"... no holiness but social holiness"
Friday, August 08, 2008

Are you familiar with that phrase?
If you are a Methodist, you can probably identify it as coming from the pen of John Wesley. But do you know what it means?
If blogs, newsletters, sermons, and periodicals from the Methodist world are any indication, most people assume that, by "social holiness", Wesley meant something along the lines of what we mean by social justice or social outreach ministries.
That's just plain wrong.
A few days ago, as part of a series of posts reviewing Paul Chilcote's Recapturing the Wesleys' Vision, Guy Williams over at Gen-X Missional Wesleyan brought up the issue of social holiness. (Guy uses the term correctly, and you can read his post here.)
I commented on that post, which got my mind buzzing on this subject and particularly on how it is so often misused ... which really stuck in my craw, which connected to a paper I'm writing currently on the practical theology of the class meeting, which led me then to call Dr. Randy Maddox to discuss the issue, which led me finally to start writing a column on it for the United Methodist Reporter that I'm tentatively calling "Language Matters".
Some people might say that I'm splitting hairs - that Wesley really did care about what we would call social justice and that, since he uses the phrase social holiness in other contexts and it seems to fit our purposes, we can just allow it to do double duty.
But that's the kind of undisciplined use of language that just drives me nuts. Look, for instance, in the United Methodist Hymnal from pages 425-450, which are the hymns and prayers under the section, "SOCIAL HOLINESS". These are not social holiness hymns in the Wesleyan sense of the term; they are rather for various forms of social outreach, social justice, and world peace.
So why can't we just reorient the term to the way we see fit? Here's why: If we don't practice and preach a strong doctrine of sanctification, then we tend to fall into the typical Enlightenment mistake that we are born with our reason and will already in good shape, and that all we have to do is employ our reason to see what good needs to be done in the world to make it a better place.
But we Methodists believe in the reality of the depravity that comes from Original Sin, and we believe that it is only through God's grace that our reason and will can be restored enough to the point where we can recognize the good and pursue it in the world. We become healed of the presence and power sin through the process of sanctification.
And that happens through social holiness. Real social holiness.
When we use language loosely, because of the desire to sound Wesleyan (even when we don't know what that means), then we start messing with our entire doctrinal structure. And that's a bad idea. Besides, using Wesley to justify our own ideas because his name has authority is a lazy practice, which can approach intellectual dishonesty. If we want to invoke our founder's name and ideas, we should make sure we know what we are talking about.
By the way, if you are interested in reading about Wesley's understanding of social holiness, the two primary sources are the Preface to Hymns and Sacred Poems (1739), which can be found in volume 14 of the Jackson edition of Wesley's Works, pp. 319-322, and the sermon, "Upon Our Lord's Sermon on the Mount (IV)," which can be found lots of places, including online.

6 Comments:
I always understood Wesley, in his comments about social religion and social holiness, to be talking about how religion can never be private and individual, but always by necessity including our neighbor. Not between us and God, but between us, God, and our neighbor. I can see social justice work springing out of the framework, but I think the starting point for Wesley was that faith could never be something we lived out in isolation.
Thanks for continuing this conversation and this point, Andrew. (Glad I got your dander up!)
Where I've read Wesley referring to "social holiness" it is, as Chilcote observes, in reference to the societies and their role in making us holy. One of the points here is that it is unnecessary to co-opt Wesley's phrase and substitute the meaning we want or assume is infused into his words. Wesley's writings and practice of ministry clearly demonstrate and call all persons in the Church to the work of what today we term "social justice."
Since "losing" social justice if the language of Wesley is read correctly is not a danger (as if the whole case rested on misreading this phrase, so we dare not question it), we misread it at our peril. This is because we lose, or rather, have lost, the teaching that it is pointing us to! That is, that we do not grow in holiness on our own--it is a ministry of, and common journey of, the community of faith.
First, thank you for the welcome back to the blogosphere. I hope to be worth reading.
Second, I'm looking forward to your article in the UM Reporter. I agree with you that we need to be careful with our terms - especially when we risk changing the doctrine of grace by misusing them.
Another loss in the process is that we jump quickly from "a view of holiness that is purely individual is inadequate" to "a biblical view of holiness is only social," by which we tend to mean something perfectly comprehensible to any good modern, whether God is in the picture or not.
When I taught the doctrine segment in our local Certified Lay Ministry training I shared the original context (from Wesley's hymnal preface) with the students so they could understand the origin of the phrase. It's not a very long piece and not that hard to deal with.
Thanks for this correction Andrew. Two quick points:
1. I'm preaching a series from Colossians right now. My next sermon (August 18, 08) will emphasis sanctification, i.e. Christian growth, AND, the real possibility of the abortion of Christian growth (i.e. apostasy).
2. Alan Jacobs just released a new book on Original Sin. Should be worth a look at.
I've just read Jacob's book and found it contains many necessary reminders for we Wesleyans who have thought we could follow Wesley without it.
Post a Comment
<< Home