Considering a Wesleyan View of Sanctification

The 3rd view of sanctification presented in Christian Spirituality is a Wesleyan view by Laurence Wood. There are aspects of the Wesleyan view that he clarifies so common misunderstandings no longer remain misunderstanding. The main positive I found was that of expectation- the expectation that God will work in you to sanctify you. Forde, in his Lutheran response did not share my view of this as positive.

“In this regard, it should be kept in mind that a Wesleyan hermeneutic, though it gives priority to the Scriptures as the basis of all beliefs, assumes that all truth is existentially perceived and appropriated. …. For the Bible is always interpreted through experience, tradition and reason. This is not a subjectivizing of the biblical revelation, but a frank acknowledgement that all truth is mediated in a larger context, rather than merely through a logical and rationalistic framework.”

He begins by talking about the Wesleyan hermeneutic. It is very good that he does this because it reveals some of his presuppositions for us to examine as well. Too often the method of interpretation used to arrive at a conclusion is not mentioned. So he unpacks, briefly, the “personal-relational dimension” of the way Wesleyans tend to “do theology.” Certainly our personal and corporate histories shape our understanding of Scripture. Sometimes for good, and sometimes not so good. His main point is that “the crucible of life is the laboratory for testing our interpretation of Scripture.” The key phrase is “our interpretation.” They are not testing the Scripture, but their interpretation. Our theology should work: making sense of life, our experience and shaping our life in positive ways. The gospel produces good things in our lives, though often thru difficult experiences.

The Misunderstanding

Many people stumble over the phrase Christian Perfectionism. Wesley was not speaking about absolute perfection. Entire sanctification, another confusing term for non-Wesleyans, refers to a “second blessing” (yet another confusing term for non-Wesleyans and non-Pentacostals) or subsequent blessing that gives us perfect love for God. This perfect love for God results in “perfect obedience.” This does not mean we are sinless, but that we no longer willfully sin. There may be unintentional sins, and there are “psychologically repressed complexes” that result in disordered behavior. But our intentions are good and pure even if our behavior is not (I wonder how much Neil T. Anderson’s material connects with the Wesleyan view).

“In fact, the entirely sanctified are more aware of their weaknesses and sins and thus are more capable of growth in grace because of the openness of their hearts to their true situation.”

To quote Bono from the new U2 album, “a broken heart is an open heart.” Let’s return to the laboratory for a moment. The Christian perfectionists I’ve met (granted, I haven’t met many who claimed to have this second blessing) have been anything but humble and aware of their sin. This could be an aberration, like an arrogant Calvinist (since unconditional election should promote humility).Yet, I don’t see anything in the doctrine itself that would promote the humility (aside from it is all from grace) that would promote such humility. It certainly creates 2nd class Christians and 1st class Christians. That is never a good thing in my book.

The Framework of the Second Blessing

He uses redemptive history as the pattern for Christian experience. The time gap between the resurrection and Pentecost is not seen in light of the shifts in redemptive history (God initiating a new administration) but as the norm. In this framework, which is also patterned after Exodus => Canaan) we see that justified sinners, while sanctified, await the second blessing or event that is entire sanctification or Christian perfectionism. All Christians have left their bondage to sin, but not all have arrived in Canaan yet. They have the Spirit but haven’t been baptized in the Spirit yet.

All second blessing theology, with a baptism in the Spirit subsequent to conversion, appears to be out of step with Paul’s understanding of salvation and Christian experience. In places like 1 Corinthians 12:13, Paul asserts that all Christians have been baptized by/in the Spirit. If not, you are not in the Body of Christ! There are no second class Christians! Such views wreck havoc on many individual Christian’s spiritual health, and create unnecessary division in the Body (in my opinion).

One of the casualties is also the ascension. Following Barth, only occasionally a good idea, he asserts the resurrection & Pentecost as the “sole bases of the Christian life.” We have no only been made alive with Christ, but also seated with Christ in the heavenly places (Ephesians 2). Pentecost only happens because Christ has ascended to pour the Spirit out upon the Church. Additionally, we must recognize the purposes of the “Pentecosts” in Acts. It is not to give us a framework, but to reveal God’s acceptance of Jewish believers, then expansion to include Samaritan believers, and finally Gentile believers. They dramatically reveal the promise and command of Jesus in Acts 1. That initial outpouring is evidence that God has indeed brought people from those groups into the Body.

With a second blessing theology what you inevitably have is an under-realized eschatology (too few of the benefits of salvation in the present) followed by an over-realized eschatology (too many benefits of salvation in the present). At first there is too little already ant too much not yet. After the second blessing you have too much already and too little not yet. Got that?

The Possible Heresy

In the midst of this section he offers some trinitarian theology. His trinitarian theology confused me, and sounded less than orthodox. He depends much on John Fletcher in this section. He speaks of trinitarian dispensationalism.

