You are on page 1of 13

Digital Commons @ George Fox University

Faculty Publications - College of Christian Studies College of Christian Studies

Fall 2006

Psychological Implications of the Doctrine of

Christian Perfection with Special Reference to John
Wesley's View
Irv Brendlinger
George Fox University,

Eric E. Mueller

Follow this and additional works at:

Part of the Christianity Commons, Clinical Psychology Commons, and the Systematic/Doctrinal
Theology Commons

Recommended Citation
Brendlinger, Irv and Mueller, Eric E., "Psychological Implications of the Doctrine of Christian Perfection with Special Reference to
John Wesley's View" (2006). Faculty Publications - College of Christian Studies. Paper 115.

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Christian Studies at Digital Commons @ George Fox University. It has been
accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications - College of Christian Studies by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ George Fox
University. For more information, please contact
Psychological Implications of the Doctrine of
Christian Perfection with Special Reference to
John Wesley's View
Iiv Brendlinger, Ph.D.
Professor of HisWrical TMology
George Fox University
Newberg, OR 97132-2697

Eric E. Mueller, M.Div., Ph.D.

Private Clinical Practice
Portland, OR 97216

The doctrine of Christian Perfection is viewed by some as a wonderful and liber

ating doctrine, but by others it is seen as producing false expectations and guilt.
John Wesley, the first major theologian to develop a theology of Christian Perfec
tion, encountered misunderstandings and problems with this doctrine. He wrote
and preached to correct the misunderstandings. Unfortunately, misunderstand
ings persist and sometimes have psychological effects on individuals. This article
explores common understandings, beliefs, and experiences regarding Christian
Perfection among evangelical Christians from the holiness tradition. The materi
al was gathered by means of interviews that were recorded. The interviews were
then studied by a theologian and by a clinical psychologist in order to examine
how close the beliefs were to Wesley's position and what psychological implica
tions were contained in both the beliefs and the experiences related to the belief
of those interviewed.

om my (IB) first exposure to the holiness tradition (during college

years) to my serving in Wesleyan churches and teaching in a Wesleyan
ollege and seminary, I have observed disparate interpretations and
experiences of Christian Perfection. The disparities were sometimes
between people's experience and their belief and sometimes between their
belief and what they had been taught. Some responded with frustration
that their lives did not measure up to what they believed , some lived in
denial that there was a disparity, and some rejected the doctrine or even
their entire Christian faith. As I compared people's beliefs and experiences
with Wesley's perspective on Christian Perfection, I was enticed to look
more deeply at his teaching and discover how it might resolve the confu
sion and discouragement. I also became concerned that the theological
confusion was relevant to psychological issues in people's lives. I believed a
better understanding of Wesley's view might greatly facilitate one's spiritu
al journey toward maturity.
Albert E llis has said, "Religiosity is in many respects equivalent to irra
tional thinking and emotional disturbance."1 A decade of pastoral ministry
experience prior to entering clinical training taught me (EM) that for
some, faith and religious practice appeared to promote personal growth
and psychological health. For others it often seemed to promote poor men
tal health (defined broadly as developmental arrest and interpersonal dys-
function). Was the dysfunctional religious experience the product of inad
equate doctrine or a defective belief system? Was it an expression of an
underlying psychological disorder that manifested itself in dysfunctional
religious expression? Or was Ellis right that religion promoted ill health?
Mo<!em psychological research, I discovered, suggested that the effects
of religion on mental health were not as clear as Ellis had suggested. In
1983, A E. Bergin first published the results of an exhaustive meta-analysis
of all the previous psychological research done to study the effects of reli
giosity (broadly defined in aJudeo-Christian context) on mental health in
an article published in Professional Psycho'logy: &search and Practice.2 Accord
ing to Bergin, 23% of the research findings supported the view that reli
gion negatively affected mental health. However, 47% indicated that
religion had a positive effect on mental health, and 30% of the research
suggested that there was no relationship. So when the numbers are added
up, 77% of the obtained results found that religion did not negatively
affect mental health, hardly a finding that supported Ellis's statement. But
what about that 23% that appeared to negatively affect mental health? As
a Christian psychologist, who views Christianity as a positive resource, I am
convinced that we need to identify not just the healthy aspects of our faith,
but the aspects of our faith that may generate poor mental health.

