A Wesleyan holiness theology and language world: a demonstration of holiness theology as a religious linguistic characteristic in the light of speech act theory

Overcoming the proposition principle of holiness theology: the union of propositional holiness and empirical holiness

Holiness is the divine language of God; it represents God’s holiness, transcendence and perfection, which set God apart from other creatures and characterize every aspect of God. ⁴ We call this absolute sanctification, which refers to God’s holiness. This sanctification is accompanied by universal sacredness – ‘numinous’ – which introduces a ‘mysterium tremendum’. ⁵ In holiness theology, we say that the sanctification of this divine and genuine realm of God is shared with and communicated to us by God, ⁶ thereby enabling us to experience the holiness of God. Wesley emphasized empirical sanctification, which means experiencing God’s holiness in life as a reality and which signifies a practical change (practical holiness).

The absolute holiness of God (God’s holiness as described in the Bible) is accessible through a propositional approach via the Scriptures. But how can the experiential sanctification of holiness theology express experience using a propositional language? How can we explain God’s holiness as an experienced event without separating divine holiness from the holiness of humans that occurs within us, without limiting either aspect of its influence and attributes?

SAT points out that the earlier hermeneutical approach focuses on the structure, form and logical analysis of language and does not presume to understand the actual meaning of that language. Previous linguistic studies have distinguished structure and meaning from the language spoken (its form or propositional statements) and what it says (its meaning or empirical statements), whereas postmodern views are more concerned with structure (semiotics) than with meaning (semantics). However, SAT regards structure and meaning as the same, without distinction, and as being related to the performative action – which, in fact, is the original characteristic of language. In this context, language includes both the propositional meaning to which it refers and the actual (experiential) meaning that is intended. It also contains the process through which meaning is realized and results achieved.

Austin argues that, in terms of the performative utterance, three action structures should be distinguished in speech: namely, the locutionary, the illocutionary and the perlocutionary acts. ⁷ The locutionary act (or propositional meaning) is a linguistic act expressing behaviour through voice or words, while the illocutionary act is the execution of the locutionary act and refers to the intention of the speaker (for example, a warning, promise or command). ⁸ The perlocutionary act is the response of the listener to the illocutionary act (for example, being persuaded, convinced or surprised). In SAT, the locutionary act and the illocutionary act cannot be separated ⁹ because propositional expressions can have illocutionary force depending on the characteristics of the language itself. It can be argued that meaning is created by the illocutionary force. Searle regards the illocutionary act as the minimum unit of verbal communication, and he shows that the formulation of a speech act can be represented as F(p), ¹⁰ where F represents the illocutionary force and p is the proposition. In other words, F(p) implies both the proposition and the illocutionary act (experiential statement) that produce meaning or meaningful action in accordance with the utterance of a sentence. Therefore, in SAT, structure and meaning are not distinguished from each other, and both language and event occur simultaneously. In effect, theory (reason) and practice (experience) are not separate.

The foundation of Wesleyan holiness theology is based on the Bible: ‘I am holy, so be holy’ (Leviticus 11.44) and ‘be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect’ (Matthew 5.48). In short, we can say: ‘God is holy (p), and you shall be holy (F).’ If we apply this to F(p), we can represent it as ‘God is Lord, my Father F(p)’ or ‘I am a Christian F(p)’. This demonstrates the character of God’s divine holiness as expressed in the Bible as a propositional meaning. It is also possible to express both the experience of experiential faith and the empirical statement as a Christian who can experience God’s holiness and be called by ‘God my Father’ through God’s illocutionary action. This states and enacts both God’s holiness and practical sanctification (empirical holiness). Thus, holiness as a propositional statement and holiness as an experiential statement occur at the same time and are not separate.

The work of the Holy Spirit (sanctification) and God’s self-involving activity

Holiness can never be realized in human life without the work of the Holy Spirit. ¹¹ Embracing holiness theology means seeking to be transformed into God’s holy person, both internally and externally, to resemble God’s holiness; this is entirely possible, but only through the work of the Holy Spirit. In order to be sanctified, we need the grace of being filled by the Holy Spirit, and in holiness theology we regard being filled by and baptized in the Holy Spirit as equal. ¹² In this article, I look at holiness theology using Evans’ logic of self-involving activity.

Based on SAT, Evans developed his theory of self-involving activity to interpret the Bible as a religious biblical language that relates to God’s creative action. According to Evans, all language is performative in the sense that the speaker/user does more than assent to a fact: that is, they use language through which things are done by saying something. Stated differently, biblical language refers not merely to propositional knowledge or content, but primarily to a self-involving activity. Biblical language can engage readers through biblical texts used as promises, warnings and proclamations, and it makes certain self-involving commitments related to awareness of status, attitude, feelings, roles and responsibilities. This focus leads the speaker logically and naturally into a certain type of relationship between speaker and hearer according to the statement. Evans argues that the word of God is the creative act that speaks the world into being, and, having institutional divine authority, appoints people to their role in the present world or promises them something. Thus:

