The Message of Entire Sanctification

Keith Drury asked a question in his most recent "Tuesday Column" regarding the preaching of "entire sanctification" and whether or not folks in the 1800's "Holiness Movement" were deceived or correct.

My answer is that the doctrine is still developing. A key is the question, "What does holiness look like?" As some respondents to the column have said, over the years holiness preaching tended to get confused with living certain lyfestyles=holiness, and living other lifestyles=worldliness. If a person didn't identify, for instance, with the total abstinence from alcohol or tobacco issues, he or she couldn't have experienced entire sanctification. The lines got blurred between what was Biblical and what was "expected".

Many who decry the lack of "holiness" preaching these days seem to be more bothered that there's not enough preaching of rules and that certain rituals (i.e., the altar call, the campmeeting, the multiple-service revival, etc...) have become less commonplace.

In addition, an attitude has crept into our culture (especially in North America) that even Christians and non-Christians seem to espouse--one that says that people are basically good deep down. This flies in the face of the traditional Christian worldview that we are conceived in with natures that need cleansing from sin.

Finally, the evolution of the word "perfection" has changed the way the doctrine is viewed. Today, if a person claims "perfection", more people than not think if perfection of PERFORMANCE, not perfection of love towards God and others. Therefore, people likely tend to shy away from using the term "perfection", not because something different occurs (or doesn't occur) today compared with 100-150 years ago, but because the meaning of the terminology to the average listener has changed.

Here's how I have understood it. Look at Hebrews 10:14 which says in the NIV translation, "by one sacrifice, he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy." Now, I'm not a Greek scholar, but I tend to like this particular translation for this verse, because it implies a one-time work (sacrifice) that HAS MADE PERFECT (a completed deal) those who ARE BEING MADE (an ongoing deal) holy.

I can understand entire sanctification only by acknowledging the functional human trichotomy of body, mind, and spirit. At entire sanctification, God indeed perfects one's spirit--endowing that person's spirit with a perfect love for God and others. In function, this righteousness of spirit is IMPARTED (not imputed), making a real change in condition from one of the person being naturally inclined towards selfishness (i.e., evil, or sin) to the person being transformed to being primarily inclined towards godliness.

But while the spirit is indeed perfected, the body (flesh) is still subject to the fact that we live in a world that is still infected and affected by sin. While the true transformation of a person's spirit will indeed affect the way a person behaves, the truth of the matter is that the sin that surrounds the person will also influence the person's behavior. The mind is then the "battleground."

For instance; a person may have to make a split-second decision of "Do I step in front of the person who is about to shoot that innocent person, or do I sustain my own life?" The person's spirit is self-sacrificing, but the person's body is self-preserving.

Is that person still entirely sanctified? Yes. Can that person still make mistakes and/or even go against his/her transformed spirit and still choose selfishness over godliness? Yes. But it happens less and less as the person grows in maturity, being transformed in the renewing of his/her mind as time goes on.

So, did the holiness movement of the 1800's miss the boat? In theory, no, but in practice, perhaps the message they preach got to be based more on outward behaviors instead of the work the Holy Spirit did to perfect that person's spirit within.

Just my two-cents-worth.

Show Me The Money (and Power)

A couple of anecdotal incidents I've heard about in the past week have caused me pause. They both have to do with people getting into hot water with government authorities over issues that happened so long ago that I would have thought the Statute of Limitations had run out. Both incidents were related to me by relatives of the people involved.

I was first told about a man who was arrested on outstanding warrant charges and was currently in an area city or county (I don't know all of the specifics) jail awaiting extradition to another state on misdemeanor charges from about 12 years earlier. I wasn't given too many details of this situation, but when I mentioned the Statute of Limitations, this man's relative told me that they had inquired about that too, but that for some reason it didn't seem to matter. It seemed odd to me that this man would have been sitting in jail (at that time for nearly 2 weeks) due to a 12-year-old, out of state misdemeanor (not felony) charge. But I kind of filed that information in the back of my mind.

Five days later, I was talking to a friend of mine, and told him about this situation (he doesn't know the family involved, and I didn't use names, anyway). This friend then told me about a situation one of his relatives is currently facing. In this case, I was told more details.

Approximately 17 years ago, a young man had moved to the Chicago area from out of state, trying to start out on his own. One day when he was at work, his car was stolen. Then when he came out of work, he was mugged, and all of his money was stolen. He'd had enough of Chicago, and moved back to his home state. However, before leaving Chicago, he did report his car as stolen.