Purpose of the Current Study

In Wesley's time there were many misunderstandings about Christian Per
fection. Among them were the issues of the nature and the timing of the
experience. Some saw it as "absolute perfection" and attainable through
God's grace. Others, at the opposite end of the continuum, saw it as com
pletely unattainable and a misleading teaching. Between those extremes
were more moderate positions. The problem for Wesley was that he was
associated with the problematic views. An even greater problem was that
such views hindered the healthy maturing of believers. For those reasons
Wesley gave considerable effort to make his view clear. He corresponded
with individuals in order to clarify his views and answer questions. He
preached a number of sermons on the topic and he wrote tracts to fully
explain his view. His most thorough treatment, A Plain Account of Christian
Perfection, was his attempt to clarify his beliefs and put to rest views which
were not his and which he considered misleading or harmful to Christians.
Because of our awareness that many Christians, particularly those who
consider themselves heirs of Wesley, experience confusion and have mis
understandings of this Wesley doctrine we decided to revisit Wesley's eigh
teenth century problem and explore what Christians from Wesley's
tradition NOW perceived about Christian Perfection. We wanted to exam
ine their understandings in light of psychological issues. We subtitled our
project "A Plain Account of Christian Perfection ... and ...An Account of Perfec
tion Held h'y Plain Christians. "
Throughout our project we were open about our assumption that we do
not believe "religion creates pathology." On the contrary, we hold that
whereas some religious constructs and practices may contribute to pathol
ogy, good theology and authentic spirituality contribute to well-being. As a
psychologist and a theologian we are concerned about spiritual well-being,
psychologically and theologically generated. As Karl Barth admonished-
the theologian should be both the critic and the servant of the preacher.
We desired to apply a similar principle in encouraging the Christian psy
chologist to give psychological insight and feedback to the theologian, and
the theologian to give a sound theological base to the psychologist. We
have tried to model this kind of mutually informing and supportive collab
oration by applying psychology and theology to popular understandings of
a major Wesleyan doctrine, but ultimately for the spiritual well-being of
Christian people.
One other disclaimer: this was viewed as an initial study, not compre
hensive and conclusive, so our sample was small. We hope to begin a dis
cussion that may prove helpful to pastors and counselors. We hope to raise
issues that can lead to additional research and inquiry.
Our data were the experiences and perceptions of people. We used a
questionnaire to form the basis of an interview. The interviews lasted from
20 to 45 minutes, with most taking approximately thirty minutes. These
were taped so we could accurately review the material. Individuals were
selected based on several criteria, among them the following:
1. They had experience (church background) in the "holiness tradition."
2. They considered themselves as currently subscribing to a biblical concept of

The pool became a rich resource. It included 6 men and 3 women. They
all had their religious experience in the Northeast, except one, in the
South. They represented six holiness denominations. They ranged in age
from 40 to 83. All but one was at least college educated, three held PhDs,
three with Masters degrees.
We gave no advance notice of the questions because we desired to hear
the respondents' emotive, rather than "scholarly" responses. We were
exploring persons' experience.

Findings and Comparisons to Wesley

In our study we wanted to explore both how accurately people understood
Wesley and how much variance there was within our sample. In order to
relate our research to the baseline of Wesley's view of Christian Perfection
we shall give a brief description of his doctrine followed by the responses
of our interviewees. This will be done by breaking the subject into compo-

nent issues and looking at our findings.

