So, here is the piece:

(Quoted from Control Mechanisms in the ICC)

“The viewpoint generally fostered is that the ICC in general has changed, corrected all wrongs and that any claimed problems are not the way the ICC is any more. If a specific leader is involved, he or she must be seen as having changed unless he or she has lost his position. [When a leader has fallen out of favor, it is permitted to denigrate him or her, provide that his or her misconduct are viewed firmly in the past tense.] It must never be admitted that the ideals of the group are flawed.

Sometimes, particularly on minor issues, a leader will give permission for a problem to be admitted and allow some discussion of possible solutions. This is not a common practice. When it does occur, it will be over something like a group outing or people arriving late to a meeting. But even on such issues, the leader remains firmly in control of what topics may be discussed. An ordinary member will not be given the floor to address serious problems. Similarly, critical matters are not discussed openly, admitted to be current problems, with ordinary members freely offering options for solutions. Members who dare to speak up have been silenced and even ejected from the group.

The only exception to this practice of treating problems in the past tense is to state that the group is not committed enough, not working hard enough, not baptizing enough – this admission must always be couched in terms of the group needing to work harder to achieve its ambitions. Only issues of this type may be considered in the present tense – all others must be viewed as past tense. This exception enhances the control by the ICC leadership by pushing the members to be even more dedicated to following the leaders’ edicts.

This illusion of change helps the member avoid assessing the group. If something bad has happened then it is always in the past, it is time forgive and forget. This very way of thinking allows abuse to continue by preventing open and serious dialog amongst the members. This way of not dealing with problems also grants further power to the leadership by making the only source of change those selfsame leaders. Even leaders have been stifled in their efforts to affect changes, by higher-ranking leaders. Those who have tried have typically been fired and/or kicked out of the ICC.

Previously, anyone who spoke out against Kip’s sins faced serious retribution. Now, his serious offenses are permitted to be mentioned. But the discussions are in the past tense. The problems have to be viewed as being solved. Repentance, forgiveness and love must abound. No demand by ordinary members for serious reform may be made.

Even I, a former member, have received emails from current members to the effect that I am wrong to continue to oppose the ICC since all these problems are supposedly in the past. Since certain apologies have been made, by McKean and other leaders, then everything must be viewed as mistakes of the past. Such views illustrate my point very well: no means exists to admit and address CURRENT problems. They all have to be viewed as being things of the past.

The past tense nature of handling these issues leads to there being no meaningful evaluation of what aspects of the group cause these sorts of problems. Despite the repeated abuses of leadership happening innumerable times, it is all viewed as isolated incidents. The clear pattern of emotional and psychological abuse by leaders on the ordinary members is not taken into consideration. There is no examination into the core beliefs (or lack thereof) that lead to such events. Almost invariably, the view taken is that any problem is just some leaders’ sins and has already been fixed.

This brings me to the point of abusive forgiveness. Forgiveness is a very good thing, but it can be used for abusive purposes. Forgiveness is not just letting something go unaddressed (unless it is a trivial issue such as forgetting to do something you promised). Forgiveness serves to repair a friendship and to promote growth in the relationship. It can be abused by such things as repeatedly doing something, demanding forgiveness each time, but never meaningfully working to change. In that situation, the abuse continues and the relationship cannot grow. This is just what the ICC leadership has done.”

Richard Niebuhr  in his “Christ and Culture” addresses these kinds of questions:

• How have Christians tried to relate to culture?
• How, in their view, Christ is related to culture?

Niebuhr tries to present different perspectives on the problems of the relationship of Christianity and culture, which occurred at different times of the Christian churches. The author claims that the tension and multifaceted relationship between Christ and his followers, and culture of the people has always existed. He refers to the views of scholars of modern times, the Reformation, the Middle Ages, the Church Fathers, and directly to the New Testament authors.

Niebuhr represents five main approaches to solving this problem. However, he is aware that the real characters and personalities of Christian history can not be strictly comparable to a particular position. And in some ways, this simplification, although necessary.