Fast forward 17 years to earlier this year. This man went to renew his Ohio driver's license, but was told that he couldn't, because of an outstanding unpaid ticket in Illinois. It ends up that this man's stolen car 17 years earlier had been stripped, put up on blocks, and left under an underpass or viaduct, where the car was ticketed by police. But this man never received word of the ticket. Despite the ridiculousness of ticketing a car owner for "abandoning" a car that had been stolen from him (and reported stolen), the jurisdiction in charge (I don't know if it's city, county, or state) still has this case open, and is demanding not only the $40 charge for the ticket, but various other fees that have now been added, bringing the total they are demanding to over $500.

The man in question has a friend or relative who is an attorney, who offered to look into the case on a pro bono basis. This attorney even offered to go to Illinois to represent the man. But when this attorney contacted the prosecutor from Illinois, the prosecutor basically said that the man should just travel to Illinois to plead guilty, being represented by the public defender offered to him. The attorney who made the contact was told that if he appeared to represent this man, the costs would increase and the man would also likely be facing jail time.

In this current economy, it is true that many government entities are facing budget constraints. Some of these entities are stepping up enforcement of minor offenses in order to bring in more revenue to government coffers. Until now, I have thought that this was all about the money. But with the strong-armed tactics I've described--especially in the second scenario--I'm beginning to think that it also has to do with using the full force of the power of government to further intrude into people's lives.

Watch out. 1984 was 25 years ago, but here in 2009, more and more, Big Brother is watching.

The Secularization of the American Mind

It gave me pause the other day as I was thinking about the fact that the President of the United States is only 5 days older than I am. Intellectually, I already knew this. But something significant came to my mind as I thought of this again the other day: President Obama and I are both part of the first generation of Americans to have been raised in an environment where the government-run education system prohibited God in its classrooms and schools. President Obama is the first American President to have begun his formal education after the historic 1962 Supreme Court Ruling that effectively banned prayer in government-run schools.

I have heard the quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln that, "...the philosophy of the classroom in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next." I cannot say with any degree of certainty whether or not it was President Lincoln who actually said that, but whomever said it said something that certainly appears to be true.

Our nation has little-by-little, since 1962 taken God more and more out of the picture when it comes to education. I began my formal education in 1966 as a kindergartner at Goodwin School in Cicero, Illinois. By the time I began 1st grade, our family had moved and I spent grades 1-8 attending Highlands School in LaGrange Highlands, Illinois. I went through grades 9-12 at Lyons Township High School in LaGrange, Illinois. During all those years, from 1966-1979, I never experienced a teacher leading us in prayer. That didn't bother me, nor does it now, because I don't necessarily believe in state-sponsored prayers, since they tend to be rather generic (or pantheistic). At the same time, I can still remember that God could still be mentioned during those years. I can remember learning the Christmas Carol Away in a Manger in my 1st grade classroom. Throughout my years from elementary through high school, we were allowed to sing both secular and sacred music in our choirs, and we did. In high school, as part of our English classes, one of our units was studying the Bible as literature--not for theological purposes (we also studied Greek mythology the same school year). When we had time off of school at the end of December and into early January, it was known as Christmas Vacation, just as our time off in March or April not only corresponded with Easter, but was called "Easter Vacation."

But, there were some things pretty early on which I didn't understand then, but looking back on now I can see were signs that the educational philosophy was changing to one of secular humanization, and teaching the students through this lens. We weren't taught "History" from first through sixth grades; instead we were taught "Social Studies." Every few years, the school day would be lengthened, and/or the number of days school was required to be in session per year would be increased. This meant that incrementally, more and more of the students' time was going to be under the direct authority of the schools.

Now, I had some wonderful teachers. Some of them may have been Christian, but I don't know, because I don't recall any of them ever "sharing their faith" with me. But looking back on it now, it seems to me that at least two of my favorite teachers from my pre-teenage years demonstrated views that correspond to teaching students that the government-run schools and/or the secular worldview are what should be influencing students.

One of these teachers had served in the Peace Corps prior to joining the faculty at our school. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that; it is a noble thing to have done. It was great hearing about some of this teacher's experiences where he served in Micronesia (see, I still remember that, well over 30 years later!). I also remember a song he taught the class which he'd written; it was a song promoting love and peace--all from a secular point of view.

The other teacher one time said to our class that she hoped we thought of her as being more important than our parents. As I said, I really liked both of those teachers. But looking back, I can see that the educational philosophies and/or worldviews they taught and promoted were from a secular humanistic standpoint.