Before presenting those component parts, however, some summary dis
coveries will be helpful: regarding key theological concepts, the responses
were sufficiently varied and revealed divergent understandings. There were
two kinds of differences. In some cases we saw strong variance between the
individuals in our pool, revealing great differences among those within the
holiness tradition. There were also differences within the individuals from
what they initially believed (or had been taught) and what they later came
to believe on their own.
Wesley's understanding of Christian Perfection grows from his larger
view of the entire doctrine of salvation. He saw it as being comprised of
"two branches"-justification and sanctification. Justification changes one's
relationship to God, while sanctification changes the actual nature of the
person. One relates to forgiveness; the other relates to the restoration of
human potential. In Wesley's words, justification is what God does "for" us,
while sanctification is what God does "in" us. This involves Wesley's under
standing of humankind being created in the Image of God. He saw that
image expressed in three dimensions--the "natural," the "political," and
the "moral." The natural meant that we were created to be eternal; the
political, that we were to have dominion over the rest of creation; and the
moral involved "true holiness," which he described as the ability to love
God and others completely and freely. Wesley believed that in the fall the .
natural dimension was injured, but not destroyed. Persons still live eter
nally, but not in God's presence. The political was also injured, in that per
sons dominate and destroy rather than exercising loving dominion. The
moral dimension, however, was totally lost. We have no ability on our own
to unreservedly love God and others.
In sanctification, which Wesley termed "full salvation," the first two
dimensions are improved, but not brought to their original perfection.
However, the moral dimension, which was completely destroyed, is com
pletely restored. Thus, the salvation is "full" or complete. The important
and eternal aspect of the Imago Dei. is restored. This aspect involves love (of
God and others) and therefore is primarily relational, or "other focused."
In light of this Wesleyan view, our interview questions covered key issues
that would show similarities to or differences from Wesley. The questions
began with what is termed the ''sin nature" and explored two facets: a defi
nition of the sin nature and how the sin nature is affected by sanctification.
Not surprisingly, the definition of "sin nature" ranged from something very
substantive, almost or even physical, which is passed on genetically, to
something far less tangible, such as a "tendency to rebel against God, to
serve one's self," or even just an attitude. With the more substantive, or sub
stantialist view, the sin nature actually had an entity (a key issue for our
later discussion). One interviewee described it as "what's organic in every
one of us at birth." Another described it as something that caused "distort
edness" or "dysfunctionality," a "thing" that caused "sinfulness of the very
character of an individual's being." One person seemed to believe that the
sin nature could be equated with temptation, the fact that we are tempted,
with the result that we give in to temptation.

Wesley's View of the Sin Nature

Wesley had a strong view that the sin nature was the inherited nature of
humankind since the fall of Adam.8 However, he acknowledged that he had
no idea how it was transmitted.4 Wesley seems to argue for something very
powerful in the human experience, but does not give it specific substance.
Whatever the sin nature was, it resulted in the loss of the ability to love God
and others, which he called true holiness.

What was Sanctification's Perceived Effect on the Sin Nature?

We found a plethora of responses! They covered the spectrum, from
"taking away of the sin nature as actually the implanting of a tertium quid, a
third thing into the personality," to the entity (the sin nature) being "put
to death" to a more attitudinal view, sanctification brings a new strength to
combat the tendency to sin, a new ability to control the "carnal nature."
When we asked one of our group if he had been taught more of a sup
pression or eradication, he laughed and said, "both and confusinglyl"5
Among those who had believed that the sin nature was actually taken away,
we noted three responses when their experience of sin remained:
A. They changed their belief, no longer believing the sin nature was taken away.
B. They retained their belief and felt "spiritually defeated," or guilty. This was true
of the subject who believed that sanctification actually removed temptation. When
it didn't, and she failed, she continued to feel strong urges to "go to the altar,"
even in her eighties.
C. They retained their belief and renamed their actions: intense anger before
sanctification was described as being "mad as hell," after sanctification it was
reframed as "righteous indignation."

