BURNING ISSUES IN THE LIFE OF SANCTITY

HAROLD B. KUHN, Ph. D.
(Chairman, Division of Theology and Philosophy of Religion
Asbury Theological Seminary)

The Biblical call to personal sanctity is one which places before us a tremendous obligation to seek out, and to embody in practical living, the implications of the emphasis upon Christian holiness for the conduct of the believer as he takes his place in the life of the world. The fine values which have historically marked the lives of the best of the saints are of little value as museum pieces; only as they find expression in the activities of our common life are they significant in a day in which such emphasis is laid (and rightly so!) upon the projection of the Christian Evangel into the life of the world.

It goes without saying that ethics does not stand detached as an emphasis in the message of Christian Sanctity. That is, ethical living is by no means thought to issue naturally (as, for example, from self-knowledge, as Socrates taught), nor to be derived from the simple analysis of some such abstraction as the 'natural right' or the 'rational good'. The life which is pleasing to God issues solely from an inner spiritual state in which double-ness of purpose, and chaos of motivation, have been set at rest.

One is reminded at this point of the dictum of Soren Kierkegaard, "Purity of heart is to will one thing." While this is obviously not complete as a definition, yet it does point to the real heart of the matter, that the sanctified life is one which results when inner chaos has been resolved, and which springs from a heart free "to will with Him one will." This is the heart of the message of Christian holiness: and without this strong core, no emphasis upon the external expression of any supposed 'ideal of sanctity' can be sound.

It is projected here to take for granted that this central core of teaching is compatible with the general thrust of God's Revelation, and that what is said with respect to the ethical ideal rests upon the broad basis of the reality of the experience known as Entire Sanctification, this being understood in terms of the elimination from the regenerate heart of all that is morally unsound, and the enthronement of Christ, who is the life in the citadel of the personality. It is a commonplace (but what an important commonplace!) that there is no genuine sanctity apart from the installation in the Christian heart of Him who said, "and for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified. . ." (John 17:19).

I

Descending from this high theological ground, into the arena in which our life must be lived, it is indicated, I believe, that we note briefly the type or form of ethical theory which is implied in the emphasis of the movement fostering Christian Sanctity. It should be noted that there is seldom an explicit statement made by ministers of the Full Covenant at this point; certain things are, however, implicit. These may be sharpened by reference to the broader base upon which ethical teaching has historically been made to rest.

In the broadest sense, ethical theories are divisible into two types, the subjectivistic and the objectivistic. Among the most noteworthy of the subjectivistic are these: the individualistic, hedonistic and the sociohedonistic or utilitarian. These have for a common denominator one thing: either pleasure or the absence of pain is made to constitute the ethical objective. Such a form of ethical theory is, of course, ambiguous, since the very term 'pleasure' is a slippery one, resting upon such variables as the personal capacity for enjoyment, and upon personal or cultural idiosyncrasies. Hedonistic ethics has historically led, almost universally, to a narrow definition of pleasure in terms of sensory pleasure; it is but a short step to sensuality.

The major forms of the objectivistic are these: the rationalistic, the metaphysical, and the revelational. The rationalistic ethic rests upon the premise that the Good is the Rational, and that the Rational is the Right. It assumes, further, that human reason possesses a competence, not only to recognize the Good inerringly, but also to sway the personality in such a manner as to secure righteousness in day-by-day practice. This has the evident weakness of failing to take into account the degree to which human reason has been affected adversely by the Fall. It is difficult to defend the view that men unfailingly (or even usually) do as a matter of course that which they know to be right.

The metaphysical type of ethic assumes that the principles of Right and Good are embedded in the universe, and that the cosmos will support only what is good, while it will unerringly designate evil for what it is, and render certain punishment for it. This takes for granted, too, that man can properly and adequately read the moral cipher of the universe-an assumption which is difficult to support by an appeal to human moral history.

The most daring form of ethical theory is the Revelational. It projects for human thought and human acceptance the proposition that the Good and the Right are grounded, not merely in the structures of the cosmos, but in the will of a holy and sovereign God, who, grasping fully and completely our needy and limited predicament, has taken the initiative in disclosing to mankind, in definitive and final fashion, the major lines and the central drive of that Will. To some this view seems an insult to man's intelligence; some hold that it indicts him unreasonably of moral weakness and downright moral perversity. To others, it is the gracious answer to a need which has been felt by sensitive persons from the dawn of human recorded history.

