Why I like Entire Sanctification
Benson asked some good questions at his blog and inspired my own thoughts here. Hold the issue of whether or not entire sanctification is a biblical doctrine, it is certainly an encouraging existential one. Here's why:
Sanctification comes from our union with Christ. As I am joined to Christ by his Spirit, I become like him. In it, my love is purified and I am empowered to serve out of love. God empowers me to love parents, brothers, nephews, a niece, friends, etc. selflessly because Jesus has loved us selflessly. But this love is not abstract; it is revealed in giving of self. It is revealed in washing feet; in listening; in giving of your life. But I cannot do this of my own, so God joins the purification of love with the power to serve. Sanctification, understood relationally, states that I can become like Christ in how I love others. That is a good thing. I know that I have mixed motives and a mixed will in the love I have for even my closest family and friends. Sanctification says that I can grow in purity of love.
But what about entire sanctification? Is it about throwing out bad music? Never swearing? Always being nice? No, it can include these, but the point is much more meaningful. The doctrine says that I can be purified in love, as I am united with Jesus by the Spirit, and empowered to serve from that love without mixed motives. I can "will one thing" for those I love: their best just because they are who they are and serve them to achieve that best without thinking of my own gain.
Forget whether or not it's true, I like it. It means, at some point, I can get past myself.
Sanctification comes from our union with Christ. As I am joined to Christ by his Spirit, I become like him. In it, my love is purified and I am empowered to serve out of love. God empowers me to love parents, brothers, nephews, a niece, friends, etc. selflessly because Jesus has loved us selflessly. But this love is not abstract; it is revealed in giving of self. It is revealed in washing feet; in listening; in giving of your life. But I cannot do this of my own, so God joins the purification of love with the power to serve. Sanctification, understood relationally, states that I can become like Christ in how I love others. That is a good thing. I know that I have mixed motives and a mixed will in the love I have for even my closest family and friends. Sanctification says that I can grow in purity of love.
But what about entire sanctification? Is it about throwing out bad music? Never swearing? Always being nice? No, it can include these, but the point is much more meaningful. The doctrine says that I can be purified in love, as I am united with Jesus by the Spirit, and empowered to serve from that love without mixed motives. I can "will one thing" for those I love: their best just because they are who they are and serve them to achieve that best without thinking of my own gain.
Forget whether or not it's true, I like it. It means, at some point, I can get past myself.
posted by Aaron Perry at
12:17 PM
11 Comments:
Ap, you sent me over to Benson's blog and I almost never got back to yours.
I find the ability to get above self, to grow in purity and love, to be one of the most attractive aspects of the gospel. Perhaps when I am eighty (if I make it that far) the idea of life eternal will grow more attractive.
I find psychology to be overly pessimistic at times (how's that for a blanket statement). however, the focus on pathology resonates with the feeling that in my soul and the souls of those I know, there is something terribly wrong, an incapacity to love and give. Psychological labels and diagnosis aren't satisfactory but they can serve as a wake up call to people who have no idea that they might be part of the problem.
"Man people are such jerks, that person cut me off, blah blah blah" The world is lost in a cycle of hurt, hurting people hurting people. But when we realize, man I am suffering from the same thing they are, a marred image, I can have patience with them and cry out to God to purify my heart and theirs.
The good news is the power of Christ, not Dr. Phil.
Regarding the possibility of ES. I have sensed a growing capacity to love people but also recognize many instances where it is so hard. Wesley, I believe said that such occurence is rare (of ES) and I believe him. I don't know if I will experience that work of grace but I do earnestly seek to grow in my capacity to love like Christ. (that sounds a little disciplinish)
Hey, I'm going to post on "church programs and community" and would welcome any thoughts if you could spare them.(is asking someone to look at your post a blog faux pas? if so..my apologies)
AP:
You wrote: "It means, at some point, I can get past myself."
If that is indeed what e.s. means, then it is a false and pernicious doctrine that feeds only hypocrisy and self-righteousness.
Is your experience not like mine--namely, that the most sanctified people self-consciously claim not to be entirely sanctified? We did, after all, grow up in the same house, church, camp-ground, college, etc.
SGFMB
yep--the most sanctified claim not to be sanctified because sanctification is not about the individual; it is about the other. that's part of the paradox: God's work in me is not for me, but for others. the people who point beyond (i'm not sanctified...) themselves are past themselves. i do not think it selfish, however, to look forward to the day when i am not self-consumed. that would be a strange form of selfishness.
If I may summarize your response: a sure sign that I have "it" is the deep conviction that I don't have "it." Because "having it" is not about me. If I have "it," only others will know that I do.
