JAC Online

Individual v. Corporate Holiness
(excerpt from forthcoming Holiness Incorporated)
Major Geoff Webb

Rarely do we hear sermons preached about the holiness of the church. While we may acknowledge that Christian holiness finds its basis in the holiness of God, we appear happier to address matters of how God’s holiness makes me different. Although it is true that the grace of entire sanctification is thoroughly personal, and it also is true that a life marked by Christlikeness is personal, yet it is not private. ‘[Samuel Logan] Brengle … taught holiness is meaningless without its corporate expression.’[1][i]

The first creative tension that we must maintain, then, is between the centripetal “force” of individual holiness and the centrifugal “force” of corporate holiness.[2][ii]

Holiness is not purely an individual matter, but something worked out in community as we express loving relationships to each other. The holiness of God exists within the eternal community between Father, Son and Spirit. Therefore, holiness is primarily corporate; it is individual only in a secondary sense. Human holiness experienced in relationship to God may only be experienced in relationships to the holy people of God. As the community of faith we express likeness to Christ. Jonathan Raymond rightly comments that, ‘[t]here is no individual, personal holiness outside of social holiness. Holiness must be grounded in the social context of our relationship with God and others.’[3][iii]

Why, then, is holiness so often conceived exclusively in individual terms? Perhaps it is partly because it is difficult to speak of the holiness of the church. True, holiness is one of the “marks” or “notes” of the church, along with unity, catholicity and apostolicity.[4][iv] But in the same way that the unity of the church has always been relative – often less than more! – so too for the holiness of the church. In fact, throughout the centuries the holiness of the church has been a source of considerable difficulty.

Some theologians have asserted a distinction between the holiness of the church and the sanctity of its members. But this may create a theoretical problem since it suggests a kind of disembodied church without connection to its members. This view would seem to avoid maintaining the tension between the two forces at all.

Some – including such notable figures as Augustine – have felt that the holiness of the church is purely “positional.” They believe that God chooses to see the church as holy even though it is clearly not, since there are people within it who are often far from holy. Such a view is not unlike how many have viewed holiness at the individual level: it is imputed to us by God at justification, but imparted at “glorification” – after we have died.[5][v]

But against this view, we need to remember that it is difficult to think of any ‘imputed’ righteousness that lacks personal reality. How can we suppose that a holy God would choose to continue to see us as holy in Christ throughout our lives after justification, when we are functionally “unholy.” Holiness as heart purity is necessary.[6][vi] Augustine’s view – and those who follow it in some form – suffers from the problem of failing to consider the significance of individual holiness.

At the other extreme, the Donatist and Anabaptist movements emphasised the ‘empirical holiness of church members, leading to the exclusion from the church of members who were deemed to have lapsed from these public standards of sanctity.’[7][vii] The controversies that arose as a result of such views provide us with a focus when we consider how church discipline should be exercised. (This will be the subject of a later chapter.)

This view suffers from a failure to understand the difference between holiness as being blameless and being faultless. Holiness as perfect love is a way of addressing this problem: we should be blameless with a perfect attitude of love to God and others, rather than  faultless in terms of perfect performance. The Donatist and Anabaptist controversies arose partly because of a tendency to focus too much on the holiness of the individual. As such they collapsed the tension into a kind of private piety as the measure of holiness.

Some have chosen an eschatological (end-time) perspective. The church will be made holy at the coming of the Lord. Against this we must remember that the concept that the church is holy is a matter of faith and hope, yet it is not entirely future in its orientation. The church is clearly called to holiness as Christlikeness in a realized (now) rather than merely future (not yet) sense.

None of these views fully recognises the New Testament emphasis that the church is a holy people – separated from the world so that it can bear witness to God’s saving grace. If we are to pursue corporate holiness, then, we must address holiness in these three aspects taught within the New Testament: holiness as heart purity, as perfect love, and as Christlikeness. We will return to these aspects later.