Who is Christ? Initially Niebuhr defines who the Christ is, and what is a culture, which will be discussed. He refuses to talk about Christ from the point of view of one or more of the defining qualities, such as love, hope, faith. By themselves, these qualities can not give us any clue to understanding the Gospel, nor to an understanding of the New Testament Christ. But we must judge of Christ and in him the qualities manifested in the context of his relationship with God the Father and mankind, and mediation between God and man, his God-manhood. He comes to God’s creation, fallen humanity, showing them the love of God and revelation, and the revelation of Himself as God. But also, at the head of redeemed humanity, rushes to God in passionate worship, filial love and full hope. Already in this understanding of Christ is an allusion to the need to resolve the question of his attitude and culture. After all, his followers become involved with Him in such a bidirectional relationship – from the world to God, and from God to the world.

What is culture? Speaking of culture we can not limit it as something temporary or relevant only to just a part of human life. Impossible to draw a clear line, for example, between culture and the state or culture and religion. Undoubtedly in the world where Christ is important, He must become involved in the culture in some way. Culture is social, it involves human life and human relations. It is closely intertwined with the values, attitudes a person or group of people. She is very concerned about the preservation of these values. Because man can not exist without culture. Likewise, a Christian can not exist without culture. But how to exist in it in the question.

1. Does Christ condemn culture? The first answer sounds like “Christ against culture”. It is peculiar to the radical Christians. Basis for their views, these Christians are usually found in the First Epistle of John, where the Apostle contrasts with the world of God, the light and the darkness, the children of God and the devil. Outstanding representatives of this view was Tertullian, monasticism, Leo Tolstoy. They tend to sharply contrast the Christian community in which Christ reigns, and the world around them, devoted to Satan and full of all evil. It is in human civilization, they are inclined to see the root of evil and a threat to them. The civil way of life and public institutions are radically rejected. Therefore they try to distance themselves from the outside world as much as possible.

Niebuhr points to a number of this position challenges. Trying to reject the culture, they do not realize how widespread it dissemination. Man can not live outside of culture, returning to the original state. Their categorical approach to the world and human civilization does not take into account the relationship of God the Creator and His creation appropriately. They are overly inclined to oppose reason and revelation. They are prone to legalism and understated grace. On the other hand, they underestimate the depth and breadth of the influence of sin. Sin does not only act in the world, but in their own hearts and communities. At the same time, Niebuhr commends radicalism for its effort to be faithful to Christ and His gospel.

2. Does Christ embrace culture? The second answer is one at the opposite pole. It is “Christ in the culture.” Niebuhr calls Christians standing on this idea – cultural Christians. In the early period of the church in this group include the Gnostics, in the Middle Ages – Abelard, in modern times – liberal Christians such as Ritschl. These Christians are caught by human culture, as well as the Christ of the Gospel. Culture is very valuable to them and they want to remain faithful to her. But accepting Christ, they must be faithful to him. They solve this dilemma in quite simple way. They compare Christ and culture. They see in Christ the embodiment of all that is good in their culture or makes him and his teaching part of their culture. In this effort both, the Christ and His teachings, and the culture itself are distorted. From the Gospel carefully selected only those items that may be acceptable in the culture. At the same time, the cultural elements that are frankly not fit into the idealistic notion of cultural Christians, or not noticed at all, or they are made and the main manifestations of the sinful nature, the enemies of Christ and the culture itself.

The other three are average typical responses in relation to these two poles. They can not just oppose Christ and culture, and there are objective reasons for this, and at the same time, evangelical witness does not allow them to embrace culture fully.

3. Is Christ above culture? The first one sounds like “Christ above culture”. Christ is not identified and is not opposed to culture, but it is a synthesis. Representatives of this view are Clement of Alexandria and Thomas Aquinas. Clement carefully paints the rules of life and conduct in Christian culture. However, his work has many parallels with the ethical precepts of the authors of the Gentiles. Clement does not see this as a problem, but at the same time, he does not try to fully comply with them. He is trying to synthesize Greek philosophy and the Gospel revelation, Roman culture and the commandments of Christ. In philosophy, he sees the preparation for acceptance of Christ. In this respect, Christ above culture. But at the same time, Clement sees the responsibility of Christians for social life.