One difficulty we observed with these responses was the focus on behav
iors. Because behaviors are quantifiable the teaching about Christian Per
fection frequently related to behaviors.
Wesley's View of Sanctification's Relationship to the Sin Nature
From a theological perspective the emphasis on behaviors (that we
observed in our interviews) misses the heart of Wesley 's view and settles for
some of the possible outcomes. The essence of Wesley's understanding was
love, not behavior. The core of his belief was the love of God toward per
sons, making possible the love of the person for God, and the accompany
ing love of others. The result of such love would certainly be expressed by
behaviors, but to focus primarily on behaviors would be to short circuit the
essence of the message and lead to legalism. The problem for Wesley was
not so much the sin nature itself, but the relationships that the sin nature
destroyed or distorted. His emphasis was on one's relationship with God
and the means of setting that right was by addressing and allowing God to
change the sin nature. The primary issue was relationship; the means had
to do with the sin nature. Not one of the people we interviewed had been
taught what we perceive as the true Wesley an position that the primary
issue of sanctification was restoring a vibrant relationship with God. They
perceived it as a self focused matter of getting the self changed.
The Possibility of "Sinless Perfection"
All of our interviewees had been taught something about "sinless per
fection." Their views varied but most thought some form of it possible,
depending on definitions of sin.
It was fascinating for us to observe this much acceptance of the idea of
sinless perfection because it stands in stark contrast to Wesley's own posi
tion. While he taught the possibility of "Christian perfection," he carefully
avoided describing it in absolutist terms.6 In spite of Wesley's position on
sinless perfection, the holiness tradition succeeded in making it a major
plank in the platform of Christian Perfection. Our experience indicates
that it is widely assumed to be central to the doctrine, and is most fre
quently associated with behavioral standards.

The Nature of the Sanctification

Experience: Event or Process
A major aspect of our survey had to do with the nature of the experience
of becoming sanctified. This evoked the question of event or process.
Again, the responses went from the extreme of event only, to process only,
with the view of crisis within a process as a middle view. Even in the less
extreme views, there seemed to be a strong undercurrent of expectation
connected to an event. This topic was quite fertile in offering psychologi
cal implications. One description encapsulates much of the issue.
The "Big Event"
One of our interviewees had been definitively taught that it was an event
and that event WOULD result in sinless perfection. He reflected that he
became so preoccupied with wanting to experience the event, that he did
n't think much about spiritual growth. The problem he experienced was if
there was any evidence of a less than perfect life, the implication was clear:
the event had not really occurred. He remembered later counseling with
an older friend who had sought the sanctification experience, the big
event, for some twenty years. This friend had had a grandfather who testi
fied of a sanctifying experience in which he felt like he had been struck
with an electric current. The friend's experience never measured up to that
kind of a "bolt," so he felt spiritually lost and completely inadequate. The
sought after goal was "the big event....a lightening bolt big enough to do
the whole job" of removing sin and bringing perfection. Years of struggling
were ended only when the experience of a cure-all event gave way to
emphasizing a process of growth. That process could contain major crises.
Wesley's View of Event or Process in Sanctification
It is interesting to observe how dogmatic many in the holiness tradition
have been on the nature of the sanctifying experience. It is significant that
Wesley is cited as the authority for both a crisis and a process orientation.
No doubt the reason is that Wesley used metaphors that implied an event,
but he also used metaphors that implied a process. It is likely that as indi
viduals have their own experience regarding sanctification, they identify
with the Wesley metaphors that relate most to their experience and take lit
tle notice of those that do not relate. In fact, Wesley wrote and spoke of a
synthesis of event and process. His analogy of birth is clearly an event, but
it is built on the process which leads up to it. His analogy of death, which
is clearly a final crisis, is often the result of the process of growing older,
weaker, or increasingly ill.
Our Observation
When viewed exclusively as event, the expectations are frequently very
high, not fully realized, and followed by guilt. Feeling that either God had
not yet done God's part and it was still in the future, or that God HAD, but
the individual had not measured up, there often followed the desire for a
panacea. The danger of overemphasis on the event was that unmet expec
tations were followed by disappointment, guilt, and anxiety. It encouraged
the constant striving for a simple answer to the complex problems of life
and sometimes displaced responsibility for addressing personal issues.
W hen viewed exclusively as process, there could be a tendency to not
pay attention to significant moments, or foster alertness to what God is
doing. Seen healthily, process can encourage the person to focus on daily
maturing and growing without implying guilt for not having fully arrived
after an event or crisis.
A more healthy approach was seen when both events (moments of crisis)
and process were acknowledged. The event(s) were recognized as occurring
within a process. In that case, neither event nor process was minimized. The
benefits of both were realized and the weaknesses of each were reduced.
Wesley's View of Grace and Personal Effort
One other theme, the relationship of grace and personal effort, sur
faced in our interviews. The common thread was that although grace was
verbally articulated, there was frequently the sense of striving. Wesley was
true to Reformation theology in holding that salvation is in no way con
nected to what we can do. No part of it can be earned. It is by faith alone.
And to Wesley, sanctification was a part of salvation. He even termed sanc
tification "full salvation" because it was the completion of the whole work
of God, not something added on. Not only was salvation fully dependent
on faith alone, but faith was God's gift. It was not something one could con
jure up. Wesley even went so far on one occasion (at least) as to state that
"grace which brings irresistible at that moment."7 How he
addressed that in the context of human freedom is a different topic, out
side the scope of this article. Suffice it here to say that he put faith on the
opposite end of the continuum from personal effort. In no way could per
sonal effort produce faith. However, it must be immediately pointed out
that the result of God's gift of faith would be a new energy for personal
effort. The order, faith and then effort, was crucial. Wesley was aligned with
the theology of the Epistle of James in believing that the authenticity of faith
could be demonstrated by actions. The point here is that Wesley saw unmer
ited faith, faith that was not dependent on a person's ability to develop it,
as the keystone in the experience of sanctification.

