Credibility Gaps

When our Lived Faith Exposes the Credibility Gaps

In the book A Theology of Love, Mildred Bangs Wynkoop discussed a credibility gap within the Church of the Nazarene and the wider Wesleyan and Holiness streams that highlighted the way that language being used to define holiness was not borne out in the activity of living holiness. Lofty ideas and claims were not evidenced in the lives of those who claimed them. Wynkoop described it as; “Our problem is a credibility gap. Of all the credibility gaps in contemporary life, none is more real and serious than that which exists between Christian, and particularly Wesleyan, doctrine and everyday human life. The absolute of holiness theology may satisfy the mind, but the imperfection of the human self seems to deny all that the perfection of Christian doctrine affirms.” (Wynkoop Loc 615) H Ray Dunning discusses the credibility gap in an addition to the second edition of A Theology of Love “Dr. Wynkoop recognized that the future of the holiness movement depended on closing this gap and saw it as her calling to attempt to do so.” (Dunning in TOL) While we have mostly closed this gap, holiness folk open new gaps as we describe God, our world, and how God acts in the world. A friend reminded me that the gap, as Wynkoop saw it, went beyond simply using conflicting words. The gap relegated divine activity outside or away from human life. Wesleyanism, in general, wants to bring those closer and close the gap. (My friend’s name withheld to protect the innocent). But Wesleyans also get a bit nervous when the gaps start to close and the activity of holiness and God’s action is reflected in creaturely action. This brings to mind some new credibility gaps.

I don’t make a claim on being as insightful as Wynkoop, but I hope to show how our language and claims can lead to credibility gaps. The gaps I will discuss are the disparity in describing God and in describing the action of humanity in holiness. The second is a gap in our claim of catholicity and our tendency to gatekeep. I recently was part of an online panel at ORTLine 24 in which I responded to Tom Oord’s Death of Omnipotence. As part of my response, I was reviewing a quote from the early parts of the book and an idea hit me minutes prior to my presentation. That idea ended up exposing Wynkoop to an audience that did not know her through the idea of her credibility gap. Oord is making a claim to the action of God as a contrast to his book God Can’t he wanted to go beyond the things that God cannot do which are contrary to God’s nature. “I go beyond what God can’t do to explain what an amipotent God can. This loving God acts moment by moment, exerting causal influence throughout creation. God creates, sustains, saves, and transforms. Nothing and no one is more influential; the uncontrolling love of an amipotent God is universally active and everlasting. But the flourishing God desires requires creaturely contributions and conducive conditions in creation. A loving God needs us, because love is relational.” (Oord p9)

(Full access unlocked on 3-7-2024 at 8 AM CST)

Here is where the credibility gap enters. I can almost hear the protestations about God needing creatures. But think about the language we use that sounds very much like this. “We are the hands and feet of Jesus.”; “If we don’t go, who will?” Of course, those can be seen as metaphor, but we also act with the intention that God is not feeding the hungry alone. We give of time, money, and ourselves to bring the Kindom of God here and now. The gap narrows when we use more Wesleyan language about God’s action in the world, but we widen the gap when we use more Reformed or Calvinist language. When we talk of sovereignty, Wesleyan-Holiness folk should mean sovereign in love as Wesley meant. But we often associate the idea of sovereignty with power and control. Yet, even when we say God is in control or God is working, we still talk about creaturely response and responsibility. Do we trust that the divine invitation to take part in the work of God is one that is necessary? Or do we assume God can unilaterally do this without participation? If it is the latter, why invite participation? Do we truly believe that God is a God of relationship or do we make relationship a one-sided affair? For credibility, we might look at what entails relationship, and that is a mutually intimate posture. We need only to look at the divine Trinity as an example of the relational nature of God.

If we examine the Genesis stories of creation, it is hard to miss the invitation for creation to respond in God’s creative work. “And God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind: cattle and creeping things and wild animals of the earth of every kind.’ And it was so. God made the wild animals of the earth of every kind and the cattle of every kind and everything that creeps upon the ground of every kind. And God saw that it was good.” (Gen 1:24–25 NRSVue) Yes, it is God who creates, but God invites participation of the land and sea. In terms of divine action, our participations narrows the gap that our language exposes. Our participation points to Jesus as Diane LeClerc so eloquently puts it; “We are now called to re-present this love of God to any and all and to be the compassionate hands and feet of Jesus.” (LeClerc loc 4644)

Our catholicity is another credibility gap. The most recent Wesley Theological Society meeting had catholicity as its theme. I will take a moment to try to define or at least explain what we mean by catholicity. In terms of theology, whether practical or theoretic, catholicity describes the wide viewpoints that can exist within a theology, or more broadly within faith itself. At its broadest point, Wesleyans describe catholicity as that which centers Christian faith and practice. A simple definition would be to say that catholicity describes the universal nature of a thing (faith) within a liberality of views or a comprehensive range of views. Catholicity entails the fullness of something. Wesleyans, in general, have had a very generous catholicity - we might call it a generous orthodoxy. We get that from John Wesley, who embodied a generous catholicity, that many of his followers almost recoil from. The credibility gap between our broad claims of catholicity and our often sectarian attitudes is rather wide.

It may help to understand that catholicity transcends our particularities in doctrines and dogmas to embrace the wider understanding of Christian orthodoxy. Sadly, many Wesleyans (especially Wesleyan-Holiness folk) forget our history of catholicity and the philosophy of the via media. How do we narrow this gap? By refusing to descend into the inevitable name calling of those who do not embrace via media or catholicity. Another way is to remember that Jesus is both the gate to relationship with God and the shepherd who leads to the gate. We are not gatekeepers because Jesus does not require or desire up to be such. But that is not a position upon which to build power or control. If we recognize the catholicity of Christianity, then our attitudes will be those of charity and humility within Christian orthodoxy.

John Wesley did not want to be the one who excluded human beings from the Church catholic. He makes this clear in his sermon 74 on the Church.

I dare not exclude from the Church catholic all those congregations in which any unscriptural doctrines, which cannot be affirmed to be 'the pure word of God, ' are sometimes, yea, frequently preached; neither all those congregations, in which the sacraments are not 'duly administered. ' Certainly if these things are so, the Church of Rome is not so much as a part of the catholic Church; seeing therein neither is 'the pure word of God ' preached, nor the sacraments 'duly administered. ' Whoever they are that have 'one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one God and Father of all, ' I can easily bear with their holding wrong opinions, yea, and superstitious modes of worship: Nor would I, on these accounts, scruple still to include them within the pale of the catholic Church; neither would I have any objection to receive them, if they desired it, as members of the Church of England. (Wesley Sermon 74)

Wesley includes those in the Church whom he believes to be preaching error. Does this extend to particularities like denominations? My answer is this; while denominations may define centers or even boundaries that define who is in and out of the denomination, those same definitions do not define the idea of orthodoxy within Christianity. Our credibility gap opens widely if we think it does.

The credibility gaps we observe ask us to examine them and ultimately shrink them. Our future may very well depend upon closing gaps. It is not an easy task and will be met with resistance and pain. But, I believe that task to be worth it as we seek to invite people into a transformative relationship with God.

Leclerc, Diane. Discovering Christian Holiness: The Heart of Wesleyan-Holiness Theology. Kansas City, Mo: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 2010.

Oord, Thomas Jay. The Death of Omnipotence and Birth of Amipotence. U.S.A.: SacraSage Press, 2023.

Wynkoop, Mildred Bangs. A Theology of Love: The Dynamic of Wesleyanism, Second Edition. Nazarene Publishing House, 2015.

https://www.resourceumc.org/en/content/sermon-74-of-the-church