor, the captive, the orphan, the widow, the outcast. If holiness is Christlikeness, and the Holy Spirit dwells within us, then holiness IS “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.”  THIS IS THE KIND OF HOLINESS THAT WE LONGED FOR, THE HOLINESS THAT THAT WE NEEDED, so to speak. This holiness captured the imaginations of early Nazarenes. This is what we still need. 

It was also revolutionary in the sense that we’d NEVER really heard holiness presented as Christlikeness before. In all our years of being Nazarene, holiness was presented as mainly second crisis experience – usually at the altar – and the holy life was defined by special rules.  It’s not that revival, rules (in the rule of life sense) or crisis experience don’t have a place in the church – they do!  We’ve simply NOT proclaimed and practiced holiness in the most biblical and/or proven way. In a recent Facebook conversation with my friend, Dr. Greg Crofford, he said: “as soon as you say, ‘we believe in holiness’ – people want to parse what that looks like.”  Once we move beyond Christlikeness (or scriptural holiness) we start to get into trouble. 

Herein lies the rub.  We want people to be holy. We don’t want them to be tempted by the snares of sin. Special rules became a way to contextualize holiness to the situations where people might potentially stumble into sin, sometimes even in destructive ways.  Suspicious of the snares surrounding the seven deadly sins, Nazarenes found themselves forsaking things like makeup, jewelry, “flashy” dress, entertainment such as theatre/arts (later the movies), dancing, and drinking. 

The unintended consequence of placing the focus of holiness on these contextualized issues is that holiness came to be understood as “I don’t do more than you don’t do” OR “I don’t drink, smoke, cuss, or chew, or run with those who do.”  In many places – for all practical intent and purposes – this is how people still conceive of holiness. 

This is the logical consequence of a holiness that defines itself primarily in terms of cultural context instead of conformity to Christ. Furthermore, it narrows the view of holiness by binding it to a particular cultural context (early/mid 20th century, USA), when the issues/problems are not always the same in all (e.g., global) contexts. It keeps us from seeing holiness applied to other, sometimes more critical issues such as xenophobia, gluttony, or human-trafficking. It creates categories of sin that are not sinful (properly so called) in and of themselves. Ironically, once these kinds of issues are no longer “Manual Law” – we seem to stop talking about them at all in any serious manner (e.g., entertainment) – to our detriment.  As we have witnessed, this is an unsustainable model for becoming a holy people. 

Instead of an emphasis on Christlikeness and discipleship into spiritual maturity, we’ve peddled what Dallas Willard calls the  “Gospel of Sin Management” in his seminal work The Divine Conspiracy [a MUST READ book for every pastor & lay leader].  Referencing Willard, Dr. Scot McKnight says that Gospels of Sin Management on BOTH right (conservative) and left (progressive) emphasize — “forgiveness of sin, eternal life in heaven, assurance in the here and now, and either an act (decision) or acts (good deeds) are the precipitating element that gains a person access to salvation.”  [You can read this short blog post here: The Gospels of Sin Management & Their Empty Allegiances]. 

We may have people who, at least for a time, follow all the rules and even keep themselves out of trouble. What we don’t produce as often are more mature, Christlike disciples (loving enemies, least of these, fruits of the spirit). This is what many people refer to as the “holiness credibility gap.” 

Rather than the transforming, relational holiness John Wesley proclaimed and practiced (methods), we developed our holiness discipleship based on the methods of revivalism and rules, tied to Gospels of Sin Management. While one might object rightly that this is NOT the heart of scriptural holiness, it is an inevitable byproduct of this method of discipleship.  As the old adage goes: “Every system is perfectly designed to achieve exactly the results it gets”.  

We have NOT (on the whole) adopted the Wesleyan way of discipleship. What is the WESLEYAN WAY?  Here’s an excerpt (below, in red) from my chapter in RENOVATING HOLINESS (a collection of essays by GenXers & Millenials about our cardinal doctrine – highly recommended reading): 

The Medium is the Message

“Twentieth-century communication theorist Marshall McLuhan coined the phrase “the medium is the message.”  This is a clever way of saying that the way we do things (medium) is not just an arbitrary or inconsequential, rather, it shapes the message itself.  Form communicates content.  Separating form from content alters the message.