Psychological Implications
As we listened to and processed the perceptions of Christian Perfection
held by the people we interviewed, we formulated psychological implica
tions that their doctrine held. These implications are explicated by topics.
Sin Nature
We noted differing views of the sin nature, which approached what we
term a "rigid" or "flexible" conception. We are using "rigid" to describe a
more substantialist, organic, genetic, content focused view. We are using
"flexible" to describe the view of the sin nature as a tendency toward or
propensity to sin. We observed a direct correlation between how they con
ceived the sin nature and how they perceived sanctification. The more
rigid their view of the sin nature, the more event focused sanctification
became. The more flexible their view of the sin nature, the less event ori
ented and more process oriented was their view of sanctification. We posit
that when the sin nature is seen as a fixed, unchanging state, sanctification
becomes event and is ritualistically experienced.8
What Sanctificatlon Does to the Sin Nature
Everyone in our pool reflected that they had been taught or at some
point believed that sanctification completely removes the sin nature. Words
used to describe this included "rooted out," "destroys," "crucifies," "puts to
death." However, we observed that everyone in our group modified that
belief in light of their personal experience. It did not seem to them that
their sin nature had, in fact, been destroyed. The initial result was a pro
found sense of disappointment. The next step for all of them was to modi
fy their belief to be more congruent with their experience. They appeared
to utilize various defense mechanisms such as rationalization or intellectu
alization (higher order}, or the more primitive defense mechanisms of
denial and projection. But in each case they were reformulating their belief
to match their experience. The more static or more organic their view of
the sin nature (with the correlating event oriented sanctification process) ,
the more primitive was their defense mechanism. Variations also seemed to
relate to personality. This seems to be consistent with basic psychological
theory, and what we would have expected to find.
The psychological implication this offers is that we believe this doctrine
(the substantialist view) inherently generates ambivalence.9 The ambiva
lence is resolved by various people in different ways depending on their
strength or weakness. Those who have a weaker personality structure will
likely resolve their ambivalence more negatively (that is they will be more like
ly to experience neurotic symptoms ofguilt/shame, depression, and anxiety). Those
who have greater resources or strengths in their personality will likely
resolve the ambivalence with less damage to mental health and well being.
But all of our people experienced struggle as a result of the inherent
ambivalence that grows out of the doctrine. We found no one in our study
who did not struggle with psychological emotional ambivalence.
Feeling the need to maintain belief in what is assumed to be "correct
theology," in the face of experience that does not support such theology,
can lead to a split between one's experiential theology and one's intellec
tual theology. Such disassociating might be dealt with psychologically by
developing terminology that has double meanings, or denying the actual
experience if it does not match the belief. We did observe that they all mod
ified their belief by moving toward a process view.
A clear example of this ambivalence and response through a defense
mechanism was one person who stated that she no longer believed in a
major event, yet she continued to go to the event in her thinking. While
this initially sounds like a form of rationalizing, it is too incongruent, and
is actually denial.
The Emphasis on Event aJso Carried Implications
In our group, the doctrine had been taught predominantly as event
The implication we observed was that when sanctification was expected
(and taught) as an event that removed the sin nature, the focus of one's self
improvement efforts was not on accomplishing developmental tasks but
experiencing an event. The result was that rather than seeking growth,
there was a preoccupation with the self. Timpe, in an article entitled, "Per
fectionism: Positive Possibility or Personal Pathology," states, ''When the
perfection is a fixed, unchanging state, it is a ritualism with pathological
and neurotic elements. In this perspective, perfectionism is pathology. In
pathological perfectionism, the individual's orientation is egocentric. The
focus of the person's action is meeting one's own physical, psychological,
and spiritual needs." We observed this as the preoccupation with self eval
uation. By contrast, "Perfectionism, at its highest, is not focused on the
selfs needs, but the giving away of self (i.e., the investment of self into the
lives of others) in the service of others. "10 Here then is a simple yet pro
found psychological grid through which to pass the accounts of those inter
viewed in this study. Our observation was that their earlier understanding
of sanctification and their accompanying focus was very much centered on
themselves, their own "condition," not on serving others.
This hypothesis was born out by the experiences of our people. We
