The Institutional Imperative

Warren Buffet has been acclaimed for his characteristic of the organizational phenomenon that seeks legitimacy and resists changes by mimicking normative practices of their industry. This behavior is basically an inertial resistance by organizations to any change to its current direction. This is not new to Buffet in that economist Adam Smith predicted in 1776 such constraints in organizations as managers became caretakers of organizations. In the 1950's March & Simon described rational decision making as a logic of legitimacy more than a logic of consequences. What this means in organizations is that existing practices get perpetuated not because they are the best path but because they are the established path.

The institutional imperative is not limited to commercial organizations. I find the church to be just as subject to these inertial influences. As many of you know I have been frustrated by how the church teaching has perpetuated the concept of "the process of sanctification." Theologians have declared sanctification has two meanings, definitive and progressive. Because this has been declared and accepted by mainstream theologians, preachers regularly preach sanctification in both ways, with more emphasis on the "progressive" and completely resisting any challenge to it.

I have argued that the definitive form is the only form supported both by the definition of the word sanctification and God's ordinances as expressed in Scripture. The word sanctification literally means "set apart." In Scripture this refers to God's work in and through us to set us apart for His purposes (I Thess 5:23; Hebrews 13:12; I Corinthians 1:2). John Frame labeled this definitive sanctification. However, others like Wayne Grudem have added to this a notion of progressive sanctification, that is a continual work of GOD and MAN that is an incremental spiritual work of both.

I do not find any evidence in the meaning of the word or biblical use of the word to suggest it is collaborative in any way. I Thess 4:3 has been used to support our role in sanctification. However, this implies more to our reaction to our sanctification, not our part in it. The INERTIA to make the Christian life more collaborative than God's ordinances set forth leads to a stubborn embrace of this dual notion of sanctification. Thus, the logic of legitimacy has trumped the logic of consequences. The defense of the legitimacy of these two tenets of sanctification lacks thorough examination. I am generally dismissed and simply told by preachers (and others) the difference between definitive and progressive is a nuance, not substantive.

I think this "blinds eye" to the consequences in favor of legitimacy is substantive. Collaborative meaning to any of God's sovereign acts breeds legalism and ultimately guilt and judgmentalism. To suggest that being made holy is a collaborative work of God and man places an inappropriate role on us and diminishes the power of God's Grace. While "growing in Christ" may in fact represent a legitimate experience as Christians, it is not the incremental progressive work of sanctification, it is mainly living by faith in the sanctification we already have. When God sanctifies us, we are His. It is a finished work. He doesn't need us to help Him complete it. It is not incremental. To think its collaborative and progressive exalts us.

"Growing in sanctification" implies we don't have it all yet. I don't get more sanctified by trusting in Jesus? Do I? Just like salvation and justification, I would prefer to say "growing IN OUR sanctification" which implies that we are exercising something we already have (Philippians 2:12b). I think it frustrates Christians to believe God hasn't given us all we need and we must work with Him or do something to get more of it. God's ordinances clearly sets forth that He has justified and sanctified us in His redemptive work of salvation. Our issue is not getting more sanctified but appropriating by faith sanctification we already have.

The reluctance of even reformed preachers to challenge Grudem's collaborative extension to the meaning of sanctification is an institutional imperative based on inertia of man's need to do something to make himself Holy. The consequences are much more than a nuance. The notion of "progressive sanctification" constrains the freedom and the joy of our calling to play out what God has put in us.

So, is preaching the "process of sanctification" an institutional imperative? I have yet to be given an explanation of why its not. IDK

Affectionately Yours,
The Word Nerd

Ay yi yi ......