An important development occurred in the eighteenth century, when John Wesley promoted the idea that there is no holiness but social holiness.[8][viii]

While Wesley had emphasised social holiness, which involved relationships and social transformation, he did not appear to have grasped the importance of such social transformation. By the time of the nineteenth century holiness movement, an intense individualism had become the primary focus. The creative tension was not maintained. They were unable to recognise that if we place too great an emphasis on the individual nature of holiness we are in danger of our holiness teaching collapsing inward to a purely personal piety that fails to respond to the needs of others. Such an approach can become disconnected from social concern.[9][ix]

A few managed to avoid this intense individualism – one notable person being General William Booth, the Founder of The Salvation Army. His concept of corporate holiness involved the idea that only a holy people could achieve the holy work of ushering in the Kingdom. Sanctification was not only for the individual, but for the entire movement. What General Booth identified was that the ‘natural result of personal holiness would be corporate righteousness: a righteous government administering just laws; a righteous business world conducting fair business practices; and righteous family relationships.’[10][x] This was far-reaching, especially for a hierarchical organisation that was rapidly developing an international impact. While social holiness recognised the importance of social relationships, and addressing societal transformation, General Booth’s concept of corporate holiness would also examine how holiness should look organisationally.

But his emphasis was quickly lost – even within his own Salvation Army. Perhaps this was because of a reaction among conservative evangelicals against the rising influence of the “social gospel” – an outgrowth of late nineteenth century Protestant liberalism.[11][xi]

The problem that conservative evangelicals recognised within the social gospel movement is that if holiness becomes a form of social struggle then it is in danger of so emphasising the social dimension that it spins outward into something associated only with justice issues, alignment with the poor, and the struggle for liberation.

Some elements in the church resolved the issue by offering reactive responses to social concerns. However, providing welfare-type programmes for those in poverty or to people with other needs such as substance dependencies, has often been likened to placing an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. Meanwhile, others are seeking to have a fence built at the top.

So what we do we need to consider in this twenty-first century in order to maintain the creative tension? We need to consider social dimensions of holiness that go beyond reactive responses. ‘[T]he true holiness of the church is seen not in impeccable conformity to conventional moral rules but in the courageous criticism of injustice, acts of solidarity with the poor and the outcast, the sharing of friendship and power with the weak and despised.’[12][xii]

Commissioner Phil Needham calls for The Salvation Army – as part of the Holiness Movement – to move away from an exclusive individualism in its understanding of holiness, and to an integration of the concepts of holiness and community.[13][xiii]

We also need to consider corporate dimensions of holiness, including the need to examine the structures operating within churches themselves. It is possible to demonstrate grace and love to those outside while remaining judgmental or unfair to those inside. Equally, it is possible for structures and their impact to be negative. Every church needs to ‘question itself and its systems of power, to ensure that it remains responsive to God’s call to justice and genuine community.’[14][xiv]

Lest we consider corporate holiness to be just another way of expressing corporate ethics, it is important that we remember the understanding of corporate holiness in the New Testament. A quick review of the New Testament shows us that holiness finds its full meaning when sanctified individuals are part of a sanctified church.

Jesus’ high-priestly prayer in John 17 is a corporate prayer. And everywhere in the New Testament discipleship is seen within the context of the community of faith. The Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7) is programmatic for the holy people of God. In it they discover the demands of holy living – seemingly unattainable were it not for the empowering presence of the Spirit of Christ. The injunction in 1 Peter 1:15-16 echoes that of Matthew 5:48: we are to be  holy as a reflex of God’s holiness.

Paul calls to holiness relate to holy people. He addresses churches, reminding them that they are ‘sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints’ (1 Cor 1:2 NRSV). They (corporately) are one body in the one Spirit (1 Cor 12:12-13).

The holy people are ‘a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people’ (1 Peter 2:9). Elsewhere, members of the church are told they are blessed with every spiritual blessing, and sealed by the Spirit (Eph 1:1-14). They are the household of God, and are built together into a holy temple for the Lord to indwell (Eph 2:19-22).

Paul calls those in the Galatian church to heart purity, evidenced through living by the Spirit; and he notes the differences in behaviour of those who show spiritual fruit in their lives, compared with those who live according to the sinful nature. (Galatians 5:16-26)

The problems associated with a lack of heart purity are outlined in Eph 4:22-31, and the church is called to be clothed in holiness (Eph 4:24).

Paul considers holiness to be perfect love, reminding us that love is the fulfilling of the law (Romans 13:8-10), and that harmony should characterise our relationships (Romans 15:5-7)

Jude reminds the believers that they should ‘build yourselves up on your most holy faith … keep yourselves in the love of God.’ (Jude 1:20-21)

The Ephesian letter repeatedly makes the connection between love and holy living, whether it is ‘bearing with one another in love’ (Eph 4:2 NRSV), ‘speaking the truth in love’ (Eph 4:15 NRSV), being built up in love (Eph 4:16), or simply the command to ‘live in love’ (Eph 5:1 NRSV).

