Wesleyan Theological Journal Publication of the Wesleyan Theological Society WESLEY’S GENERAL RULES: PARADIGM FOR POSTMODERN ETHICS .................................................................. 7 Christopher P. Momany ELEMENTS OF A POSTMODERN HOLINESS HERMENEUTIC ILLUSTRATED BY WAY OF THE BOOK OF REVELATION ......... 23 John E. Stanley JUSTIFIED BUT UNREGENERATE? THE RELATIONSHIP OF ASSURANCE TO JUSTIFICATION AND REGENERATION IN THE THOUGHT OF JOHN WESLEY ............................................... 44 Scott Kisker CULTURE AND CONCUPISCENCE: THE CHANGING DEFINITION OF SANCTITY IN THE WESLEYAN/HOLINESS MOVEMENT, 1867-1920 .................................................................. 59 Paul Merritt Bassett MISSION POLICY AND NATIONAL LEADERSHIP IN THE CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE: JAPAN, 1905-1965 ..................... 128 Floyd T. Cunningham REVIVALISM: IN SEARCH OF A DEFINITION ............................... 165 Russell E. Richey THE MINISTRY OF MARY LEE CAGLE: A STUDY IN WOMEN’S HISTORY AND RELIGION ....................... 176 Stan Ingersol BOOK REVIEWS ............................................................................. 199 Volume 28, Numbers 1 and 2 Spring-Fall, 1993 The Journal of the WESLEYAN THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY A Fellowship of Wesleyan-Arminian Scholars Editor and Chair of the Editorial Committee: Paul M. Bassett, 1987-1993 Barry L. Callen, 1993 to present All communications concerning editorial matters should be addressed to the editor, Barry L. Callen, c/o Anderson Univer - sity, East Fifth Street, Anderson, Indiana 46012. Membership dues and other financial items should be addressed to the secretary-treasurer, William Kostlevy, c/o Asbury Theological Seminary, Wilmore, Kentucky 40390. Rate and application form are found at the end of this issue. Publication Address: Wesleyan Theological Society, P. O. Box 144, Wilmore, Kentucky 40390. WESLEYAN THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY (Organized 1965) The Society’s mission is to encourage exchange of ideas among Wesleyan-Arminian theologians; to develop a source of papers for CHA (Christian Holiness Association) seminars; to stimulate scholarship among younger theologians and pas - tors; and to publish a scholarly Journal. WESLEYAN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL ############# Published by the Wesleyan Theological Society P. O. Box 144 Wilmore, Kentucky 40390 © Copyright 1994 by the Wesleyan Theological Society ISSN-0092-4245 Indexed with abstracts in Religion Index One: Periodicals, American Theological Library Association, Chicago. Available on-line through BRS (Bibliographic Retrieval Series), Latham, New York, and DIALOG, Palo Alto, California. Available in Microform from University Microfilms Inter - national, 300 North Zeek Road, Dept. I.R., Ann Arbor, Michi - gan 48106. Printed by Old Paths Tract Society Shoals, Indiana 47581 CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS NUMBER Christopher P. Momany, Ph.D., D.Min. (Drew University); Pastor, Cen - tenary United Methodist Church, Pentwater, Michigan John E. Stanley, Ph.D. (Iliff School of Theology, University of Denver); Chair, Department of Bible, Warner Pacific College, Portland, Oregon Scott Kisker, M.Div. (The Divinity School, Duke University); Associate Pastor, American Protestant Church, Bonn, Germany Paul M. Bassett, Ph.D. (Duke University); Professor of the History of Christianity, Nazarene Theological Seminary, Kansas City, Missouri Floyd T. Cunningham, Ph.D. (The Johns Hopkins University); Dean and Professor of the History of Christianity, Asia-Pacific Nazarene Theo - logical Seminary, Manila, Philippines Russell E. Richey, Ph.D. (Drew University); Associate Dean for Aca - demic Programs, The Divinity School, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina Stan Ingersol, Archivist, Church of the Nazarene EDITORIAL NOTES With this double number of the Journal, the term of the undersigned editor comes to an end. Two three-year terms, in fact. At the very outset, I approached the work with enthusiasm and a deep yearning to be of service—to the Wesleyan Theological Society in partic - ular and to the wider world of theological scholarship in general. Enthusi - asm for editing has abated, to be sure, but the concern to be of use grows apace. Good Wesleyan that I aim to be, I am reporting to you an investment of 2100 hours in the Journal in those six years, much of it under difficult circumstances—personal and otherwise. So I reach the end of these terms in a rather bittersweet mood. Too many hopes lie unfulfilled; and yet, thanks to you, the quality of the articles appearing in the Journal contin - ues to strengthen. And the Journal continues to grow in reputation as a major source for understanding the Wesleyan/Holiness Movement. Thanks to changes