"I think myself happy. . . because I shall answer for myself... I saw in the way a light from heaven. " Acts 26: 2, 13.

Will the Holiness People ever reach the place where their critics will be fair with them? We wonder!

We have listened to the cheap sneers over the radio. We have read the warnings in the Take heed literature so freely published. We have noted the enthusiasm displayed over young converts in the endeavor to shield them from the snares, as they call them, of the Holiness people. Our hearts have been made sad by the unintelligent, and often untruthful things which have been said, all in order, as they express it, that these unwary souls might be adequately warned.

After much careful and prayerful solicitude, we are compelled to conclude that this criticism can only arise from one of two causes, either of which could be more damaging to the critics than to those they criticize. Either they do not understand the teaching of the Holiness People and therefore they speak without first-hand knowledge, or on the other hand, they do understand that position and deliberately misrepresent and falsify it.

If they do not understand the teaching, then the courteous thing would be that they should make the fullest inquiry and that by going to the original sources. If they do understand it, then as honorable men, they should carefully and strictly adhere to the truth as they know it.

Not long ago we picked up a religious periodical of Calvinistic origin, reading much of its material with spiritual profit and blessing. Then came the article, Nuts for the Holiness People to Crack, and under that caption was a shameful tirade concerning things which the Holiness People neither teach nor imagine. Since the writer of the article asked that these nuts be cracked, we immediately proceeded to do it and wrote him pointing out the incorrectness of his statements and the unfairness of them. His reply was that he had never contacted the Holiness People nor read any of their literature, but he was a poor old man trying to make a living by his pen and he thought the Holiness People would be a good subject to write about.

Loose talk has no place among Christians at any time but especially when speaking of other children of God. Whether we agree with their doctrines or not -- no matter how deluded we may deem them to be -- as honorable men we must state those doctrines correctly. Having stated them, we may then proceed with our criticism, but we must first be truthful in their presentation.

We must not depend for our information on Hearsay, for hearsay oft turns out to be heresy. It is neither safe nor kind to attack either men or movements on the ground of what somebody else has said or written about them. Origins, histories, objectives, actual teachings and manifest results should be carefully studied and intelligently understood, lest haply it should be found that in pressing our supposed warnings we have only exposed our own ignorance and personal prejudice, and have in reality been fighting against God.

As we have already suggested, between the Holiness People and the Calvinists on the one hand, and between the Holiness People and the Liberals on the other, there is a distinct difference of doctrinal interpretation. Yet who would dare to assert that any one School of Thought is the sole guardian of all the truth? He would be foolish indeed who without very careful investigation would even make the suggestion that someone not sharing his point of view had therefore all the error.

One of the greatest barriers to a reasonable understanding of the one side by the other is the picked-up and parroted phrases which are so glibly thrown around, and often by those who might reasonably be expected to display better sense, more Christian charity, and a fuller degree of grace.

Take, for instance, that cheap and meaningless sneer, "The sinless perfectionists."

We have heard it, and unhesitatingly we have challenged it again and again. Who are these sinless perfectionists? Where are they? Exactly what do they teach? By whom, when, and where are such professions made? Usually there comes back the same weak answer, "Well, they claim they cannot sin any more or even make mistakes, don't they?"

"Well, do they?" we have asked repeatedly, "and where are they?"

Again we have pressed the question, and always without any semblance of an intelligent reply. Who does say these things? What responsible leader among the Holiness People from Wesley onward -- except perhaps some generally recognized fanatic such as could and does arise in any movement here and there -- when his statements have been interpreted in the light of their unmistakable context, who has ever said a thing like that?

We recognize, of course, that irresponsible hot-heads may make ridiculous statements which their more thoughtful leaders would not endorse, but what intelligent person would measure an entire movement by these? To use such statements with a cheap sneer, as though quoting the best thought of the movement, is not Christian, and certainly not the mark of a thoughtful mind.

It is reasonable therefore that we should face the question and endeavor to answer it: What do the Holiness People believe and teach? When we say the Holiness People, we are thinking of their representative denominations, their schools and colleges, among whom are the Methodist Church as originally founded and where existing in its original doctrinal purity today; the Wesleyan Methodist Church; the Free Methodist Church; the Salvation Army; the Church of the Nazarene; the Pilgrim Holiness Church; the United Missionary Church; sections of the Society of Friends; the Evangelical United Brethren; the Church of Christ in Christian Union; the Holiness Tabernacle Association; and others we could go on to name, with their numerous schools and colleges. In England there is the International Holiness Mission, the Calvary Holiness Church, Cliff College, Emmanuel Bible College, the Lebanon Training School, and others of similar faith.

Then there are numerous interdenominational seminaries, colleges and Bible Colleges such as Asbury Theological Seminary, Western School of Evangelical Religion, Taylor University, Asbury College, Pacific Bible College, Cleveland Bible College, God's Bible School, Cascade College, Chicago Evangelistic Institute, which the writer has the honor to represent; and many others. There are also the great Holiness Missionary Societies having their home bases in this and other lands, such as the National Holiness Missionary Society, the Oriental Missionary Society and others bearing honored names which all who know them profoundly respect.

Last but not least there is the National Association for the Promotion of Holiness, its membership consisting of Christians of many denominations, which through the years since its founding has stood unflinchingly.

Not all these people would agree with each other on minor things. There are, of necessity, differences of administration and of polity, but there are great doctrinal essentials for which as originally founded, they all definitely stand and which in general they all emphasize.

By this time it would seem that we are ready to take up the question: What then are the things which these people believe and teach?

It is neither possible nor desirable that in the statement we are here seeking to make we should cover the entire ground of Arminian theology. This as a general teaching is ably dealt with by the recognized Arminian theologians, among whom are Watson, Benson, Pope, Miley and more recently Hills, Wiley, and a concise one volume work as yet in mimeograph form by Mary Ella Bowie.