The letter to the Colossians similarly reminds them that they are holy and loved, and that they should therefore clothe themselves with qualities that echo the character of Christ. More than anything, they are instructed to ‘clothe yourselves with love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony’ (Col 3:15).

Ephesians 5:26-27 reminds us of God’s desire for a holy church as well as holy people: ‘Christ’s love makes the church whole. His words evoke her beauty. Everything he does and says is designed to bring the best out of her, dressing her in dazzling white silk, radiant with holiness (Eph 5:26-27 TMNT).            

Taken as a whole then, New Testament teaching makes clear the need for the corporate holiness of the church, expressed primarily in behaviour and relationships. Corporate holiness must result in corporate ethics. Commissioner James Knaggs calls prophetically for such corporate holiness.

‘Every nook and cranny of the [Salvation] Army needs to be washed in the blood of Jesus, resulting in a truly holy movement to the point where corporate holiness is our standard. While I’m certain this is our intention all over the movement, we need to keep it on the front burner and raise our expectations, never accepting minimalist approaches to communication, employment matters, officer concerns—in fact—in any facet of our ministry.’[15][xv] 

What could that mean? There is always a danger that corporate holiness becomes something that we do – a programmatic approach by itself will inevitably lead to a “to-do-list” mentality. There are programmatic aspects that we need to address – as other chapters will consider. But a “to-do list” approach may not foster a mindset of corporate holiness. Stephen Covey, writing about time-management for leaders, speaks of the need to use the compass rather than the to-do­ list. Even more so is this necessary for our approach to corporate holiness.

Part of the problem with a programmatic approach is that personal behaviour relates to corporate holiness, as well as corporate behaviour. So we come back to the three facets of holiness as heart purity, Christlikeness, and perfect love, and we will consider some implications – and raise some questions – for personal and corporate behaviour.

The first one to consider is holiness as heart-purity. The issue of heart purity (or the lack thereof) of individuals within the church, and the effects of it, can be illuminated from Scripture. Isaiah 42:6 speaks of the people of Israel being holy and a light to the Gentiles; so what is clearly in view is not merely individuals being holy but also the need to be a holy people. Out of the reality of God’s holiness-in-community, people are called to live out the demands of holy living in community. Some do this well – others less well. It is clear from both Testaments that not every individual among the people was holy. Thus, there is an inevitable tension between the corporate holiness of the people of God and the failure of individuals to act in a way that is consistent with being the holy people of God.

We recognise that corporate holiness will always be a more-or-less thing, because of the continuing presence of individuals for whom heart purity is a problem. ‘People who do not intend to be inwardly transformed will not be. God is not going to pick us up and throw us into transformed kingdom living.’ [16][xvi]

The way we express our holiness teaching must testify to the fact that the whole people of God are called to be holy. This call involves both command and provision. It is more than a sum of the parts. The New Testament makes clear that the holy church is more than a collection of holy individuals. The life of the community of faith should be characterized by holiness.

Of course, we have already noted that this has interesting implications for that most sensitive of issues in maintaining the holiness of the church – namely, church discipline. Geoff Ryan has an interesting perspective on this. He calls for a denominational Jubilee that would help people – especially church leaders – deal with lingering fears concerning past wrong-doing.[17][xvii] This could be one way of addressing the issue of heart-purity, and therefore address the centripetal force of individual holiness. It also addresses the corporate aspect, since the more that individuals are holy in their behaviour, the more the church will be holy in a corporate sense.

Discussion:  what do you think about the concept of a “denominational jubilee year” or similar? Would it contribute to or detract from the corporate holiness of the church? Could it be done in some form – or is there another way in which the issue of heart purity could be addressed?

How can a holy people be holy without each individual being holy? We can resolve the apparent contradiction if we consider holiness in terms of relationship. The idea of holiness as relationship enables us to hold on to both a corporate and an individual understanding of holiness. As a holy people, we relate to a holy God – whether all individuals are holy or not.

This concept of relationship is at the heart of an understanding of holiness as perfect love. Perfect love is needed to be exercised in relationships for corporate holiness to be effective. At a corporate level, however, there can be a problem. Dallas Willard speaks of two basic forms of evil in relationships: assault and withdrawal.

