A Biblical-Theological Review of Michael Allen's Sanctification - Part 4: Chapter Three - Creation
Chapter 3: Creation
Chapter three begins with human creaturehood. Allen rejects
Barth’s incarnational anthropology and concludes that we should “think the doctrine canonically,” and then christologically
(77). Allen then takes up the implications of “imaging of God.” He critiques four standard views of the imago dei[1]
as 1) limiting the divine image to “one facet of human existence” rather than
seeing that “it is the totality of the human that images God” (81), and 2) wrongly
regarding “similarity between humanity and God” as the primary implication of
the term image (82). Rather, the imago
dei underscores the Trinity’s “intrinsically self-communicating” nature and
highlights a) man’s difference from and b) man's dependence upon God (82). The implications
of his view of the imago dei for “thinking
sanctification” are first, creation attests to “the participatory nature of
creaturely holiness” (85), and second, “all creaturely holiness is communicated
holiness in the same way that creaturely life is communicated life” (87).
“Holiness is gift. Holiness is the generous blessing brought about … by the
Triune God, who makes himself productive of and present to the human self”
(88).
Affirmation
The simplicity and power of Allen’s
analysis of the imago dei as
necessarily implying difference and dependence
stunned me. One need not dismiss the standard analyses of this topic to
appreciate the value Allan’s insight provides. His exploration of the
implications of difference and dependence for sanctification are worth the
chapter: “When one’s existence comes from the outside and one’s identity is
centered upon another’s relation to oneself, then one’s trust surely ought to
be ec-centric as well” (89). Well put!
I also found Michael Allen’s
linking of creation and redemption particularly compelling. He argues from 2
Corinthians 4:6 and Romans 4:17 that because “the new act is likened to a great
act already completed, the new act is shown to be doable by divine standards.
If God can create why not again? If God can set things in motion, why not set
them apart? If this is the logic of the biblical reasoning from creation to new
creation, then it might apply likewise to the doctrine of sanctification”
(85-87).
Critique
First, even if we start with
Genesis 1-2 surely John 1:1-3 should be brought to bear on the question of how
creation intersects with divine holiness. God the Son is the One through whom
all creation came into being. Seeing anthropology christologically seems, on a canonical
2nd reading, therefore, to be a Scriptural way to approach the
subject. A helpful doorway into such an anthropology may be found in Dennis
Kinlaw’s theological offering, Let’s
Start with Jesus (Zondervan, 2005).[2]
Second, despite engaging
substantively with the interplay between the image of God and sanctification, Allen
left Col. 3:9-10, arguably the classic NT text on the topic, untouched. Yet, it
certainly has wealth that deserved to be mined.[3]
Creation in the image of God means sanctification involves our new man’s
renewal in knowledge after the image of Christ our Creator. The epistemological
implications of such sanctification are important. In particular, the fact that
self-presentation as a holy sacrifice (Rom. 12:1) is followed by a call for
ongoing transformation of the mind (Rom. 12:2) that is to flow out in
faith-motivated, love-guided self-conception (Rom.12:3-8) and others-orientated
affection, submission, and service (Rom. 12:9-15:7) highlights the importance
of our mind’s sanctification.
Third, to treat of creation without mentioning the only
place where sanctification occurs in the creation account seems odd. In Gen.
2:4, God sanctifies the seventh day and blesses it. I would suggest that the sanctification
of the seventh day teaches us three things about the nature of holiness itself:
1) holiness is initiated by God; 2) holiness is always separation to God, that
is, to relationship with God in some way; and 3) holiness has as its fruit the
well-being, the life, the good of the ones encompassed within it. To put a
finer point on it, we might argue that the holiness
of non-personal things is always instrumental,[4]
creating space, time, or means for personal relationship with God.[5] The instrumentality of
non-personal holiness also points to a truth about holiness of persons: God
sanctifies persons both in terms of status/position and in terms of moral
character for ultimate ends—His glory, our good, His kingdom. The end of
holiness is not fellowship with God alone but also entails service with and for
God in His eternal kingdom, where even the pots and bridle bells will be
instruments of knowing Yahweh (Zech. 14:20-21; Jer. 31:34).
Extension
Since the God we image is a tri-personal unity, we are most
like Him when we also live in others-centered unity. Holiness is, therefore,
communal, both as a descriptor of divine singularity and of human godliness.
Pushing further into the imago dei’s
trinitarian nature exposes its corporate and
communal dimensions, dimensions that keep one’s conception and practice of
sanctification from going individualistic or monastic. Individual holiness is
formed, manifested, and measured in inter-personal engagement. To paraphrase
John Wesley, there is no sanctification but social sanctification.[6] We
are renewed in God’s image primarily in and through interpersonal interaction.
We often seek to avoid such community because we think it makes us less holy,
when in fact God intends it both to reveal the distance we have to progress in
holiness (Matt. 18:15-17; 1 Cor. 1:10; 3:1-3; Phil. 4:2; Jam. 4:1-4) and to strength
our stride on the holiness marathon (Gal. 6:1-2; Col. 3:16; Heb. 3:12-13; 10:24-25;
12:12-13).
[1] The four
views he critiques are that we image God in our 1) spiritual/rational
capacities, 2) ethical character and behavioral righteousness, 3) appointed
status as God’s vice-regents, or 4) relational interdependence.
[2] Allen’s
author index suggests he is not aware of Kinlaw.
[3] See, for
example, Derek Tidball’s brief homily on this passage in Sanctification: Explorations in Theology and Practice (InterVarsity
Press, 2014), 23-32.
[4] I’m
indebted to Don J. Payne’s 2017 ETS paper “Sanctification: Neglected Aspects
and Implications” for helping me see the instrumental function of sanctifying
inanimate objects. Allen’s comment, “The Levitical
holiness code guides human practice … to set apart persons, places, and
possessions for divine indwelling” (119), opens a door to this observation, but
he doesn’t explore it further.
[5] In his
chapter on sanctification and covenant, Allen comments, “… in the Sabbath gift
of the seventh day … we see that human beings are made for life with God. And
by implication, we might say that God is intent upon sharing the triune life
with us” (95). This appears to be as close as Allen comes to leveraging the
sanctification of the sabbath in Gen. 2:30 for dogmatic reflection.
[6] This
statement is found in Wesley’s preface to the 1739 edition of Hymns and Sacred Poems. “Directly
opposite to this is the gospel of Christ. Solitary religion is not to be found
there. ‘Holy solitaries’ is a phrase no more consistent with the gospel than
holy adulterers. The gospel of Christ knows of no religion but social; no
holiness but social holiness.”
Comments