Wesleyan-Holiness folk hold a doctrine we call entire sanctification. There are various emphases on this doctrine, but at its core, it is about becoming so much like Christ that we reflect the image of God more perfectly as human beings. This is a simplistic generalization, but it is sufficient for this conversation. I have written on the idea that entire sanctification is a giving up of power in a kenotic move. Those essays are linked below. But here I want to talk about the action of sanctification in the work of God and our response within that work. Within the Church of the Nazarene, we express the doctrine as one which has a crisis moment, but is also a continual process. Dr. Steve Hoskins mentions that entire sanctification is a temporal descriptor. His wonderful explanation goes, “I am entirely sanctified, I am being entirely sanctified, I will be entirely sanctified.” My friend Nick Polk mentioned that entire sanctification is “an ongoing transformation of who we are.” These ideas help to undergird the way I see the action of entire sanctification.
Entire Sanctification is a work of God first and foremost. Just like all actions within the Christian understanding of salvation and growth within salvation, entire sanctification is believed to be something we cannot achieve through force of will. Rather, the work of God in our lives is such that perfect love so fills our hearts that we cannot help but reflect the heart of God as witnessed in the life of Jesus. This does not mean that we do not have a responsibility within the work of sanctifying grace, but that it is God who sanctifies as we respond to the ongoing work of sanctification. Sanctifying grace does not leave us as we are found before our response to grace. We are transformed, as Paul says, through “the renewing of our mind.” In fact, Paul constantly shows us that to be disciples of Jesus, we must have the mind of Christ. Wesleyan-Holiness folk believe this to be something which is achieved through the sanctifying grace of God. This is not a sort of mind of Christ, but a truly transformative mind of Christ and a new way of seeing the world. But, it is not something which comes to us and then we’re set. That’s where the “ongoing transformation of who we are.”
We never arrive at a moment of entire sanctification until the fulfillment of new creation. In other words, we should see ourselves as always being entirely sanctified in an ongoing work of God. This is why spiritual disciplines and the sacramental life of the local church are important. But I doubt you clicked on this to be given a fairly straightforward lesson on sanctification within a Wesleyan-Holiness and relational theological framework. No, I suspect the word deconstructive may have drawn you in. I promise this is not clickbait.
The word deconstruction has a specific meaning if we consider it within the original use of Derrida. However, it has become a popularly used term for transformative examination within religious faith and thinking. I will focus upon Christianity and the evangelical world to help narrow the discussion. Deconstruction is actually a process that has existed within Christian spaces since the dawn of secularization. Once it could be imagined in the West to live without faith, it became possible to question faith in general. But, lately the idea of deconstruction has become the latest thing to fear within evangelical spaces. Most of the criticisms are shallow and show a lack of understanding of the phenomenon known as deconstruction. The most noxious make poor conflations such as one by Dr. Timothy Tennent in which he implies that being an exvangelical means you are an ex-Christian. There are more nonevangelical Christians in the world than evangelical Christians, so this is a poor conflation at best. I suspect the article does this for effect and Dr. Tennent knows better. But I have no personal knowledge of why he makes this conflation.
For a few good works on deconstruction, including downsides, the following are good choices. Brain Zahnd’s Water to Wine which is a memoir of his transformation into a deeper and historic Christianity, Bradley Jersak’s Out of the Embers in which he seeks to understand and find constructive deconstruction. Tripp Fuller and Thomas Jay Oord’s God After Deconstruction is a good balanced view and deals with the danger of extreme swings. But these simply help us understand what is going on and how we might respond to those dealing with crises or simply questions. Holiness people should be more attuned to those who question shallow faith rather than being fearful of those questions. A friend recently commented to someone who appears afraid of questions by saying, “it takes more faith to have questions and still believe than it does to ignore the questions.” Wow. I told her that reminded me of Aaron Simmons’ definition of faith as “risk with direction.” Andrew Root also deals with this truth in his book Evangelism in an Age of Discontent and I am realizing as I write that we have a wealth of thinking that is more productive and hopeful than all the fear mongering and shallow treatments warning us of deconstruction. But enough with the tease.
In a pithy and rather sarcastic response to yet another sharing of a blog post warning of the dangers of deconstruction, I wrote a simple statement, “Entire Sanctification is a type of deconstruction.” Then it hit me. That may have been an off-the-cuff jibe, but it really is true. Entire sanctification as an “ongoing transformation of who we are.” I am entirely sanctified, I am being entirely sanctified, I will be entirely sanctified. The doctrine of entire sanctification is an ongoing work of deconstructing who we are and who we have been into who we can become. This may look very different depending on how we respond to the grace working in our lives. It may look different depending on how those around us respond to the ongoing work of grace in our lives and there lives. It may all go horribly wrong if our transformation is greeted with fear and the gatekeepers of holiness. But transformation can be a powerful force of growth.
The deconstruction of our self does not mean that who we are or have been is totally wiped away, rather it is one on which who we are accepts the places we’ve been and incorporates the healthy and vibrant pieces that work in our growth. Pop culture gives is a picture of this in the character of Professor Hulk as seen in Avengers: Endgame and of course the Marvel comics. Professor Hulk is a a transformation of Bruce Banner and the Incredible Hulk into a synthesis of the mind of Bruce Banner and the strength of the Hulk. Professor Hulk is different than both Banner and The Hulk, yet he is also the same. But he deconstructed his reality as Banner and the Hulk to live into a new reality of Professor Hulk. He is the Hulk, he was the Hulk, he is becoming the Hulk in a poor analogy.
As I mentioned earlier, we do not suddenly arrive at a moment where transformation is complete and we stop progressing toward a more mature reality. Rather, we are always transforming, always questioning, always learning, always growing. Do we leave things behind as we move forward? Of course we do, but that is life in a nutshell. We leave things behind as we grow; unless, of course, we peaked in high school and decided not to grow. Will others going through this same process arrive where we are? No, and if they did, the world would be incredibly boring. Some may even find the answers they seek outside of where we hoped, but we cannot force and must trust the ongoing work of grace. I wonder how many who deconstruct right out of faith might have taken different paths had they been listened to or even considered.
Holiness folk like to claim that perfect love casts out all fear. Yet we seem to traffic in fear when we feel threatened. What if we saw deconstruction for the possibilities rather than an assault? What if we were supportive of the faith required to ask questions rather than the fear that ignores the questions? I get it. This means that the possibilities might be endless, but so is mystery and discovery. Deconstruction often begins with curiosity, and curiosity leads to growth as we pursue it. Let’s be open to deconstructing holiness.
Bombadillo
While watching the Tolkien Heads livestream for episode four of season two of The Rings of Power, Tom Hermans-Webster has an excellent discussion of how the character of Tom Bombadil illuminates a process interpretation of the character Tom Bombadil. (This is at about the 1:52 mark if you want to skip to those comments). If you are only fami…
The Emptying of Power
In a recent essay, I wrote about the idea of entire sanctification as the ability to be freed from power dynamics. I want to go into that in more detail in this essay. To do so, we will return to Middle-Earth and an encounter with Tom Bombadil. This is within a story in the series