 We assault someone when we act against what is good for them, even with their consent. It is not only when we harm them or cause them pain against their conscious will. Hence, seduction is assault, as is participation in or compliance with institutionalized wrongdoing or evil… We withdraw from someone when we regard their well-being and goodness as matters of indifference to us, or perhaps go so far as to despise them. We don’t care…  [W]e always ‘distance’ ourselves from those we assault, and withdrawal is nearly always a way of assaulting those we withdraw from. So we should think of the distinction between assault and withdrawal as only a matter or emphasis, useful for the understanding of how lovelessness works.[18][xviii]

When we seek to establish corporate holiness, we recognise that it will always be a more-or-less thing, because of the human tendency of individuals to engage in assault or withdrawal. The relative impact of such assault/withdrawal becomes more significant depending on the “breadth” of the position of a leader within the church.

But corporate holiness is not merely a matter of reducing the assault/withdrawal phenomenon. That is the “negative” expression of perfect love within corporate holiness. Corporate holiness is much more than a group of Christians being pious together. It is the community of faith actively serving each other and engaging a broken world with acts of sacrificial love and service. The book of Acts shows the life of the earliest Christians as being together and serving each other (Acts 2:44). Corporate holiness is seen in the church laying down its life for outsiders – for its neighbours. The holiness ethic of “perfect love” (1 John 4:18) is developed at this point.

Discussion: ‘Do assault and withdrawal adequately cover the range of evils people inflict on others? Think about the role these play in ordinary life. [How] is it possible to disagree with or correct others without assault or withdrawal?… How would loving as Jesus loved eliminate assault and withdrawal in personal relationships.’[19][xix]  In a practical sense, how can we be “laying down our life for our neighbours”? 

The third facet to consider is holiness as Christlikeness. There is a need for Christlikeness in character and action – both in individual and corporate terms. This is the area that can readily be the arena for a programmatic approach to corporate holiness. Indeed, it needs to be. Corporate holiness requires that we pursue organizational structures, processes, and content that promote radical obedience to Jesus Christ.[20][xx]

The fullest biblical description of what a spiritually transformed social dimension looks like is in Romans 12:1-21. The first call within it is to show Christlikeness by avoiding the pressure to conform to our surrounding culture (Rom 12:1-2). What implications for corporate holiness might there be in seeking to be counter-cultural? [21][xxi]

Sometimes it is difficult to realize the extent of cultural impact on us until we are able to re-immerse into our culture after withdrawal from it; or alternately, we may need to hear from people from another culture how they perceive it. For example, a Christian from Africa might show Western Christians how materialistic and consumer-driven their culture is; or a Christian from a Muslim-majority culture such as Indonesia or Pakistan might help Western Christians understand how “sexualised” Western culture has become. Such mutuality and openness can help us to avoid the potential problem of becoming too well-adjusted to our culture.[22][xxii]

The second call involves operating corporately according to the way the Spirit has gifted and empowered us. One of the issues that some churches may need to address in terms of corporate holiness include their ‘emphases on obedience and conformity [that] could lead to promoting managers over leaders. This includes the threat that some in positions of authority might feel from those who "color outside the line" or who in other ways challenge presumptions held by the organization.’[23][xxiii]

A third call involves reflecting Christlikeness in relationships. If we really believe what we say we believe about holiness then our relationships as brothers and sisters in Christ should not so regularly remain broken by unforgiveness.

The spiritually transformed social dimension described in the Romans 12 passage is  depicted in the Holiness Manifesto: 

The essence of holiness is that God is holy and calls us to be a holy people. The challenge is reflecting Jesus Christ in a relevant and contextual way that transcends social location and diversity. Indwelled and empowered by the Holy Spirit, holy people live and love like Jesus Christ. Walking intimately with him overflows in compassion and advocacy for those whom God loves.[24][xxiv]

DISCUSSION:

How can you embody holiness in your present context – both personally and in your ministry? Could Paul’s picture of the holy community (Rom 12:1-21) work where you are?  How would this work? What issues might need to be addressed?

Maintaining the creative tension between the centripetal “force” of individual holiness and the centrifugal “force” of corporate holiness prevents the possibility of our theology and praxis either collapsing inward to purely individual piety, or spinning outward to an emphasis focussed solely on social-justice and liberation dimensions of the gospel.