Category: All Articles

The Word Was Made Flesh

by Mike Avery, posted in All Articles, Holiday

–December of 1998

The Word Was Made Flesh

Christmas is the time of year that gives us an opportunity to reflect on the ageless mystery of the Incarnation.  Once again we walk into Bethlehem’s cold stable, stand alongside the shepherds, and peer down into the face of the Christ child.  As we look at this helpless little babe, we have to remind ourselves that this is the Eternal Son Who commanded the worlds to be born out of the womb of nothing.  These tiny arms laid the timbers of the universe and stretched forth the heavens like a curtain.  It is no wonder that we ask ourselves in amazement, “Why?  Why did He choose to put on the garment of our flesh and veil Himself with our humanity?  Why did the Eternal Word become flesh?”
It is not difficult for us to understand that sin had separated the Creator from His creatures.  The chasm caused by our transgression was so vast and deep that in order to bridge it there must be a mediator between God and man.  This redeemer must be human so as to identify fully with fallen man, yet divine so as to be able to satisfy fully the demands of a Holy Law.  It would take this “Lamb of God” to make full propitiation for sin and satisfy God’s holy justice.

But there is another side to the need for God to come in the flesh.  God, indeed, had created man, but He had never been a man.  He had watched men toil in the heat of the day, but He had never felt the blistering rays of the sun on His brow.  He had seen men struggle and stagger in the midst of temptation, but He had never felt the onslaughts of the evil one.  He had seen men bleed, but He had never bled.  He had seen men standing on the verge of the grave, finally sinking to its hopeless depths, but He had never felt the cold grip of death or spread His omnipotent shoulders on the bottom of a sepulcher.  How could this chasm be bridged?  It could only be bridged in the God-man, Jesus Christ.  In Christ, God could look at us with human eyes, speak to us with an earthly tongue and touch us with a brotherly hand.  In Christ, God could walk the dusty trail of time.  He could share our human existence.  He could sit by a well of water, thirsty, and hungry.  He could stand at the tomb of a friend or at the brow of a hill overlooking a city and weep for the condition of them both.  He could enter into our world, see it, and feel it through our flesh.

Steven Covey tells the story of boarding a New York subway one morning to find a pleasant group of passengers sitting quietly, reading or merely resting with their eyes closed.  Then suddenly a man and his children entered the subway car.  The children were so loud and rambunctious that instantly the whole climate changed.

The man sat next to Covey and closed his eyes, apparently oblivious to the whole situation.  The children were running back and forth, screaming, throwing things and even grabbing people’s papers.  It was extremely disturbing and yet the man seemed to take no notice.

Covey relates, “It was very difficult not to be irritated.  How could anyone be so insensitive as to let his children run wild like that and do nothing about it, taking no responsibility at all?”

Finally, Covey turned to the man and said, “Sir, your children are really disturbing a lot of people.  I wonder if you could control them a little more.”

The man lifted his gaze, as if to come to a consciousness of the situation for the first time, and said softly, “Oh, you’re right.  I guess I should do something about it.  We just came from the hospital where their mother died about an hour ago.  I don’t know what to think, and I guess they don’t know how to handle it either.”

Covey immediately saw things in a completely different perspective.  He thought differently and felt differently about the man and his children’s behavior.  Feelings of sympathy and compassion flowed freely.  He sought to do whatever he could to console this poor man and his children.  He literally entered into this man’s sorrow.

Through the Incarnation, God has identified with us completely in Christ.  He has become our Elder Brother, our dearest Friend and our High Priest who is “touched by the feelings of our infirmities.”  The “Word was made flesh and dwelt among us…” and neither heaven nor earth has been the same since.

Defining the Doctrine of Entire Sanctification

by Mike Avery, posted in All Articles, Theology

–November of 1998

Defining the Doctrine of Entire Sanctification

Definitions have become very important in American politics lately.  The American public has learned that even a simple word, like “alone,” can have a totally different meaning than its normal connotation when taken upon the tongue of one who is affluent in legalese.

Definitions have always been important to people who want to communicate with precision, as well as those who want to understand with accuracy.  We have all had the experience of listening to a speaker who used words that meant one thing to us and another thing to him.

Holiness teachers and preachers must be at the top of the list of those who strive for clarity and consistency when taking up the terms we use to communicate our Wesleyan beliefs.  In my last article I sounded a note of concern about the lack of clarity that so often surrounds the doctrine of entire sanctification.  I’m convinced that some of the confusion has its root in the failure to define accurately and adequately what entire sanctification is.

In preparing my mind for this article, I read from over twenty different Wesleyan theologians who wrote over a period of about two hundred years.  I wanted to see how each age and culture expressed this fundamental Wesleyan teaching.  It is true that each writer defined the doctrine through the language and lens of his day.  Nevertheless, all agreed on the essential elements and presented those elements with the greatest of care for his readers.  Each chosen concise and clear statements that were biblically accurate and theologically sound.

