Jeremy L. Berg

Enjoy a book review of Christian Spirituality: Five Views of Sanctification edited by Donald Alexander.  The 5 representative views include the Lutheran, Wesleyan, Reformed, Pentecostal and Contemplative traditions.

SUMMARY OF VIEWS

I. Lutheran View. Gerhard O. Forde emphasizes the centrality of Christ’s righteousness as imputed to the believer for their justification.  Sanctification is not something distinct and subsequent to justification.  He warns against the notion that ‘justification is God’s part, while sanctification is our part’.  No; instead, he defines sanctification as merely “the art of getting used to justification” (13).  The believer must simply accept the unconditional grace of God in Jesus Christ.  “Because Jesus died and rose, therefore God here and now declares you just for Jesus’ sake (not even for your sake, but for Jesus’ sake)” (18-19).  For Forde, the good news of Christ is that we are freed from living a life under the Law, or in a state of conditionality. The greatest temptation is to fall back into a life of conditionality, or Law, by which we try to achieve righteousness by our own efforts.  Thus, Forde is critical of all approaches to sanctification that stress any human initiative and effort towards holiness.  Forde asks, “Why work at becoming just if you are already declared to be so” (24)?    Forde stresses the tension of being simultaneously just and sinner.  As far as progress in sanctification goes, there is only “growth in coming to be captivated more and more…by the totality, the unconditionality of the grace of God” (27).

II. Reformed View. Sinclair Ferguson finds the true “dynamic of sanctification” in our “union with Christ” (51).  He challenges the Lutheran tendency to make sanctification (and justification) nothing more than  “legal fiction”.  Our union with Christ must be effected in real and tangible ways—“It engages our whole being” (51).  By our union with Christ, we share in his death, and in that death we died to sin and now are alive to God (Rom 6).  Ferguson argues: “…sanctification means this: in relationship both to sin and to God, the determining factor of my existence is no longer my past.  It is Christ’s past. The basic framework of my new existence in Christ is that I have become a “dead man brought to life” and must think of myself in those terms: dead to sin and alive to God in union with Jesus Christ our Lord” (57).  What of actual experience?  Is there any real progress in sanctification in this life?  Ferguson suggests, “In actual practice, it is the dawning of this perspective which is the foundation for all practical sanctification” (60).  It is the “consistent practical outworking of what it means to belong to the new creation in Christ” (60).  Going beyond Forde, Ferguson also mentions the necessity of mortification—attempting to “deal rigorously with sin” (64).  The main goal of sanctification is “renewal in the image of Christ” (65).  Finally, Ferguson ends his discussion by mentioning the means of sanctification: the Word of God, the Providences of God, the fellowship of the Church, and the Sacraments.

III. Wesleyan View. Contrary to the previous two views, Wesleyans stress the existential nature of sanctification.  Going beyond theological rhetoric and merely positional righteousness, Laurence Wood argues that a Christian should strive to attain “Christian perfection”.  This “perfection” is not sinless perfection, but rather becoming pure in our intentions and coming to love God with all the heart, mind, and soul (96).  Put more neatly, “Christian perfection is a perfection of love which genuinely opens up the possibility for an honest and unpretentious relationship to Christ through his Spirit” (99).   Wesleyans should expect to reach “Entire Sanctification” (“Unless one expects to love God with all one’s heart, it is not likely that one will ever do it!”) which “relates to the quality and purity of love (intent), not to the degree of love” (99).  This is made possible only by the empowerment of the Spirit (101).   Wood also argues for a twofold distinction between “sins” (actions) and “sin” (‘the inherited condition which is the source of sins’) to establish a “theological distinction between justification (forgiveness of sins) and sanctification (cleansing from the condition of sin and an empowering with perfect love for God)” (111). The latter necessitates a “second blessing” experience.  Finally, he argues that the Christian can make progress in sanctification as far as voluntary sins are concerned.  According to Wesley, “many mistakes [involuntary transgressions] may coexist with pure love” (112).  “Sanctification has thus to do with intent” (115).

IV. Pentecostal View. Russel Spittler’s article gives an insightful introduction to Pentecostalism in general, but does not really address the topic of sanctification.  What can be concluded from his discussion in terms of Pentecostal spirituality is: (1) it places a high value on individual experience—“a personalized repetition of the baptizing work of the Spirit mentioned in Acts 2, 10, 19 and 2 Corinthians 12 (142)”, (2) any emphasis on obedience and orthodoxy are secondary to the “quintessential place” of experience (143), and (3) prayer is free-flowing in worship and diverse in its language (e.g. tongues) and expression (147).  Spittler closes his discussion by addressing some unique Pentecostal phenomena such as holy laughter, Pandemonism, slaying in the Spirit, words of knowledge, prayer language, etc.