It need not be labored that the Holiness Movement has leaned heavily upon this latter form of ethical theory. Out of its orientation in a tradition which held a high view of the origin and authority of the Holy Scriptures, it logically recognized (and does today recognize) the moral man-date as being part of the very core of revealed truth. Further, just as the heart of the message of Christian Sanctity is that the Divine Spirit, in the work of entire sanctification, does invade the life, sweep away carnal self-centeredness and twisted egocentricity, so also this theological emphasis . carries with it the profound assertion that the Holy Spirit simplifies the motivation of the life, bringing all of the currents of the redeemed personality into a harmonious flowing in the direction of God's good Will.

There is a word which suggests itself wherever the application of a general ethical system (such as the Revelational, of which we have just spoken) to the general and concrete in human conduct is attempted. It is the word 'casuistry,' which suggests what 'is generally known as the 'case ethic'. Casuistry connotes the practice or procedure by which one seeks to deal with cases of conscience, and by which one seeks to resolve questions of right and wrong by the application of ethical principles to concrete situations. Now, the term 'casuistry' has fallen upon evil times: unprincipled practices have set upon it, beaten it, and left it half-dead along the road.

There are two groups who have taken seriously the matter of erecting a strategy of conduct upon the basis of a systematic application of ethical principles to life's complex and varied situations. I refer to the Pharisees and the Jesuits-group admittedly far apart in general emphasis, but one in their desire to apply divinely-revealed principles minutely and according to rule.

Reversing these in time sequence, we note the' manner in which the Jesuit-type of casuistry has been employed. Seeking to produce, in the period at the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of the modern era, a 'Christian society,' it sought to reduce the requirements for being a Christian to a minimum; thus the Jesuit casuistry came to permit everything which was not expressly and specifically forbidden. Growing out of quite different historical circumstances, the Pharisees sought to do two things: first, to modify the seeming brashnesses of the Mosaic Law in a day in which Judaism was forced more and more onto the world-stage; and second, to protect Judaism against the encroachments of a lax Hellenism. Pharisaism (which, please be reminded, began as something of a Jewish 'Holiness Movement') degenerated into a traditionalism which split hairs, as the New Testament indicates, and which erred at the point of an undiscriminating' directness in its ethical pronouncements. This led, ultimately, to an ingrown and gone-to-seed type of casuistry, in which, essentially, everything which was not specifically permitted was forbidden.

The bearing of this upon the ethic of the Holiness Movement is quite easy to see. As newer social currents impinged upon the lives of devout men and women in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (i.e., the forces of industrialization), they tended to react defensively as they saw their value-systems threatened. It is not unfair to say that in this defensive reaction, there was a strong temptation in the direction of the type of casuistry which characterized the Pharisees. Let it be said at once and in their defense, that within the trend toward the movement for Christian Sanctity', there came a trend which emphasized a wholesome discipline of character. It was assumed, correctly we are sure, that the embodiment of the inner purity of heart in the outward conduct must be assisted and guided by discipline of the personal life. It was this to which the Quaker poet, Whittier referred in his lines,

'And let our ordered lives confess
The beauty of Thy Peace."

Again, such an admirable form of Christian administration as the class meeting had for its purpose the cultivation of the disciplined and self-marshalled life.

There was a temptation, to be sure, to administer discipline along the lines of an inadequate casuistry. Given the constant impinging of practices which seemed to be clearly worldly, due to pressure from the society outside, it was understandable that sensitive Christian leaders should seek to lay down lines which should serve as safeguards to the younger and less mature among their fellowship.

It requires little historical knowledge to help us recall that offering the 'easy answer' has upon occasion tempted the ethical thinker within the Holiness Movement. This temptation was frequently implemented by the evident presence of abuses or factors or elements which may have been morally neutral or innocent in themselves. For example, the use of musical instruments did lead to twofold snares for Christian persons: outside the church they were inseparably connected with the social dance, which nearly all sensitive Christians regarded as an evil. Within the church, the simple question of the choice of an organist frequently led to dissension within the body of believers. The rather natural defensive reaction was to deprecate the use of any musical instruments in the church, in some cases to ban their use entirely, and in some cases to extend the prohibition to the homes of Christians.