“He interpreted Christian experience in progressive stages corresponding to God’s revelation as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Some have faith in God as Father who is Creator; some have faith in God as Son who is Redeemer; others have faith in the Holy Spirit who is Sanctifier. Fletcher believes the Apostles’ Creed implies these three stages of faith.”

The Creed does not present them as “stages of faith” but what we are to believe. Surely we mature in our understanding but this sounds too much like a modalistic experience of faith and salvation. Again:

“Even as there were stages in salvation in which God was progressively known as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, so there may be stages in one’s personal history of salvation in which one may know God successively as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Yet it is the one and same God who is known.”

Am I alone in finding that quite confusing? This actually doesn’t make sense of the progress of revelation. In the Old Testament we see the Lord is one. It is in the NT that this Lord is revealed as Father, Son and Spirit. We don’t see God revealed as Father, and later Son and later the Spirit. The Trinity explodes upon the stage with the Incarnation. There are no stages and there are not stages in belief though each of us may emphasize one person over the others (inappropriately). This just seems to be moving in a very bad direction in my opinion.

The Framework Revisited

He draws a distinction between the indwelling Spirit and being filled with the Spirit (not as submission but a different stage) and sin and sins. This is an appropriate distinction, but I’m not entirely sure that how he applies this is appropriate, particularly since he’s dependent on Bultmann (who is even less reliable than Barth).

“This twofold distinction between “sins” (actions) and “the sin” (the inherited condition which is the source of sins) is the theological basis for a distinction between justification (forgiveness of sins) and sanctification (cleansing from the condition of sin and an empowering with perfect love for God).”

Following Bultmann again, he thinks Paul’s emphasis was not on justification but sanctification. Like the Lutherans he argues for emphasis, but for the opposite one. I don’t see Paul emphasizing one of the other, except when needed by the circumstances of the letter and therefore the need of that congregation. I would argue that justification and sanctification both deal with both sins and sin. For instance, in Romans 6-7 we see that in justification we died to sin with Christ, not just sins. We see in Romans 8 that we continue to put the misdeeds of the body to death. This distinction is not as clear cut as Wood thinks it is.

All of this leads him to say “Heart-circumcision, perfect love and being filled with the Spirit are conceptually identical in Pauline thought.” Not quite. Heart-circumcision is regeneration. Being filled with the Spirit is a passive command implying submission and is not to be confused with the indwelling Spirit. The Spirit dwells in all Christians, but all Christians are told to be filled or led by the Spirit. This is NOT the same as regeneration.

So, we see there are a number of mistaken notions that undermine his view of sanctification.

The Responses

Forde does not like any suggestion of process in sanctification. He repeats his mantra that sanctification is getting used to your justification. Processes, or schemes, in his eyes are an attempt to put our works back into our salvation. He’s not really listening to Wood. Forde essentially denies or doesn’t understand the difference between positional and personal holiness. The first is found in justification (an act of God’s free grace) and the second in sanctification (a work of God’s free grace).

Ferguson, surprisingly, doesn’t mention the problem or lack of clarity in Wood’s trinitarian dispensationalism. But he brings up Wood’s use of 1 John 3. He critiques Wood’s view of sin. The issue for a one who cannot go on sinning hits on regeneration, not perfect love. John is writing to Christians giving them tests to see if they are truly in Christ, not entirely sanctified.

“The sharpness of the tension between salvation already begun and salvation not yet consummated should never be downplayed. but Wesley seems to me to so downplay it.  As in his gospel proclamation, Wesley held that responsibility to believe (contrary to his Reformed colleague George Whitefield), and so in sanctification he seems to have assumed that the desire to experience perfection assumed the ability to experience it now.”

He concludes with the thought that we should not deny the experience of some Wesleyans, but that they misinterpret their experience.

In Russel Spittler’s short Pentecostal response he is mostly favorable since they come from the same holiness, and two stage background. But he does ask “But what of the wandering and the wilderness between? Surely the years spent there bespeak the course of the Christian’s pilgrimage- zigzagging along between we’re-not-what-we-used-to-be and we’re-not-what-wer’re-going-to-be. Is sanctification the route that links the exodus and the conquest?”

The contemplative response by E. Glenn Hinson notes that “Wesleyan thought has always come out better in practice than in theory.” Essentially he thinks they are holier than their theology should lead them to be. He does think that much of Wesley’s view is in harmony with the contemplative tradition focusing on the existential more than the rational. But he warns against setting bar so high that expectations can never be met and one drowns in insecurity because they think there is something wrong with them instead of their expectations. He notes the irony of Wood’s utilization of Bultmann, a Lutheran, to refute the view of Lutherans that Paul emphasizes justification over sanctification.

Bottom Line: Sanctification thrru 2nd blessing.