Evangelical Sanctification Historically Expressed
Both D. A. Carson[1] and Steven L. Porter[2] recently wrote articles that appeared in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society questioning the approach and methodology of spiritual formation teaching. Although separated by eight years, Carson’s article explaining the dangers of spirituality apart from a robust bibliology appears to have laid a solid groundwork for Porter’s article espousing the need for a biblical methodology that presents a clear and thoughtful evangelical theology of sanctification. In the process of their individual critiques they offer some pertinent historical context related to sanctification.
Porter begins his critique of spiritual formation teaching by asserting that its practices must fall within prescribed biblical territory and as such the effort to define acceptable spiritual formation activities belongs to Christian theologians. That Christian theologians have not been involved in establishing parameters is evidenced by the “plethora of false spiritualities plaguing church and society”[3] in our present day. This is to be expected when the purpose or goal of sanctification is not rooted in biblical revelation and directive.
There have been various goals of sanctification espoused by believers over the years. This telos or goal of sanctification must be carefully formulated from the Scriptures otherwise the odds are very great that legalism and forms of works righteousness will be unwittingly substituted.[4] Porter makes this a pivotal point in his discussion. Without an explicit understanding of the goal of sanctification from a biblical perspective, the adherent is most likely to venture into areas that appear orthodox but are wrought with perilous outcomes. Carson states the same thing by insisting that sanctification cannot be reduced to an “ill-defined, amorphous entity” that gives cover to all forms of activities more thoughtful Christians see as being in grave error or even pagan and heathen; instead sanctification must be anchored clearly to the gospel.[5]
The doctrine of sanctification has been approached from at least five major perspectives historically within the Church. Each lends itself to a distinct concern. These views on the desired goal of sanctification have included: 1) The Evangelical tradition of Christ-likeness; 2) The Holiness tradition of moral transformation; 3) The Contemplative tradition of relationship to God; 4) The Charismatic tradition of Spirit-filled living; and 5) The Social Justice tradition of service to mankind.[6] Each of these perspectives finds expression in modern Christianity both in the established religious practices of denominations and religious persuasions and in the spiritual formation advocates. Porter sees in this myriad of expressions and purported goals of sanctification a conceptual confusion. He does not attempt to elevate one approach above another however. Instead he is concerned that these approaches create a cloud of confusion for the consumer of the spiritual formation literature. A natural tendency would be to adopt some type of sanctification pluralism whereby the five perspectives/goals of sanctification expressed above are melded into a syncretistic system of thought and practice. This is not a tenable option as Porter explains:
“The problem with pluralism of any kind is that if we do not actually have knowledge of the reality in question independently of the plurality of perspectives, then we cannot develop any criteria to determine which perspectives or which parts of various perspectives correspond to the reality in question. And if we do not have the means to discriminate between the various perspectives or their parts, then all perspectives and each part becomes either equally valid or equally invalid. Relativism or skepticism prevails— take your pick. So we must already have some understanding of sanctification in order to determine which traditions of Christian spirituality and which parts of those traditions are actually helpful in developing a more robust view of the Christian life. Hence, the pluralist approach cannot in principle deal with the conceptual confusion I have adumbrated. It only serves to reinforce it. We must have a doctrine of sanctification before going to Church history to discover ways in which that view has been illuminated.”[7]
Herein lays the rather prickly and formidable obstacle for all religious teaching that implicitly or explicitly is disconnected from divine revelation as expressed in the Scriptures. The idea that balance is achieved within a field of inquiry by incorporating all available perspectives is nonsense in the least and when it comes to Christian theism it is destructive. As in the rejoinder to those who attempt to use some type of “blind men and an elephant” illustration to suggest the need for tolerance and pluralism in religious matters, i.e., you must have someone who has escaped the blindness to see that the rest are grasping only a part of the truth and thereby understand the solution; so it is with sanctification pluralism – you must admit to a starting place, a point of objective truth, a solid foundation of understanding and expression related to exactly what biblical, Christian theistic sanctification looks like, else you end in skepticism and relativism in the least and anti-biblical contemplative mysticism at worse.
Part three will detail the recent re-interpretations of sanctification from within the spiritual formation perspective.
Read Part 1 of this series here.
[1]D. A. Carson, “When is Spirituality Spiritual? Reflections on Some Problems of Definition,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, vol. 37, no. 3 (September 1994): 381-394.
[2]Steve Porter, “On the Renewal of Interest in the Doctrine of Sanctification: A Methodological Reminder,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, vol. 45, no. 3 (September 2002): 415-426.
[3]Robert V. Rakestraw, “Becoming Like God: An Evangelical Doctrine of Theosis,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, vol. 40, no. 2, (June 1997): 257-269.
Photo credit Young Nak Celebration Church