Book Review: ... Five Views of Sanctification

Christian Spirituality: Five Views of Sanctification, ed. by Donald Alexander.

This is an interesting book, one of whose cowriters is none other than Asbury's own Larry Wood. The book is divided into five perspectives on sanctification: Lutheran, Reformed, Wesleyan, Pentecostal, and Contemplative (guess which one Wood wrote). After each writer has presented his view (all the authors are men), the others respond from their point of view.

This is nothing like a formal book review. I will instead be my more usual, colorful self.

The Lutheran Perspective on Sanctification (Gerhard Forde)
I would summarize this chapter as "La, la, la, la, la, la [hands clasped over ears], I'm not listening. I'm not listening."

Forde clearly doesn't think it's a good idea even to write a book like this (one wonders if he signed on under protest). Sanctification is almost unthinkingly equated with holy living, and as such Forde will have nothing to do with it. It's the wrong question. It pushes us to think about works rather than God's unconditional grace.

And so we find the old simil iustus et peccator of Luther fame (we are at "the same time both righteous and sinner"), and we find the Luther idea of justification by faith alone emphasized.

So sanctification for Forde is "the art of getting used to justification" (27). It is thus "anti" moral action. It is the increase of reliance on God's grace, not the increase of holy effort.

Shhh, "Sanctification is God's secret" (30) (to be said in hushed tones). To think about it is to open the door for boasting, for that greatest sin of all, Pelagianism. AHHHHHH!

Of course it was a good presentation of the Lutheran position. The only problem is that the new perspective on Paul, which Wood himself mentions, largely obliterates this interpretation of Paul. This perspective understands nothing of the nature of ancient patronage as foundational to the concept of grace, nor does it read Paul correctly against his Jewish background. In my opinion, the idea of grace with no strings attached would have been foreign to any ancient Mediterranean.

And while we might say that the initial justification that takes place when we receive the Spirit is "by faith" and not "by works of law," action is a part of faith for Paul (he praises the Thessalonians for their "work of faith"). And in Paul's thought we will scarcely be justified before the judgment seat of Christ in the end if we have not remained blameless in the intervening time.

The Reformed Perspective on Sanctification (Sinclair Ferguson)
I actually liked the Reformed perspective in this book quite a lot, believe it or not. I was reminded that Wesley was "only a hair's breadth from Calvinism." Of course I was irritated by the following comment (even though it may be true): "most evangelical theology in the English-speaking world can be see (sic) as an exposition of, deviation from or reaction to Reformed theology" (47). It is an interesting thought--can an self-standing Wesleyan theology really be formulated apart from reaction to these roots?

Sanctification for Reformed theology, again understood in terms of movement toward holy living, amounts to two things, according to Ferguson: 1) union with Christ and 2) new creation. Because we have united with Christ, we increasingly become a new creation.

I have no initial problem with Ferguson's interpretation of Romans 6, for he sees it to mean that the Christian should live above sin. The problem I have is that he ultimately sees the Christian as inevitably locked into two conflicting parts. This is James Dunn's interpretation of this section of Romans: the fleshly part of a Christian remains subject to the power of sin even at the same time that the spirit is subject to the law of God. Ferguson recognizes that he, with Dunn, is in an increasing minority who take Romans 7 as some ongoing struggle Paul had with his flesh. This interpretation has fallen on hard times to be sure.

So Ferguson plays the practical card. Ok, ok, maybe Paul didn't mean that he himself struggled all the time with sin. But let's be honest, eh, eh, what Christian can't identify with "the evil I don't want to do I do"? Come on, de-Nile is not just a river in Egypt.

As I look to distinguish myself as a Wesleyan from Ferguson's Reformed view, I find myself affirming two things. First, I'm way more optimistic about the power of God over sin than this. And secondly, I would agree with Wood that it is ultimately our intentions that are focal in our relationship with God. Ferguson thinks a distinction between unintentional and intentional sin of Wesley's sort is not the way the NT divides up sin (125). It's true that Paul does not use these terms, but he does say that "whatever is not of faith is sin" (Rom. 14:23).

The Wesleyan Perspective on Sanctification (Larry Wood)
Wood takes a typically "Fletcher" approach to Wesley's Christian perfection in this chapter. By that I mean he sees the Spirit fillings of Acts as incidences of entire sanctification, believing that the disciples were "converted" before the Day of Pentecost. Wood uses traditional Wesley language like "second blessing," "circumcision of the heart," and even adds the imagery of exodus (conversion) and promised land (entire sanctification) in relation to Wesley's "Christian perfection."

On the one hand, I had a flashback to my childhood and earlier years as I was reading. I was actually at Asbury when Bob Lyon was clashing with this understanding of Acts, something I heard Mel Dieter still ruing as recently as two summers ago. But alas, I don't know a single NT scholar in the Wesleyan tradition who interprets Acts this way, let alone any NT scholar outside our tradition. It doesn't do our tradition any good to stake our identity on exegetical unlikelihoods, so Wesleyan NT types have usually reformulated their understandings--sometimes ironically in ways that come closer to how Wesley himself talked about Christian perfection.

One problem I have with the entire book from a NT perspective is that, in my opinion, the idea of holiness is only secondarily about certain behavior. The primary connotation is that of belonging to God, being set apart to God with the appropriate implications of that divine association. So to equate sanctification with a certain kind of living puts the cart before the horse. The living follows from that which pleases the specific God we have in mind--when you belong to the HOLY GOD, you want to be careful to behave in a way appropriate to Him.

I affirm Wood's position in the same way as I critiqued the Reformed position: 1) that it is appropriately optimistic and 2) that it focuses on intent.

1) Wood's chapter is the only one that embraces the "new perspective" on Paul. Ferguson resists the now majority understanding of Romans 7 as the struggle of someone without the Holy Spirit (i.e., of someone who isn't even justified yet). Paul's theology explodes in self-contradiction if Romans 7 is a statement of his current experience. In another place, Ferguson rebuts Wood with a reference to Philippians 3:12, which he takes to be Paul denying his own perfection. But the context strongly points to resurrection as that which Paul has not yet attained here. It is a misreading of Philippians 3:12 to hear Paul saying he's not as good as he might be.

2) Wood/Wesley's emphasis on intention is key I think. It allows us to have a very healthy relational understanding of sin, God, and us. I may wrong my wife in various ways, but usually the ones that are most significant are those with the greatest mal-intent. She is more likely to forgive me if I forget her birthday than if I cheat on her.

Also helpful is Wood's reiteration that perfection for Wesley had to do with quality not quantity. It is not Adamic perfection, angelic perfection, and certainly not absolute perfection. We would best not even use the word perfection in our day and age. It is about "loving God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength.

At this point my psychological alarms go off. Human intention is far too complex a thing to shove into these moulds of my past. I am happy with three things: 1) God can empower you to win over temptation, 2) God can make you like it! and 3) Some people come to a crisis moment, a show down where it's God or them. God helps some of these people move to a whole new level in their relationship with God.

The Pentecostal and Contemplative Perspectives
These last two chapters really do something different. The Pentecostal chapter is a lovely and very helpful survey of the movement. But basically, your view of sanctification will depend on which particular subgroup of this movement you belong to: Wesleyan Pentecostals, Reformed Pentecostals, etc...

I don't think the contemplative chapter even mentions the word sanctification. Clearly it's all about growing to love God and growing in unity with him. You can see that it's about sanctification even though it doesn't talk about it, and this I think is probably intentional. It comes the closest to a "catholic" entry in the book in one way.