learned, to a person, that in their holiness teaching there had not been an
emphasis on personal growth. They had received no training on how to
deal with their emotions. The teaching implied looking back or forward to
an event. In that, this doctrine stunted our respondents' growth in aware-
ness of how to grow personally as Christians.11 We hypothesize that this doc
trine can fixate persons at their present stage of developmental growth and
give justification to foreclosed personality development.12
With a dominant expectation of an event another implication surfaced:
the locus of control is shifted from internal to external. Instead of taking
responsibility for change, change is expected to come from something out
side a person's control, something "out there." With this we hypothesized a
possible decreased introceptive awareness. Because the locus of control is
not internal, the person may have decreased awareness of how he or she
feels, and as a result does not grow. For example, if I'm not aware that I'm
angry, I don't consciously deal with it. If I do become aware of my anger, I
look toward an event to address the problem. If repeated attempts to expe
rience the event fail, self flagellation may occur. We posit that emphasis on
an event displaces the awareness of the need for growth and minimizes
internal awareness, which is essential for growth. Some results we suspect
from these implications are that more dependency may be created, there
can be a disempowerment and there can be an increased tendency to pro
ject blame.1' Overall, the primary impact when locus of control becomes
external is whether it fosters growth. Our observation is that it does not.
The most widespread implication we saw regarding the doctrine of
Christian Perfection was related to guilt. Holding to a standard that is
unattainable led to a sense of guilt and shame. Among each of our inter
viewees we noted a clear sense of guilt in response to this doctrine. Inher
ent in the doctrine (as perceived by them) was the sense of falling short;
this sense was accompanied by feelings of guilt. To a person. There were no
exceptions. How fit or capable they were in dealing with unrealistic guilt
seemed to determine how much damage it did.
A factor that contributed to the intensity of the guilt feelings relates to
the fact that the ambivalence, referred to above, and the accompanying
guilt were not discernable by the person as singularly emotional or spiritu
al. The two became inextricably connected and confused in the psyche
and the negative effect was extremely powerful. The intensity of emotion
al shame that accompanied the failure was exacerbated because it took
on spiritual significance: ''you have failed God!" For some that felt
An example of this was reflected by one of our interviewees. She remem
bered being a newly wed and working along with her husband who was a
Methodist pastor. The people of the church had a clear understanding of
Christian Perfection, and expressed it in particular behaviors which must
be done, and others which must be avoided. These had to do with specifics
such as tithing and avoiding makeup and some forms of dress. The p3$tor's
wife was not familiar with all the "rules," and repeatedly failed to obey
them. The result was a loss of self-esteem and a feeling that she was not liv
ing up to her faith. It was so emotionally and spiritually devastating to her
that now, some fifty years later, she could not talk about it without tears.
The impact of an intertwined emotional and spiritual failure was extreme
ly significant.
The irony is that because the doctrine emphasized only a major event,
there were no handles {other than through ritualized re-experiencing the
event) on how one could process unrealistic guilt. Guilt was levied with no
resource to deal with it. The assumption that was taught was if you had
faith, you would get this event and then you would measure up.
Unresolved guilt tends to haunt a person throughout her or his life. It
can be rationalized or covered up, but it is one of the persistent emotions
that is very difficult to eradicate and often leads to shame. Shame is guilt
taken to extreme, the belief that the person himself or herself is bad, cor
rupted beyond repair. Shame is devastating because it undermines the self
esteem in tacit ways.
A second irony is that the essential message of Christianity, especially
Wesley's view of Christian Perfection, is the inherent worth and actual
restoration (to the Imago Dez.) of the individual. Wesley saw prevenient
grace as facilitating the conscience, not for the purpose of extending guilt
feelings, but so the person can be moved to experience grace and freedom,
with the concomitant response of having a new ability to love. Freely. This
is the opposite of being restricted and inhibited by guilt feelings, the con
sistent experience of our interviewees.
One more implication can be drawn about guilt from the response to
the question about the roles of grace and personal effort. Our persons
clearly articulated the importance of faith. They stated that it was crucial.
However, most described faith in terms of effort, behaviors they felt they
needed to do. This may, for some, indicate a subconscious attempt to deal
with their guilt, working it off by specific actions. Of course, they were not
aware of what they are attempting because they renamed those actions