The question that naturally surfaces here is, “How did our leading Wesleyan thinkers define entire sanctification?”  It must be noted they never defined it in a detached or isolated way.  It was always placed within the over-arching goal of holy living.  Each would place it within the context of the following guidelines:

First, they defined it in the context of the holiness that God requires and enables man, by grace, to know in this life.  Holiness was generally defined as the renewal of fallen man into the image of Christ.

Secondly, they defined it in the context of man’s need, carefully defining the two-fold nature of sin.  The nature of sin was best defined as self-centeredness, selfishness or an orientation toward self.

Third, they defined it in its proper context of the over-arching doctrine of sanctification.  Generally speaking, sanctification was defined as the gracious work of God in us, through the Holy Spirit, by which He transforms us into the full image of Jesus Christ.  It involved the three aspects of initial, entire and progressive sanctification.

In finally defining entire sanctification, it needs to be noted that the term itself is very important.  It is a model term that contributes to our understanding of what does indeed happen in our heart.  Dr. Richard Taylor says, “The term entire sanctification implies a previous state of partial sanctification, while suggesting that there is a side of sanctification that can be completed just as there is a side that remains progressive.”  Each of these distinctions is important.  It must also be noted that in defining the term, it is somewhat like trying to define your hand.  It is impossible to talk about your hand without talking about your finger, your palm or your knuckle.  The finger is not the hand, nor is the palm the hand, nor is the knuckle the hand.  But, the hand must have each of these parts to be a hand.  Entire sanctification is much the same way.  There are several aspects that happen simultaneously, making up the whole of what it means to be entirely sanctified.  Taking into account the various aspects of the doctrine and striving for scriptural language, I would define entire sanctification as follows: Entire sanctification is the gracious work of god in cleansing our heart from all self-centeredness (inherited depravity) through the infilling of the Holy Spirit, whereby we are enabled to love God with our entire being and our neighbor as ourselves.

The whole point of this article is to stress the need for clarity.  But, I must also point out that the reality of a holy heart and life can only be experienced.  It cannot be known by verbal dissection alone.  It may be that time or eternity will reveal flaws in our expression and definitions.  But let it be said that we gave our best to understanding this doctrine fully and communicating it effectively.

A Clear Call to Entire Sanctification

by Mike Avery, posted in All Articles, Christian Living, Theology

–October of 1998

A Clear Call to Entire Sanctification

This year’s student body has been characterized by intense spiritual desire. Chapels and prayer meetings from the very beginning have been marked by God’s presence and much spiritual seeking. Rising out of this hunger after God is this oft-heard testimony, “I want to be sanctified wholly, but I’m not sure I understand it.” This beautiful honesty is welcomed and encouraged. It is also met with the willingness on the part of an upperclassman, faculty member, the school pastor or even me to serve as a mentor and counselor until that person has satisfied the deep longing of his heart.

However, the quest to be sanctified wholly and the subsequent acknowledgement of failure to understand what God does for a person in this work of grace is not limited to a freshmen class at a Bible college. The truth is that many sensitive, intelligent, and dedicated people often-express serious problems in understanding what it means to be entirely sanctified. They have traveled to revivals and camp meetings to hear sermons by holiness preachers, only to find them confusing and at times even conflicting. They have asked questions, but found their questions to be ignored or discouraged. In some cases, their confusion and perplexity have been met by the response, “Throw your questions to the wind and claim it now!” Admittedly, we don’t approach God with just our mind, but our heart will never rejoice in what our head rejects.

Holiness theologian and author, H. Ray Dunning, says that these frustrated seekers will tend to end up in one of three different categories if they do not find clear direction. The first is the category of those who have quietly accepted a second-class Christian walk and have given up obtaining this experience in their own hearts. Secondly, there will be those who were pushed into claiming an experience of grace for which God had not yet had time to prepare them; and, hence, they end up professing that which does not work and which they do not have. The third group is composed of those who notice a gap between what is promised and preached, and what is observed and experienced. The temptation for these is just to toss the whole thing out, as if there were nothing to it.

The confusion is real, but the blame can’t always be placed on the preacher or teacher. There are those who complain of not understanding this doctrine, but they have done nothing to enlighten their minds or feed their faith. They are corrupted by a spiritual laziness that wants quick, easy results without hungering and thirsting after righteousness.

On the other hand, the holiness pulpit must accept some responsibility for the deficiency of our teaching on entire sanctification. One of the traps that we who are preachers have fallen into is a presentation of entire sanctification that goes through the grid of our own personal experience rather than a Biblical, theological approach. Experience-oriented preaching that is highly personal can create unnecessary issues in the heart of an earnest seeker that have to be cleared up before progress can be made.