Honesty demands also that we recognize that at times the casuistry of the Holiness Movement has tended to be little more than a conservative reaction to social and technological change. Each new social form, and each major new invention, has tended to set off a rash of negative mandates. In too many cases, however, those who spearheaded the resistance to this-or-that new invention (and we forego to mention any of these) found later that the clock cannot be turned back easily, and that it is impossible to 'uninvent' anything. The usual history of those who reacted to new inventions in terms of 'never,' or 'no child of mine,' has been that later they became less vehement in their position, finally became muted in their opposition, and frequently they eventually adopted the new device in question.

Much that has been said to this point has had to do with the temptations which have confronted members of the leadership in the circles of the Holiness Movement, especially those whose ministry offered wide opportunity for the making of public statements of a casuistic nature. The discussion would be incomplete without some positive guidelines for the application of a Christian casuistry. We would propose the following in this connection:

1. There is demanded a careful discrimination at the point of what issues are abidingly crucial, and which are transitory.

2. Any true casuistry must recognize the ambiguous nature of human relationships, and the provisional (temporary) nature of many concrete situations to which we must speak.

3. The real problem in casuistry, as an applied discipline, is that of making the transition from love (which is the core of the life of sanctity) to justice.

4. The technological dynamics of our civilization are such that there is increasing need for moral and ethical living, as opposed to mere living according to received patterns and traditions.

5. The progressive elaboration of an ethic for those who will live "soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world" (Titus 2:12) will demand certain very definitely informed attitudes upon the part of those who undertake it.

II

It is time to note some of the living issues which confront the one who will embody the life of sanctity in our time. Realism demands that the life devoted to godliness be lived within the context of responsible participation in our world, with all of its ambiguities and its hard-nose problems. These problems are legion, and many of them are inescapable. The ''sensitive saint'' (and can there be any other kind?) dare not sweep under the rug the disturbing fact that for over a century since the Civil War, multitudes have been being saved, and many also sanctified wholly, in wide areas of our society in which nevertheless systematic efforts continue to be made to exclude from adequate participation in public life over eleven percent of our population upon the basis of skin color. Not only so: but those professing Christian grace (some at a very high level) continue to justify racial discrimination, or more hypocritically, to practice it in the name of "good business."

The so-called 'sexual revolution' promises a continuing confrontation between accepted practice and the sensitive Christian conscience. Medical research-and how much we owe to this-progresses apace; and within five years potential parents will face the free choice, whether or not to permit a pregnancy to continue to full term. Do-it-yourself measures for the "harmless" termination of pregnancy (and we doubt whether this can ever be without some serious damage, whether to the body or to the psyche) are not far away, and your children must live in a world which will be highly permissive at this point. The sensitive Christian must grapple with this problem.

The author professes to" have no final answer here, but inclines to believe that no creative solution can be found until at least two factors be given full recognition: first, that the prevention of conception is qualitatively different from the termination of a pregnancy, however early; and second, that society has as heavy a stake in setting safeguards around the life of the unborn as it has in protecting the lives of its visible citizens. It would seem that while the artificial regulation of conception (by medically approved means) is increasingly recognized by realistic and sensitive Christians as permissible, the arbitrary termination of a pregnancy already begun (except possibly a pregnancy occasioned by violent assault or incestuous relationship, or clearly jeopardizing the health of the prospective mother) is to be reprehended. This issue will call for some hardheaded discussion and Spirit-guided decision in the days ahead.

The problem of sexual deviation seems to mushroom, possibly in part as a result of the "James Bond (007) Mentality," and (more probably) due to the loss of the image of masculinity among many males. A 'world affirming' Church-ism seems to be working hand-in-glove with a sentimental scholarship to assure us that homosexuality is no more a fault than being left-handed. National and state legislation seems likely to follow this wrongly-personalistic trend. The Christian conscience must be increasingly concerned, at the very minimum, with protecting the insecure and immature in our society (some of whom may be pushed either way-i.e., into normality or into deviation) from the hard-core and congenital deviate.