The value of our study is NOT a discovery of new problems related to a par
ticular doctrine. The significance is that it may reflect a consistent pattern
and consistent perceptions among Christians of the holiness tradition who
are sincere and desirous of deeper spirituality. The experiences of our
group informed us about how the perceived doctrine affected them and
how the negative implications of theology are felt at the common experi
ence level. Timpe points to Adler's observation that the human striving for
perfection can have religious manifestations that could represent personal
pathology or personal potential.15 Our focus has been on that issue, the psy
chological impact, in real Christians' lives.
Our study also revealed how widely different some of those understand
ings are from the perspectiveJohn Wesley held. However, because the same
terms are used, there is no common awareness of the divergence from Wes
ley. The result is that the concept of Christian Perfection has taken on a life
of its own, and is quite different from Wesley's. We believe that the account
of plain Christians is quite different from Wesley's plain account and this
has not contributed to sound theology facilitating greater mental health
among some Christians.
Christian psychologists should be willing to understand the negative
aspects of some teachings, and not miss or underestimate the impact cer
tain teachings can have on the psyche. Christian psychologists must be will
ing to deal with the implications of research findings that indicate that as
much as 25% of religiosity is associated with poor mental health. As in the
old analogy, we must not throw out the baby with the bath water; however,
they must be willing to throw out the bath water. Wrongly perceived Chris
tian Perfection may account for some of the 23% that Ellis posited . Chris
tian professionals need to be smart enough, mature enough to
differentiate between harmful and healthy doctrine so that they can
become agents of grace and maturity to those who entrust themselves to
our care, whether we be pastors, psychologists, or theologians. It is our con
viction that spiritual and emotional health are not mutually exclusive but
facilitate each other. All truth is God's truth. Therefore, all theological
truth is psychologically healthy and promotes health. All psychological
truth is theologically healthy and promotes right relationship with God.
Christian theologians can help psychologists to grasp healthy views of
Christian perfection (Wesley) so that those desiring the best of their spiri
tual lives are not seen as neurotics, but are given true theological handles
to move forward into health, spiritual and emotional health. Good theolo
gy fosters spiritual development. Therefore, it behooves psychologists and
theologians to articulate doctrines and principles that help people.
Wesley's true view contributes to emotional and mental health. Rather
than producing anxiety and guilt, his view promises freedom because of
God's role in giving faith and God's empowering presence in a dynamic
relationship. Further, the implications for society are dramatic. Wesley saw
sanctification as the transforming power of love, fully restoring some
dimensions of the Image of God in which humans were initially created.
Particularly he envisioned the restoration of the ability to love God with the
concomitant ability to love others. He saw this as so powerful that it would
change the world. The psychological implications are extremely signifi
cant, regarding both coming to terms with one's self (proper self love) and
relating to others (love of neighbor), but all of this being a response to the
transforming love extended by God. This is our "plain account" of how two
divergent plain accounts can come together. '1t-