Which leads me to ask, if others tell me that I have "it," and I come to agree with them, does that agreement signal that I just lost "it"?
To false and pernicious we may now add utterly confusing.
SGFMB
I think it's important to note, however, the difference between someone saying "I am entirely sanctified" and meaning it with humility (like how Moses wrote that he was the most humble man that ever lived" and someone saying "I'm not sanctified..." out of an inaccurate self-image. Meaning, it IS possible to know your identity and position and Christ (esp. if you're entirely sanctified) and SAY it w/o losing it. If other parts of our Christian experience, like our salvation, were as shaky as that then we're all screwed.
I think the brunt of the argument going on here is based on a misunderstanding of the doctrine itself...
Can one say, "I am entirely sanctified," and mean it with humility? It sounds like a performative contradiction to me. Doesn't humility (and therefore entire sanctification) require one to withold judgment on certain things? Like the possibility that I might not be entirely sanctified?
I also don't think knowledge of one's ES is necessarily bound up with being ES. I don't think Jesus knew he was the second person of the trinity when he was on earth; he didn't have memories of being in the Godhead. But, that still doesn't change that he maintained his identity as the Son. I do think he came to see himself as Israel's Messiah, but knowing oneself as Messiah and the eternal Son are different animals. We tend to read Trinitarianly in Jesus' title as Son of God, which was a Jewish title for Messiah. This is not bad; I am all for theological reads of Scripture. But, we should make distinctions between what we can say now and what it meant in the first century.
As per Moses, I don't think he wrote that about himself. Just like he didn't write about his death.
Tim
some guy, your issues seem much more with putting the issue systematically and then tearing it down. as an anglican, you, of course, believe in sanctification. there is transformation in the gospel, yes? God can transform the believer a great deal, yes? if you affirm both of these, then you are moving in the ES direction.
i am still waiting to hear why ES leads to self-righteousness. self-righteousness is a sure sign that one has not gotten past him/herself. sanctification is (quite largely) the good news that one will not forever be stuck in their self-righteousness.
further, you have not summarized my argument for two reasons: first, i have not been arguing. i have been describing. second, i have not been talking about how one knows they have it. (i am not sure how they would.) i have been describing the good work of God as described in sanctification--and, if possible, a work 'perfected' this side of resurrection.
so, let's check your terms applied to being filled with self-giving love:
1. pernicious (deadly)? nope.
2. false? perhaps, but this wasn't the issue, and it will be true post-resurrection.
3. leading to self-righteousness? not in itself.
4. utterly confusing? only when treated systematically.
(i would say the above four terms would be much more suited to a double-predestination.)
it seems to me your problem is not with the doctrine, as much as with those who have misrepresented and misunderstood it. never blame doctrine when people will do.
I think there is a performative contradiction in saying "I am entirely sancitified," because sanctification, if not abstract, must be exemplified in love. The sanctified would engage in the acts of the sanctified; selfless and pure love would become the language they speak (how's that for wittgenstein, Tim?).
But I think, with Rob, that one can recognize growth in humble ways.
So, I say with Paul: "I don't even judge myself. My conscience is clear, but that doesn't make me innocent. God will judge and the hidden motives of the heart will be brought to light."
Sanctification: God can work even in the hidden parts of my heart, those place where even my conscience does not dare to tread.
Some Guy: I am not interested in knowing whether or not I am entirely sanctified, I am interested in loving less selfishly.
Not bad Wittgestein, AP! :-) Though as Christians we may want to say that the language of love and selflessness speak us! As Hauerwas says, "We speak because we have first been spoken."
I agree that growth maybe able to be humbly acknowledged, but growth and ES are different, it seems to me. But, I am a Lutheran (more of the Bonhoefferian and Kierkagaardian kind), so take that into consideration :-)
Tim
not the same, but certainly distinct. ES is a point that marks growth in sanctification. again, i'm still tabling the consideration for whether it's true/biblical.
to say that we speak because we have first been spoken is clever and rhetorically pleasing, but it is rather abstract.
As to whether the doctrine of es is actually biblical, I would say that the Bible definitely leads to thinking that es is possible and a goal - specifically thinking of Romans 12 and 1 and 2 Peter. Not to mention Jesus' admonition of "Be perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect."
I also think though that es has been couched in too much enlightenment thought (just the "language" the people spoke). It seemed to think that there was some point where you were not and then..boom..you were. It seems that the tradition in the early church and medieval church saw it as a constant perfecting, but that es was the place we found ourselves in in being led deeper and deeper into the mysteries of God through the work of the Word and the power of the Spirit.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home