I recently listened with an open heart to the sermon of a pastor who is one of the separatists who recently left the UMC. He articulated (very well) how their movement falls solidly into the tradition of “holiness” movements. From a historical and theological standpoint, I couldn’t agree more. Even Asbury seminary, which fuels the movement, has always been a Wesleyan holiness seminary and has never been United Methodist.
The only difference this pastor and I have is that he considers this holiness movement as the original Methodism, when I believe it is actually a derivative of early Methodism which appeared about a hundred years later.
Wikipedia describes holiness movements pretty well. See below. I agree they emerged out of the Wesleyan concept of Christian perfection. For the UMC, though, Wesley’s call to perfection has always been holiness in love, not some sort of concept of sinlessness. Striving to be free of sin is, in my theology, a vain effort. I choose to be overwhelmed and formed by the grace of God.
For more on the distinction, this Wikipedia article describes it well. You can read it HERE:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holiness_movement?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0GsSA4lTjHeePVHUgOWgpHUz6KAsBYha6il5Z67B4AM-pa_vr2P-gLSD8_aem_DFuhXq1-eB6w7wqPcOMxgQ
I actually detected the holiness strain when I read through the GMC provisional book of doctrines and disciplines (to knowledgeably refute what they were doing). Specifically, it follows some holiness teacher at Asbury seminary that teaches that there are four (not three) “scripture ways of salvation” … prevenient, justifying, sanctifying, and glorifying grace. That last one is purely an additive, Wesley never said that. Also, I detected in there a call to “entire sanctification”, I can’t remember the reference exactly but it was there.
Yes, the language of glorifying grace does come out of Asbury seminary, as far as I can tell, and is not taught in UMC seminaries or included in the doctrinal section of our Book of Discipline because Wesley did not use the language himself (the matter of Eastern theosis which Wesley found attractive is considered in UMC theology a feature of sanctifying grace, as in the Eastern thought he read and adopted like that of Macarius the Egyptian). I interpret “Love Divine, All Loves Excelling” in terms of sanctifying grace. I know this might be kind of “deep in the theological weeds” for some. All that’s to say when I say holiness theology is derived from Wesleyan theology and came later, that’s not a bad thing.
I love 2 Cor 3:18, which speaks of the veil on the face of Moses when in the tabernacle … “And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.” This is Eastern theosis indeed, which Wesley embraced. We are always being transformed (it is never past tense).
I believe the reason Wesley used the language of the doctrine of sanctification, as did the Eastern fathers, and did not add a separate category of glorification, is because for him sanctification is a continual process and experienced as a gradient, not an instantaneous experience. He did believe entire sanctification was possible, but very unlikely … and he openly said he did not know anyone who had attained it. The belief that there is a “second blessing,” a second regeneration experience that makes you free from sin, was not really Wesley’s theology … though you can certainly find strands of holiness in Wesley that could lend itself to that (he was not a systematic theologian).
If the word additive seems too strong, perhaps derivative is a better word. The doctrine of glorification is a holiness derivative of Wesley’s theology. Not only does he never say it, in my studies I don’t think he believed it, at least not in the sense of arriving in that state due to a second regeneration experience. The Christian perfection he longed for was perfection in love, the love of God and neighbor. We strive but never arrive. That love was his definition of holiness.
The GMC has embraced the doctrine of glorification that is from holiness tradition, or arguably from reformed tradition outside of Wesley, as stated in their online material. The pastor I heard is correct. One can argue that it’s derived from Wesley’s theology, sure. But I maintain that it’s not language actually from Wesley’s writings, and it’s not part of UMC doctrine or taught in any UMC seminary. Our language is here:
https://www.umc.org/en/content/distinctive-wesleyan-emphases
I want everybody to know as we wade through these theological weeds that I do not think the separatists split off BECAUSE they believe in holiness theology.
But I do believe it makes sense that they would more fully embrace holiness theology, as movements in the past which have split off from the main body have done. This is more sociological than theological. While the symptomatic issue was culture wars over the latest thing, as it always has been in the past (slavery, temperance, evolution, racial segregation, etc.), holiness theology tends to be a more convenient fit of separatist views.
All that is to say the holiness tradition is a beautiful theological tradition. There is nothing wrong with it and many United Methodists believe some aspects of it, though it is a derivative of Wesley’s original language.