Another problem lies in the use of terms we use to describe this work of grace. One might well hear entire sanctification defined in any one of the following ways: “A death to self,” “a complete consecration,” “the perfection of love,” “a cleansing of the heart from the nature of sin,” “the baptism of the Holy Ghost,” “the rest of faith,” of just simply, “Christlikeness.” All of the above describe some facet of entire sanctification, but when used interchangeably can create confusion. We must seek concise and clear statements that are biblically accurate, theologically sound, and communicate with a great degree of precision what we want to say.

It might well be that our most serious problem in presenting this doctrine is that we have taken it out of its natural setting alongside the other great doctrines of the church. The doctrine of entire sanctification is indeed a wonderful and glorious truth. It is desperately needed by our world today. But so are the doctrine of grace and the doctrine of the new birth, and the doctrine of progressive sanctification. The goal of redemption is the renewal of fallen man into the image of God. The road of redemption that we must travel for this to happen begins with the new birth, continues naturally to the point of entire sanctification, and moves right along to the glorification of the body in eternity. In our attempt to stress the doctrine of entire sanctification, we have inadvertently demeaned other doctrines or made them appear secondary. This has created an unhealthy focus on the experience of entire sanctification, rather than the whole overarching life of holiness.

God, indeed, has called His people to holiness. We need not expect any other call. But those of us who take up that call must make sure that we give it with a clear, certain sound.

Clear Beliefs

by Mike Avery, posted in All Articles, Christian Living, Culture, Education, Theology

–September of 1998

Clear Beliefs

One political analyst characterized former President George Bush as “a good man who just couldn’t decide what he believed.” This inability to articulate strongly a set of beliefs enabled the media to paint him as a “wimp” and ultimately took him down to political defeat. It is too bad that the church didn’t learn a valuable lesson from this former president. No one wants to listen to the windy babble of a man who isn’t sure what he believes, while on the other hand people are strongly attracted to the man who can state his opinions and beliefs in clear logical terms. Unfortunately the church is often plagued by leaders who pride themselves on their ability “to almost say something.” Too many leaders seek to cultivate an ambassadorial style of communication that never ruffles anyone’s feathers. Traditionally, the holiness preacher was a man who stood for and stood against some things. You didn’t see him “bellying up” to the bar of consensus and compromise to drink his fill. Convictions were not set aside for the sake of convenience. There were places he refused to go and things he refused to do. He was known and admired for his stand on the issues. Nowadays, however, it has become almost in vogue to consent to a host of general rules and biblical principles with our mouth, only to ignore them with our lives. This duplicity is not only accepted but defended as a way to operate and keep peace.

In fairness to the pulpit, it must also be said that this is a serious problem in the home as well. Parents seem to lack the courage and commitment to communicate forcefully, yet lovingly, to their own children a belief system that will not be compromised under any circumstance.

I’m not suggesting that holiness people need simply to adopt “tough” agendas so as to appear spiritual. That direction is as deceitful as it is deadly. I am saying, however, that if we truly have a belief system grounded in the Word of God it will affect the way we live and lead. Biblical principles form convictions in our lives, and those convictions will become the moral fiber of what we are. What we are and what we believe will ultimately guide and gauge all of our actions. If it doesn’t, then something is critically wrong with our Christian experience. I believe we will have to take stands on issues where the Bible draws a line. The Bible gives us moral laws, standards for ethical behavior, as well as numerous directing principles to guide our daily lives. We cannot give intellectual assent to them and move on with our lives. True holiness demands that we allow the Word of God to impact the totality of our living.

When a culture or civilization goes as far astray as ours, it becomes easy to overlook some things as “not very significant” under the circumstances. However, those insignificant issues can be, and at times are, a first line of defense and, once lost, give way to an onslaught of all other sorts of evil. Attorney David Gibbs observed that… “any church body or denomination always makes changes in lifestyle issues prior to making changes in its theological tenets.” In other words, if we change the way we live, we will necessarily change what we believe. This is a treacherous path to trod. Instead of allowing the ancient faith to stand in judgment on us, we turn and judge the ancient faith. I believe we need to take a firm stand on the desecration of the Lord’s Day, on sexual promiscuity, homosexuality, and abortion, on social sins like using drugs, drinking alcohol, smoking and gambling. We need to warn against immodesty and worldly attire. We need to sound the alarm against the immoral values that are being piped into our homes through the arts and entertainment world. We need to speak up and courageously proclaim that Christians don’t lie, cheat, steal and defraud their neighbor. This is not a time to soft-soap our words. It is not a quiet day in Zion we need, but rather it is an earthquake followed by a thunderstorm from men who will boldly and courageously proclaim “thus saith the Lord.”