That is the educational environment in which I grew up, and it was the philosophy of the classroom during that generation. We now have a President of the United States who was educated during the same time period, as a member of the first generation who was educated in this country after the 1962 Supreme Court ruling that banned prayer from government run schools. And since that ruling, government-run educational philosophies have evolved (or perhaps devolved) into more and more secular humanism. Schools can't even refer to their times off as "Christmas Vacation" or "Easter Vacation" anymore; instead these times are referred to as "Winter Break" and "Spring Break," respectively. Currently, governments are pushing more and more to have control of the children and other students earlier, later, and longer.

For example, there has been more and more of a push in the past several years to require children to begin school at younger ages--pre-Kindergarten. It's often called "early childhood education." That's the "earlier."

The "later" goes to the other end of the spectrum, where it is ingrained more and more into students that now high school is not enough; people should make sure to get college degrees as a matter of course (at least if they want to get good paying jobs). And who is in charge of establishing the accreditation requirements of colleges and universities? The secular humanistic education establishment.

As for the "longer," all I have to do is point to the push in recent years for "year-'round-school" and other similar programs. Earlier this year in his "State of the State" address, the Governor of Ohio proposed increasing the length of the school year by 20 days. This would in effect limit that much more family time and add to the amount of time most students are under the direct supervision of the government-run schools.

Maybe these types of things shouldn't surprise me, because, after all, these types of philosophies were what was taught to the generation of Americans who grew up during the same time as did the current President of the United States, and the current philosophies of government seem to be much in line with the philosophies that were being advocated in the classrooms 30-40 years ago. What will our government philosophies be 30-40 years from now? Perhaps we can get an idea if we will just look at the philosophies that are being advanced in today's government-run school classrooms.

The Question of Gambling Came Up

One of my favorite internet columns to read is written by Keith Drury. In his most recent column, he addressed the issue of gambling. The article can be found at this URL:

http://www.drurywriting.com/keith/gambling.htm

Much of what the column asks is along the lines of what should and should not be considered gambling, and what the church's stance should be on gambling and such.

As usual, Keith's column generated a number of responses. These responses can be seen by following the links on his column at the above-mentioned URL. I felt that I should comment--as much (if not more) because of the comments that preceded mine as for the article. Here is what I said:

Scenario 1: John Doe goes out and gambles away his paycheck without leaving funds to provide for his family's meals, thereby harming himself and his family. Since gambling led to this problem, all gambling should be considered wrong.

Scenario 2: John Doe goes out and buys a hunting rifle, and one day in a fit of rage, shoots the members of his family and himself. Since the purchase of a hunting rifle led to this, all owning of hunting rifles should be considered wrong.

Scenario 3: John Doe goes out and buys a chocolate cake, and he and his family become such lovers of chocolate cake, they eat it every day and become obese. Since the purchase of a chocolate cake led to this, all chocolate cakes should be considered wrong.

Scenario 4: John Doe goes out and buys coffee, and shares coffee with his family. His family really comes to enjoy drinking coffee, and they all become addicted to caffeine. Since the purchase of coffee led to this, all coffee should be considered wrong.

There is a major commonality in all of those scenarios: none of the things in them said to be "wrong" is mentioned as wrong in Scripture, but by extending out the scenario, these things can be used in such a way so as to violate Scriptural principles.

I am Nazarene (which in doctrine is very close to Wesleyan), and we have a prohibition in our Manual against gambling. However, there is no such prohibition against hunting rifles, chocolate cake, or coffee (I assume the same is true for Wesleyans).

Perhaps the problem is that the more secular our society becomes, the more laws we feel we need.

The Pharisees and teachers of the Law turned the Scriptural commands (including the 10 Commandments) into hundreds of codes and regulations. Jesus came along and, instead of complicating matters, boiled it all down to two things: the first is to love God with all one's heart, soul, mind, and strength, and the the second is to love one's neighbor as one's self.

Romans 14 tells us that we should not pass judgment on "disputable matters (NIV translation), and that to one's own master one stands or falls. So why do often we feel it necessary to add rules to what Scripture says, and in effect judge the people who do not follow the rules with which we happen to agree?

By the way, on the entire gambling issue, I say this from the personal perspective of being someone who does not play "games of chance" but whose retirement investments and such have taken a beating over this past year.

I thought I would post this here as well, and let more people see not just my comments, but also read Keith's original column and the comments it generated.

So, in "borrowing" a line from Keith Drury, let me ask,

"So, what do you think?"