in the format of the annual meeting of the Society; to vast, ready-to-hand changes in communications technology, many of which have taken place only in the last half-decade; and to changes in edi - torial policy and administrative matters on the part of the incoming editor, the Journal itself should be easier to produce in timely fashion and new features should be more feasible. I anticipate very good days ahead for our Journal under the editorial direction of Barry Callen. Now, to turn to “old business”: I apologize to Dr. Stan Ingersol for having presented his fine article in two successive numbers. That error will perplex bibliographers and researchers for generations to come. And, I apologize to Prof. Mel Shoemaker, who teaches at Azusa Pacific, not Warner Pacific. As to present business: It is at the request of the incoming editor, Barry Callen, that I have included an article of my own in this double number. It was not his request that it go on forever, as it does. But it is with his approval that it does appear in entirety. And last: The Executive Committee of the Wesleyan Theological Society, publishers of the Journal, decided for reasons of schedule and finances to print Numbers 1 and 2 of Volume 28 under one cover. This is in line with contingencies noted in the original decision to publish two numbers per year. P. M. B. This issue concludes the editorial service of Dr. Paul M. Bassett to the Wesleyan Theological Journal. His skilled contribution to this schol - arly endeavor officially spanned the years 1987 to 1993, with transitional work extending into 1994. It has been judged appropriate by the new edi - tor that this historic issue carry a major article by Dr. Bassett. Gratitude is expressed to this gifted and insightful colleague in Christ’s service. B. L. C. WESLEY’S GENERAL RULES: PARADIGM FOR POSTMODERN ETHICS by Christopher P. Momany INTRODUCTION Poised at the cusp of transition from premodernity to modernity, “The Nature, Design, and General Rules of the United Societies” (1743) bear postmodern ethical import. Wesley’s premodern emphasis upon “doing no harm” and “doing good” anticipates the modern debate between those ethical theories which stress either nonmaleficence (not inflicting harm) or beneficence (provision of benefit). In many respects, the story of modern ethics revolves around an extended process of pre - senting, critiquing, and then representing the dialogue, the tension, between doing no harm (nonmaleficence) and doing good (beneficence). However, Wesley’s simple integration of these primitive Christian principles offers deeply promising postmodern possibilities for a coales - cence of ethical emphases which have often been considered mutually exclusive. Could not a postmodern synthesis of the “General Rules” point contemporary Wesleyans toward an ethic which both protects the sacred individual and promotes the commonweal, an ethic which both aims to avoid harm and yet is highly cognizant of the public good? It is in this sense that John Wesley’s “General Rules” offer a paradigm for postmodern ethics. THE ANTICIPATORY POWER OF PREMODERN PARADIGMS Any consideration of Wesley’s “General Rules” as a premodern con - struct with postmodern significance must first articulate some typology of — 7— modernity. While several credible delineations of modernity abound, none are perhaps as concise as that offered by Thomas C. Oden. Oden sees modernity best defined “first as a historical period, then as an ideological worldview, and finally as a malaise of the deteriorating phase of that worldview.” 1 In this schema, modernity is confined to the specific two- hundred-year period between 1789 and 1989, between the French Revolu - tion and the fall of Communism. Whether such definitiveness will ulti - mately be ascribed these two events remains to be seen, and one might offer a more nuanced understanding of mid-eighteenth century antecedents of modernity, as well as post-communistic expressions of modernity. But in at least general terms, the years 1789 and 1989 best frame the chronological poles of modernity. The ideological worldview of the period has been indelibly marked by scientific naturalism, hermeneutical deconstructionism, and moral iconoclasm. French rationalism, German idealism, British empiricism, and American pragmatism, while apparent epistemological foes, all share, in various forms, the presuppositions of modernity. One need not be unso - phisticated or reactionary to identify in modernity a destructive tendency toward ethical nihilism. The often arrogant appeal to a hypercritical hermeneutic has left modernity convinced that its entanglement with rela - tivism is something “objective.” Yet, as Oden points up, the Enlighten - ment’s dogmatic regard for relativism has left an almost unimaginable legacy of confusion and pain. 2 Given this state of affairs, it is appropriate