I mean to imply that everybody is capitulating. Some time ago Presbyterian leader Dr. D. James Kennedy, thundered to his large congregation, “Some of you are going to leave here and violate the Lord’s Day by eating out in a restaurant.” Jim Cymbala of Brooklyn Tabernacle fame, advises live-in couples to separate and stay that way until they get married if they really want to follow the Lord and be genuine Christians. If these men will be courageous, shouldn’t we as holiness people be clearly voicing and insisting upon a high standard of moral and biblical behavior for our people?

My heart was refreshed when I heard the story of a young man who is enrolling in our college this fall. He was the manager of a large merchandising store in the Southeast. His position commanded a large five digit salary. However, after his conversion he refused to work on Sunday and accepted the consequences of being fired from the position. I also recently learned of an elderly lady in a distant state who lived most of her declining years in near poverty conditions. After her death they found a stack of checks from the state which were to help subsidize her income and make her living more comfortable. However, those checks had not been cashed because that money came from the state lottery, and she felt that the state lottery was wrong. Here is a woman who would rather live in poverty than spend one dime of money that came from the lottery.

How can we, in good conscience, call men and women to revival when we refuse to insist upon reform in both the pulpit and the pew? I believe the biblical portrait for revival always includes and demands both repentance and reform prior to any outpouring of God’s Spirit.

What a man believes is important. You will ultimately live out what you truly believe. As men and women of God within the holiness tradition, we need to start living out what we say we believe.

Thoughts on Thinking

by Mike Avery, posted in All Articles, Christian Living

–Summer of 1998

Thoughts on Thinking

“I’ve been thinking quite a bit lately… and that usually gets me into trouble.” This offhanded comment by a young man drew hearty laughter from our student body in a recent public assembly. But as the laughter abated, I began to reflect on his statement. Why should thinking be a dangerous exercise? Is there something inherently treacherous about using one’s mind?

Someone has said, “It is difficult to think; it is more difficult to think about thinking; but it is most difficult to write or talk about thinking!” Although the task may be challenging, let us consider what the Bible has to say about thinking.

First of all, God’s Word clearly indicates that man is capable of thinking; he does have a mind. This may seem like a silly point to make, yet a predominant view in many secular colleges and universities is that what appears to be reflective thinking in man is actually a sequence of voluntary nerve impulses that are following prescribed circuits traced out over time by the natural process of evolution. There is no “mind” that transcends the electrical currents dashing to and fro throughout the “gray matter” called a brain, many contemporary philosophers insist. Thus, in an evolutionary world-view, man is stripped both of his mind, and, of course, the responsibility that goes along with it, such as making moral choices. It is mildly ironic, if not humorous, for one to be in the position of arguing with tightly-knit logic that he or she does not, in fact, have a mind and is not actually thinking! But when the Bible presses the seal of “God’s image” upon mankind, inherent in that lofty bequest is the gift of a mind that is capable of real, meaningful thought.

Secondly, Holy Scripture clearly indicates that God expects His children to think. Jesus’ parable of the talents points out the fact that we are responsible to use wisely all that we have been given, be it great or small. Certainly, this includes, among other things, the diligent use of our God-given minds. Sadly, in recent years, the Christian community at large has not always been perceived as a thinking people. This is partly due to an unfair stereotype that depicts Christians as “behind the times” and “out of touch,” because of our sharp opposition to the man-centered ideologies that have embedded themselves within the moral fabric of our society. But on the other hand, there are sometimes valid reasons why stereotypes are formed in the first place; and, sadly, too many Christians have taken the position that “thinking is dangerous,” that the acquisition of knowledge is somehow antagonistic to the values and ideals of the Church, and, therefore, should be shunned. However, Biblical injunctions such as Paul’s charge to Timothy to “study to show thyself approved unto God” (2 Tim. 2:15) soundly contradict any notion that Christians should “check out their brains at the door.”

Finally, the Bible does make it clear that it is wrong thinking, not right thinking, that is dangerous. Eve was thinking when the hue of the forbidden fruit was reflected in her eyes. But she was thinking wrongly, and the results were tragic. It was a sequence of thoughts that led King David to place Uriah in harm’s way in an attempt to make murder look like an accident. But they were the twisted thoughts of a fallen man. Whatsoever things are true, honest, just, pure, lovely, praiseworthy, virtuous – think on these things, the apostle admonished (Philippians 4:8).

There is only one defense against the treacherous shoals of misguided thinking; that is for the sailor on life’s sea to continually adjust his intellectual compass in accordance with the steady beam from the lighthouse of God’s inerrant Word. In the beam of the lighthouse there is moral, ethical and intellectual safety. Apart from the constant beam, thinking can indeed be dangerous.