Advocates of the doctrine and life of Scriptural Sanctity have been slow to articulate the problem posed by our innate humanness in the light of our Lord's words in the Sermon on the Mount which shift the locus of adulterous or fornicative irregularity from the overt act to the leering look. Admittedly our human structures are such that our Lord's words impose a heavy (sometimes a punishing) load upon the male half of our race which is responsible for the initiating of the sex act. This is not always understood by either men or women.

Our elder and saintly brethren who distinguished themselves by their preaching upon dress (usually that of the ladies) do not deserve our scorn, for they attempted, in however limited a fashion, to grapple with this problem a generation ago. We are called to a more fundamental dealing with this question. Minimal to this must be: 1) a recognition of the wrong-headed role of the fashion industry in this regard; and 2) a fuller appreciation of the fact that we are in a world which (as Pitirim Sorokin is quoted as saying) subjects the average man to several sexual stimuli every waking hour, and that it is not what enters the eye, or what rises from our humanness to meet it, but the basic attitude with which our inner nature, gripped by the power and presence of the Holy Spirit, deals with the stimulative-data that is decisive for our sanctity. We will, it seems, live for a long time in an aphrodisiac world; and it will be no simple task to 'walk in white' in the midst of its tar buckets and smudge-pots.

The man or woman who seeks to live the life of sanctity must recognize the problem posed by affluence in our society. We can no longer afford the luxury of such oversimplifications as are encased in such expressions as, "After all, property and money are mere things." In reality, property is an institution, belonging ultimately to God, and is in 'no case held unconditionally by man. Haggai reminds us that His are the silver and gold (Hag. 2:8), while the Psalmist remarks that He possesses "the cattle on a thousand hills" (Ps. 50:10). Not only so, but man derives property and wealth from the people, as well as from a Divine hand. Thus all property is derived from sources and is acquired under conditions which the owner has not himself created.

We never get beyond the need for correctives to a steel-tipped sense of ownership, and need constant reminder that the selfish use of property is under God's judgment-whether it be by state or by individual, whether by sinner or saint. The Christian may well find that a certain amount of ownership contributes to a sense of dignity and a feeling of security; but no person can in this life get beyond the potential peril of judging a man's life in terms of "the abundance of that which he possesses."

The Christian striving for practical sanctity must come to grips with the problems involved in family life. The family is increasingly jeopardized by the growing prevalence of extra-marital sex relations, and of perversion of all kinds, this latter being the more grievous as deviation fails to be regarded as such, and/or is defended as part of the norm. The Christian must recognize that the problem of the right relation between man and woman not only lies at the very heart of society and civilization, but touches very intimately the holy life.

We grant that the home is sometimes made the scapegoat for the ills of out society. In reality social conditions themselves have contributed largely to the decadence of the home. But we maintain that the Christian home should and can surmount its environment and serve as a standard and judge for all that surrounds it. Be it remembered that no institution, even the home, can hope to survive if it makes a final adjustment' to society.

Marriage is shored up by the seventh commandment. This "Thou shalt not commit adultery" (Exod. 20:14), and the words, "What... God hath joined together let not man put asunder" (Matt. 19:6), are not the pronouncements of an oriental despot, but are words written deeply into the nature of man. The home is designed to be the creative channel for the expression of the sex urge. This Pauline declaration is not a low view if we take into account the ability of sex within marriage to lift, ennoble and enrich human life. But this can never be unless the Christian give full recognition to the unitive or henotic role of the sex relation, set superbly in the words, "the two shall become one flesh" (Mark 10:8, NAS).

Such a view will highlight the corrosive effects of extra-marital intimacy, and lift into prominence the superficiality of the exotic 'love talk' of the societal dropouts, currently called hippies or flower-people. It is by no means astonishing that many of the Haight-Ashbury group of San Francisco are going home to recover from hepatitis, impetigo, and venereal disease. The normal and God-given relation of intimacy between man and wife exacts a fearful toll when exercised with the irresponsibility which all extra-marital use implies.

Not only must the responsible saint recognize this in the abstract; but he or she is under heavy obligation to project, in reasoned and structured and non-squeamish manner, to the young the high legitimacy of sexual intimacy within marriage, and the destructive and erosive character of extra-marital sex. It is the measured judgment of this author that the people of the Holiness Movement are still seeking a constructive and creative sexual ethic.