1. A Ellis, "Psychotherapy and Atheistic Values: A Response to A E. Bergin's 'Psy
chotherapy and Religious Values,"' Journal of Consulting and ClinicalPsycho/,ogy, 1980,
Vol. 48, pp. 635-939, quotation, p. 637.
2. A E. Bergin, "Religiosity and Mental Health: A Critical Re-evaluation and Meta
analysis," ProfessionalPsycholl>gj: Research and Practice, 1983, Vol. 14, pp. 179-184. This
theme and similar assumptions are also seen in Freud: "Man's deepest wish for
a power who gives him what he wants, who in ultimate terms will not deprive him
who renounces properly. Nothing less will do than a cosmic Father who incorpo
rates both the power of the father and the protective mother. In God the Father,
accordingly, man finds as nowhere else what may well be called the illusion of a
Being that combines power, justice, and mercy." B. Bertocci, "Psychological Inter
pretations of Religious Experience," in Strommen (Ed.), Research on Religious Devel
opment: A Comprehensive Handbook (New York, NY: Hawthorne, 1971), p. 13.
3. He used the term "depravity," and clearly approached the Reformed position,
stating that on depravity, he was "within a hair's breath" of Calvinism. John Wesley,
Woms, Vol. ill (London: Wesleyan Conference Office, 1872), pp. 284-285.
4. Wesley, Worlcs, Vol. IX, p. 335.
5. Arthur Roberts, personal interview. As a young person he had been exposed to
"formulae" for the experience. This was initially confusing, but he looked honestly
at his life and worked through it. He acknowledged that there was a polarity
between suppressionist and eradication language, but he began to understand that
the primary issue was not those descriptions. It was "to cleanse the heart from the
will of sin." In retrospect he identified even those childhood experiences with the
process words of Wtlliam Penn, that sincere Christian experience a "sight of sin, a
sense of sin, a sorrow for sin and amendment for sin."
6. Wesley, Works, Vol. V, pp. 93 and 314; Vol. III, p. 167. One of the reasons Wesley
avoided using the term "sinless perfection" was because he was aware that to
put it in absolutist terms was to invite judgment as well as failure. He had enough
difficulty with people misunderstanding even without using absolutist concepts.
Further evidence of this position is that at one point Wesley corresponded with his
brother Charles about the possibility of even dropping the term "perfection." He
stated, inaccurately, that he hardly used the term. The point is that he recognized
the association of the term with an absolute standard that was impossible to achieve,
and to use the term would give ammunition to his critics.
7. Wesley, Works, Vol. I, p. 427; Vol. Xlll, p. 508. Wesley is quick to clarify, however,
that "the grace of God, both before and after those moments, may be, and hath
been, resisted." 'That in general, it does not act irresistibly; but we may comply
therewith, or may not." The point here is that for Wesley faith is not a self-generat
ed work.
8. Randie Timpe, "Perfectionism: Positive Possibility or Personal Pathology,"Journal
ofPsychology and Christianity, 1989, Vol. 8, pp. 32, 35-48. Timpe observes that some
persons view sanctification as static, a state of being, rather than a process of becom
ing. We are observing a correlation between that view and the antecedent view of
the sin nature.
9. Here we define ambivalence as the presence of two strongly held, yet opposite
10. Timpe, op. cit., pp. 35-48; quotation from pp. 32-33.
11. This may be one reason so many of the holiness tradition groups tend to think
in terms of doctrine and behavior rather than growth, a factor some of our people
noted and stated.
12. By contrast, for many Christians, when the possibility of growth was presented
by a teacher or a book, there was often a shift toward hope and growth. For exam
ple, when Foster's book, Celebration ofDiscipline, came out, those who had become
aware and felt frustration with their lack of growth and were honest about it may
have discovered a new hope. Our society reflects this kind of reaction, seen in the
success of programs that emphasize growth and specifically, how to grow. Examples
are seen in Oprah, Dr. Phil, Robert Schuller, et al., where specific steps for improve
ment are emphasized. The popular literature, programs, and sermons have focused
on "How to. . . " This seems to be a reaction to the frustration of not being given han

dles to growth.
13. It also appears that this kind of orientation lends itself to an authoritarian style
of leadership with the negative psychological effects that come from such parent
ing styles.
14. They feel they should not have failed because God had done everything neces
sary, provided the second blessing. Still they failed and therefore feel they are cut
off from grace.
15. Timpe, op. cit., p. 28.