V. Contemplative View. E. Glenn Hinson summarizes the chief end of contemplation referring to Brother Lawrence: “his secret was simply to fall head over heels in love with God and let that transfuse and transform everything he was doing” (172).  Even more, contemplation is coming to grips with the crazy and reckless love that God has for us.  Growing in holiness is then simply a natural response to such a profound love.  Concerning “the path to perfection”, contemplatives strive for a real and experiential union with God (176).  Yet, in order to attain such a union, it is necessary to first be pure in heart (177).  What can we do to attain purity of heart?  Hinson’s answer is quite predictable if we know anything of the Medieval mystics: “surrender, abandon ourselves, submit, yield, humble ourselves, give ourselves over to God” (177).  Hinson points out the counter-cultural nature of contemplative spirituality, alerting us to the unattractiveness of suffering, submission, self-denial, “dark nights of the soul”, etc.  He concludes with a discussion of how one “climbs the ladder of love”, suggesting that the primary means and focus of this upward journey to God is communion with God in constant prayer.

EVALUATION OF VIEWS

I. Lutheran View. Forde’s (or Luther’s) primary weakness is that his view of sanctification downplays the Spirit’s life-transforming work on the believer.  He continually guards against any threat of “works/effort” sneaking in the backdoor.  While he emphasizes that Christ’s righteousness is credited to our account as we find ourselves united with him in his death and resurrection, he will not allow for the next step whereby we are conformed into Christ’s image daily as we are led along and transformed by the indwelling Spirit.  As Hinson puts it: “He appears to take the narrow view of grace, seeing it as something given rather than as the living God invading our lives and transforming us” (46).  The only positive aspect of Forde’s essay that I can find is his faithfulness to Luther and his consistency throughout.

II. Reformed View. I appreciate Ferguson’s emphasis on union with Christ—particularly his discussion of the macro-purpose of God in Christ, creating a new humanity in contradistinction to the old humanity in Adam.  The tendency to individualize the gospel and its meaning is all too prevalent and Ferguson’s big-picture perspective (“cosmic context”) likely reflects more accurately Paul’s message.  I also appreciate his holistic understanding of sanctification: “God gives increase in holiness by engaging our minds, wills, emotions, and actions” (67).  However, Ferguson too fails to pay ample attention to the primary role of the Holy Spirit in bringing real change here and now.  In fact, he does not even mention Him among the other means of sanctification (Word, fellowship of the Church, Sacraments, and the providences of God)!

III. Wesleyan View. I appreciated the Wesleyan emphasis on perfect love and the primary role of the Spirit in making such maturity possible.  I found fascinating and helpful Wood’s discussion of OT typology and the normative power of past historical events for later generations: “…in the biblical view it is not a mere event of the past, but something that is ever and again made present and real in the lives of those who celebrate it in word and sacrament” (105).  I remain unconvinced of the optimism of Wesley that believes one can become wholly devoted and pure in one’s love for God.  It seems too much to say even that one can be pure in their intentions.  At least my own intentions seem not to have gone untouched by sin’s pervasive influence.  Nevertheless, I wholly agree with the Wesleyan insistence that sanctification is a process of becoming.

IV. Pentecostal View. I found this article disappointing for its lack of attention to the issue of sanctification.  It helpfully differentiates between Charismatics and Pentecostals.  There is more focus upon the origins of Pentecostalism than upon its present state and future direction.  I found the discussion about tongues, words of knowledge, holy laughter, Pandemonism, etc. uncritical, one-sided and evasive of the many criticisms against them.

V. Contemplative View. An obvious danger and weakness of the contemplative view is “the tendency to interpret Christ mystically rather than historically, and in ideal rather than in biblical-theological categories” (195).  There is also the danger of individual mystical experience eclipsing the more historically anchored gospel.  I am sympathetic with Ferguson’s criticism that the gospel is not primarily “God loves you.  Love God back.”  Rather, the gospel creates a new world, a new humanity inaugurated through the historical events of the cross and resurrection of Christ.  Excessive and unguarded subjectivism must always be carefully monitored.  The strength of the contemplatives is, however, this very subjectivism.  The contemplatives inspire and teach us that the gospel should touch us in real, existential ways.  The love of God in Christ must go beyond theological theory or an intellectual grasp; for “the desire to experience the ecstatic dimensions of union with Christ is certainly a biblical ideal” (199) and should be pursued with utmost vigor, passion, and devotion.