The picture is by no means entirely dark and forbidding. Many have cherished the example of parents who, however limited their resources with respect to overt education at this point, flaunted before us as children their lifelong fidelity to each other. And how deeply we are indebted to those who showed us, somewhere along the way of life that purely physical intimate relations are no substitute for those more comprehensive relations between man and woman (including physical intimacy) which grow out of a love-related union, or who dangled before us the charm and challenge of the "special song" which resounds in the heart of the' truly married.

Finally, the sensitive Christian lives in tension between two moralities: 1) the "morality of perfection's challenge"; and 2) the "morality of my public responsibility." The "morality of perfection's challenge" is absolute, yet open toward persons-since it demands forgiveness on a vast scale toward those whose offense is merely personal. The "morality of my public responsibility" is incomplete, pragmatic, but closed, in the sense that at times it demands conclusive and firm judgments. In this connection, we must guard against two dangers: 1) that of reading off God's will too easily; and 2) the sentimentalization of our public obligation. We must live with this tension, for it is only if we make full and complete peace with the world that it will vanish-and this price is too high!

Light is cast upon this problem by a letter written by the parents and kin of a young Korean lad, In Ho Oh. Parts of the letter are as follows:

Pusan, Korea (1958)

Director, Philadelphia Red Cross

Dear Sir:

We, the parents of In Ho Oh, on behalf of our whole family, deeply appreciate the expressions of sympathy you have extended to us at this time. In Ho had almost finished the preparation needed for the achievement of his ambition,, which was to serve his people and nation as a Christian statesman....

When we heard of his death, we could not believe the news was true but now we find that it is an undeniable fact that In Ho has been killed by a gang of. . . boys whose souls were not saved and in whom human nature is paralyzed. We are sad now, not only because of In Ho's unachieved future, but also because of the unsaved souls and paralyzed human nature of the murderers.

... It is our hope that we may somehow be instrumental in the salvation of the souls, and in giving life to the human nature of the murderers. Our family has met together and we have decided to petition that the most generous treatment possible within the laws of your government be given to those who committed this criminal action.....

In order to give evidence of our sincere hope contained in this petition our whole family has decided to save money to start a fund to be used for the religious, educational, vocational and social guidance of the boys when they are released. . .

About the burial of the physical body of him who has been sacrificed; we hope that you could spare a piece of land in your country and bury it there, for your land, too, is homeland for Christians. .. We hope in this way to make his tomb a monument which will call attention of people to this came. We think this is a way to give life to the dead, and to the murderers, and to keep you and us closer in Christian love and fellowship.

We are not familiar with your customs and you may find something hard to understand in what we are trying to say and do. Please interpret our hope and idea with Christian spirit and in the light of democratic principles. We have dared to express our hope with a spirit received from the Gospel of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who died for our sins.

May God bless you, your people, and particularly the boys who killed our son and kinsman.

Signed by the father and mother of In Ho Oh, also
two uncles, two aunts, five sisters, two brothers and
nine cousins. (Printed by permission from Christianity
and Crisis, July 21, 1958)

Here we have it in combination: the "'Morality of Perfection's Challenge" in the free forgiveness, the plea for minimum sentence, and the offer of rehabilitative help for the killers; and the "Morality of Public Responsibility" which recognized that the demands of public justice must be met and the conditions for public order sustained. And who can deny that the spirit of perfect love, and its concomitant of humility, underlie this letter?

III

In the light of the issues raised in this study, one asks, Is there a sufficiency for these things? Ponder the promise, "If any man lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him" and St. Paul's private assurance, "My grace is sufficient for thee." For, dear Friends, our dark world needs lights, needs them desperately!

We have a message-it is, we are persuaded, as changeless as God Himself. But it has little worth as a museum piece. The God of Peace, the universe's Holy Sovereign, has been in the business of building saints for a long time saints who could live adequately in their times. We are persuaded that He stands available, with full resources in hand, to build in our demanding age a type of strong, clear-thinking and fearless saint, fully saved and adequately equipped to weather creatively the growing ferocity of the moral storm of even this day, and who will be, when the tempest is over, standing majestic and unbent and unscarred against the eternal sky.