Holistic Holiness for Humanity
This is the general place to post comments on the "Holistic Holiness for Humanity" three part series. It is an attempt to reimagine holiness for today in four dimensions.
The series is complete with all three parts up.,
Click here for part 1. Click here for part 2. Click here for part 3.
Click below to comment
Labels: Holiness, Leadership
9 Comments:
Wow, David. Thanks for that post. I'll read it again sometime this week. I agree with you about simplification of language and ideas. It is the sort of thing that could bring us all together. While my reformed Uncle would probably be slightly grieved if I told him I believed we could be free from all original sin in this life, I am sure that he is a "fully devoted follower of Jesus Christ." Indeed, what I would classify as my own experience of entire sanctification ensued upon such a moment of full surrender at Hastings camp . . . I didn't even know what I was signing up for!
I git it. And buy it. I think that "surrender" is an apt term. I use "submission" and "obedience," but surrender is a less heavy-handed term that does the same work as those. Nice!
I would like to ask about the empowerment for surrender. Defining holiness is of course critical. But the question of how we receive it is also important. Does one "surrender oneself"? To what extent does God create a surrending spirit in us? Are we somehow caught up into God's own self-surrender (in his incarnatio)? The questions of divine and human agency are still lurking once the definition is well-fixed. So, my question to you is how does the langauge of surrend help us understand the divine empowerment of human holiness?
Thanks for stopping by, guys.
Scott - I think what you typed here has a lot of wisdom in it for processing what holiness/sanctification really is--or at least what I can understand of it. You say that "you didn't know what you were signing up for" in that experience... but I think that's true of us all, in reality, awareness of what God will do with us and in us is precluded by surrender. If we truly surrender (or in John's language, submit or obey) then we don't know fully what we're surrendering to. We're just giving ourselves wholly up to the holy. That's part of a holistic life surrender that, for me, is holiness I can grasp while at the same time let go of.
John - Okay, you're going to paint me in a corner on the empowerment to surrender. You're asking me to explain the HOW right after I've begged the WHAT.
To be honest, I don't think I want to land fully on the HOW yet... in this series or in my life. Theologically and for sure biblically, I'm on much more certain ground when I can explain WHAT God is calling us to and let the HOW question just hang out there a bit. I believe when I die I will still be 50-75% more sure of WHAT than HOW, and from talking to a lot of old people, it's possible I'll be less sure of the HOW then than I am now (age can sometimes create such humility). And this is not only true in the area of holiness. I said as much in this article, when speaking of our great-grandfather and the uniqueness of each testimony. The HOW varies much more than the WHAT.
I do have a sense of "Both/And" when it comes to surrender... When you ask if "God creates a surrendering spirit in us" I think that concept actually inpinges on the entire idea of surrender. Surrender implies self-offering. Obediences implies responsiveness. Submission implies choice.
And that's why when I get to the intermediate heaven and I get my 15 minutes to argue with Martin Luther (all of us theologians will receive this as a crown of life) the agenda of our discussion will be his claims in "Bondage of the Will." That will be my first bone to pick with him (among others).
-David
The ability to leave comments for the Drury. This is what I have been hoping. Although, seeing as how your intellegence outshines my own by leaps and bounds ... I don't have much to add right now. Just wanted to say hi.
Yes, great writing Dave. I would love to see us as Wesleyans get back to more social holiness in a sense. And yes, I did say "get back." I feel as though over the years we turned inward and began to see holiness as merely dealing with our lives and not with our culture and community. Maybe that means more IServe!
Dave-
The four dimensions is very helpful. Thanks. I also like that you have started on the outer circle, not because the culture necessarily gets sanctified before the individual, but to avoid the idea that we should get all our ducks in a row before reaching out to others. Nice.
Also, the three tenses of surrender was a pregnant thought. I'd love to hear more there.
John
Hey Doug, Brian & John...
Doug = I hope you'll be back, bro.
Brian = I've often wondered if there can be any personal holiness without social holiness (and you're reading between the lines of this series -- nice!)
John = I suppose my point with the reveral of order is that perhaps there is "no order"... and perhaps the best way to approach them is all at the same time. Much like reaching "Jerusalem AND Judea AND Samaria AND to the ends of the earth" I think there is a similtaneousness (?) to it all... instead of expecting them to each work in a vacuum.
FYI... all = the final part of the series is now up:
http://www.drurywriting.com/david/07.HolisticHoliness3.htm
Wesley spoke of perfect love, the American Holiness movement of cleansing or "eradication" (I have been told that the word did not have the radical implications we see in it), Keswicks of power to counteract the old man. I think the Pentecostal emphasis is also on power, though I am not sure at all about this.
If they were right, there is something (we don't all agree on exactly what) that happens within us at the point of total surrender, or entire consecration (some argue this is a clearer term, though Stanley Jones used surrender a good bit). I think that you can preach entire consecration without any inherent optimism of the radical change promised by holiness preachers of yore. If they were wrong, then it is not a problem. But if they were wrong, then we really have had no distinctive in our preaching or praxis (other than being Arminian) from most other churches. In fact, if I have my facts straight, this is pretty much where the Methodist church is today, in many quarters, preaching consecration only.
In all practical reality, it may make little difference in how we live. For God does not limit what he does by our lack of understanding, only by our lack of committment. Yet the whole of the Christian life is vitally linked to faith, and what we believe will determine how we live to a large extent. Or what we aspire to.
Am I splitting hairs here? Or just showing my age?
At any rate, it is a great series that I plan to pontificate on some more.
One more thing. (My brain operates like the tap on a Maple tree, everything runs rather slowly). Your most salient point is the concerning the personal testimony. I will refrain from another lengthy post, but this is a key issue that the holiness movement needs to think about.
Post a Comment
<< Home