Wesley’s maxim, “There is no holiness but social holiness” is oft quoted by modern Christians reminding us that the faith is not first and foremost about me, my experiences, and my salvation from damnation. Christianity is more – participation in the reign of God and the fellowship of believers. Wesley applied social holiness through a multi-level relational discipleship.

In John Wesley’s Class Meeting – A Model for Making Disciples, D. Michael Henderson describes Wesley’s discipleship as a series of interlocking groups:

Society Meeting (50-70 people, mixed gender, weekly) – aimed at COGNITIVE renewal (mind change) through instruction toward holiness by singing, teaching and/or preaching

Class Meeting (10-12 people, mixed gender, weekly) – aimed at BEHAVIORAL renewal (habit change) through the fellowship of believers helping one another through guided discussion and personal inquiry examining their love for God & others, talking about their trials and how to overcome them, helping new Christians learn how to mature, and to reinforce & explain what was taught in the societies. [The class meeting was Wesley’s most innovative and effective instrument of discipleship, according to Henderson.]

Band Meeting (3-6 people, same gender, same marital status, weekly) – aimed at AFFECTIVE renewal (heart change) through ruthless honesty & frank openness for those committed to the desire to grow in love, holiness, and purity of intention. Serious questions were asked, such as:

What known sins have you committed since our last meeting?

What temptations have you met with?

Is the love of God shed abroad in your heart?

Has no sin, inward or outward, dominion over you?

This cursory examination of Wesley’s system of discipleship clarifies that the goal of the renewal of the Imago Dei – and the holy life – is possible only in the context of community, through the regular practice of an examined life. It shouldn’t come as a surprise to us that the holiness message has lost its power and purpose. This is a natural result of forsaking the scriptural call and Wesley’s practices. There is no holiness without regular confessional holiness.

Consider what Wesley’s contemporary, George Whitefield (a more renowned revival speaker) had to say about Wesley (A Rope of Sand): “My brother Wesley acted wisely—the souls that were awakened under his ministry he joined in class, and thus preserved the fruits of his labor. This I neglected, and my people are a rope of sand.”

By “joined in class,” Whitefield was referring to the “hierarchy of interlocking groups (societies, class meetings, bands)” that Wesley developed to “mobilize and train and disciple” the converts of his preaching. These “meetings” were the instrument by which preaching and doctrine were harnessed into spiritual renewal.

By “rope of sand” – Whitefield means the fruit of his evangelistic labor was short lived, whereas Wesley’s message AND methods produced LASTING TRANSFORMATION.

NOTE: If (as some claim) the Church of the Nazarene is conceived as an “order” within the body of Christ – the only way to properly be such an order is through Wesley’s methods, which we have not and still do not prescribe as primary practices of a holy people. We’ve never practiced spiritual formation like Wesleyans (on the whole) let alone like a religious order. Perhaps we could become one religious order in this way, but I think that would be harder to do than my suggestion of being centered on our Articles of Faith/Mission & government, with different religious orders/societies expressing the diverse life of the denomination.

I deeply love the Church of the Nazarene.  There is a way forward for us in this exciting and challenging new century – a Wesleyan way – one that embraces the past and engages the future.  The fact remains, as a denomination we still are an organization so we must think organizationally. As our movement grows out of the infancy of our first century of existence, we must mature as a people and as an organization, “attaining the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.”  

We need a deeper understanding of who we are – a firmer foundation, a clear center. I believe wholeheartedly that the doctrine of scriptural holiness – as CHRISTLIKENESS – is and can be our true foundation and center. We also need a structure that celebrates UNITY & DIVERSITY – on a personal level and global level – one that does not thwart the Missio Dei and quench the Holy Spirit with well-intended but ultimately ineffective organization and discipleship methods. We must surrender the belief that we can manage sin. Instead, we should place our trust the Holy Spirit’s work – in AUTHENTIC COMMUNITY – to convict, convert, and cleanse. A Church in Christ’s hands is in good hands. Such a Church cannot fail. The gates of hell will not prevail against her. AMEN.