In the biblical context, if I say, ‘God is my Creator’, I acknowledge my status as God’s obedient servant and possession, I acknowledge my role as God’s steward and worshipper, I acknowledge God’s gift of existence, and I acknowledge God’s self-commitment to me. This act of acknowledgement includes both Behabitive and Commissive elements. ¹³

But although the structure of these sentences appears to be the same, their logical grammar is totally different. The first sentence has a function in the stance that ‘the Creator made the world’: that is, because the Creator made the world, the Creator has the responsibility to keep and oversee the world, and this implies attitude and intention in performatives such as future conduct – either non-verbal or verbal. Furthermore, the statement ‘the Creator made the world’ implies that ‘God is my creator’. The statement ‘Jesus is my Lord’ entails the self-description ‘I am a Christian’ in my present life. Christians who see themselves as Christ’s servants are wholly at the disposal of their ‘Lord’, having obligations in everyday life towards God and God’s kingdom in accordance with the word of God. It means that, in saying ‘the Creator made the world’, one is committing oneself to future conduct, or it assumes a particular attitude and intention. A statement such as ‘Mr Jones built the house’ does not do that: it can convey only a simple fact and statement. ¹⁵ Therefore, the logic of self-involving activity is linked to God’s interaction with human beings and actions as a performing act of God in religious discourse.

Following this logic, let us apply the theory to the words ‘I am holy, so be holy’ (Leviticus 11.44), the foundation of holiness theology. As we have seen earlier, this can be expressed as God is holy (p) and you shall be holy (F). Also, it can be expressed as ‘God is holy, and God makes you holy F(p)’, according to the purpose and power of self-involving activity in language. This shows God’s self-involving activity, which clearly is the work of the Holy Spirit. In other words, the proclamation of God’s command that ‘you shall be holy’ causes God’s self-involving activity (the work of the Holy Spirit), which is God’s performative action through illocutionary force. It invokes the language event to be fulfilled in the life of the listener by asking for participation, which occasions a perlocutionary effect. Therefore, God’s self-involving activity is the work of salvation of the Holy Spirit; due to this work, the believer experiences holiness in life.

Holiness as an ethical practice of love: spirituality theology of love and community theology of love

Chilcote and Maddox state: ‘The ultimate goal in life… [is] the fullest possible love of God and neighbor – the restoration of the image of Christ in the life of every believer.’ ¹⁶ This demonstrates a life seeking to resemble God’s holiness, and this life appears as a holy life as an ethical practice of love of God and love of one’s neighbour. We know all too well that holiness theology appears as a form of the ethical practice of love. Now let us look at how the religious divine language of holiness theology can be explained as an ethical language (linguistic behaviour) and as a characteristic of human experiential language through SAT.

Most biblical language is performative utterance rather than constative utterance. The latter focuses on distinguishing between true and false, but performative utterance is revealed by the language’s ‘happiness’ or ‘unhappiness’ value. Happiness here is related to the question ‘Who is the speaker?’ and is linked to the status, position, authority or ability of the speaker. Strictly speaking, appropriateness results from the personality of the speaker. To put it simply, happiness is the truth of the speaker: that is, whether the speaker is true to the content of their words and to whoever is responsible for the words. For example, a pastor preaches ‘We must love one another, just as Jesus said.’ If the pastor condemns or hates someone, they are uttering inappropriate language because their remarks are not accompanied by action that is consistent with those remarks. As such, language is closely related to ethical and moral life as a language of practice. In addition, biblical religious language (essentially performative language) has an ethical function and the intention of teaching faith and the practice of faith. For instance, ‘God is holy (p)’ can be taken to mean ‘I must be holy F(p)’; if you use these words, you assume the divine nature of God (holy God – the attributes and identity of God), the confession of faith towards God, the love of God as a manifestation of holiness, and the ethical implications, duties and responsibilities of neighbourly love. And the appropriateness of the speaker’s remark that ‘I must be holy’ depends on whether the speaker is responding to ‘Who is the speaker?’ In other words, the true Christian confesses that God is Abba the Father when the speaker truly experiences the Holy Spirit personally. In order for the speaker’s utterance to be appropriate, their speech and actions must appear in life as real, concrete and true in accordance with their belief and personality (truthfulness). We call this holy life ‘love’, in the holiness theological sense. Therefore, this understanding of language access naturally flows from personal spiritual theology before God to communal theology through human relations.

The self-involving activity (performance) language of the biblical text is derived in relation to an understanding of pneumatological epistemology. It shows what God did for the people of God (the language act) and the existence and identity of God. At the same time, believers bring out the confession and rules of faith in the believing community through God’s illocutionary action, which manifests itself as an ethical response, a perlocutionary act. For example, if people hear the words of 1 John 4.20 and then change their mindset of hatred to one of love for their brothers and sisters in a specific way, this is the result of the perlocutionary act. This is God the Holy Spirit as the outcome of God’s self-involving activity. Thus, this moral conduct reflects the Christian confession ‘I do love God, God is my Lord’ through the work of the Holy Spirit as God’s saving activity, and it leads to the believer’s moral response.