The greatest representative of this thought was Thomas Aquinas. His synthesis is grandiose, as the Catholic Church of his day was a grand design. That’s what Niebuhr wrote of him:

“In the developed system connects them without mixing, philosophy and theology, the state and the church, civic and Christian virtues, natural and divine law, Christ and Culture. From these disparate elements he built grand building of theoretical and practical wisdom, which, like the cathedral, steadfastly stands in the middle of streets and markets, houses, palaces and universities, symbolizing human culture. ”

For example, Thomas would not seek the laws of the state in the gospel, but will look for them in the nature of things. On the other hand he knows that the natural evidence is not sufficient for saving faith and life to the gospel requirements.

The great discovery of synthesis of thought, and especially Thomas Aquinas, was a recognition of the fact that the Creator of nature and culture is the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. “The Lord and Savior, there is one, or, regardless of what is meant by salvation apart from works, it in no way means the destruction of creation”

This leap in the direction of wholeness, the union of creation and salvation, is a great achievement and it’s also very attractive for individual Christians and for society. However, there are serious objections to the model synthesis. By combining the existing time-culture with the timeless God, we are in danger to give her a timeless quality. Thus, once erecting synthetic systems we will carefully protect it. In other words, it is difficult to avoid undue conservatism or even cultural Christianity. On the other side of the sinfulness of human culture is not included in this model, with all the seriousness of such cultural Christians.

4. Is there a paradoxical answer? Christians of the second response center is formulated as a “paradox of Christ and culture.” This answer is not as simple as not as attractive as the first. However it is more realistic. Niebuhr calls this group of Christians – dualists. But the opposition which they say is not between Christians and the world, as the radicals. They understand the problem much deeper. Their opposition – God and man, grace and sin. Sin is so terrible and widespread that it is not just the world thoroughly impressed by them, but also a Christian and the Christian community. They do not try to find a compromise with respect to rigid precepts of Christ, they do not make them a lot of some favorites, but painfully aware of the failure to implement them as outside the Christian community, and within it, while recognizing its responsibility to strive for this. Therefore, they do not distinguish between the world and the Christian Church as strictly as do the radicals. After all, in fact it is not a big deal. We can not escape the horror of sin in our community. Niebuhr writes:

” Therefore a dualist joins Christian radical, declares that the whole world of human culture of godlessness and terminally ill. And yet, there is a difference between them: the dualist knows that he belongs to this culture and can not get out of it, and that in reality God supports him in this culture, and through her, for if God is in His mercy is not would keep the world in his sinfulness, it would not exist for a moment. ”

This leads to a dualists’ view on culture. She is required both within the Christian community and beyond. In this case, its main purpose is not creative, but it is the guardian of our terrible sin and depravity, protecting us both within the Christian community and within the society of the total depravity. So the apostle Paul introduces some of the rules for Christians and encourages them to obey the authorities. Martin Luther said that, in a society, in spite of our deep desire to be guided only by the love and grace, but sometimes we have to take up the sword, use common sense and protect our rights. Otherwise, we will do more evil. This is the paradox and the tragedy of the Christian life, and at the same time, its dynamics. Dualists happily look to Christ and His great law of love and then breathe a sigh of knowing their reality, and the need for it to be considered. We can not resolve this dilemma on the ground, and even claim to a static resolution it is essentially godless because it leads man for independence from God.

In a positive attitude in the culture dualists see a natural opportunity to serve others, embodying the Christian love. But this is conservative or even passive attitude to culture. Their passion for Christ can not be achieved in this vicious world in complicity, therefore the world has to go to its end, and the culture should be abolished, and even the body needs to change. This is essential to the realization of their passion and love for Christ. Dualist longs to it wholeheartedly.

5. Will Christ transform culture? The third response can be defined as “Christ transforming culture.” Like dualists they do not try to underestimate the depth of the sin, and its spread throughout the world. But, like the Christians in the synthesis group, they do not diminish the importance of creative act of God. All that exists, all created nature – it is God’s good creation. Therefore, the nature itself can not be evil. But what is the problem? In the perversion of it. This distortion is primarily in the change of direction. Niebuhr writes:

“The word that should be used to determine the effects of the fall – is “Spoiling”. The good nature of man has deteriorated: it not evil, as something that should not even exist, but became distorted, twisted, badly directed. Man loves with the love that was given to him at creation, but he loves beings in false way, it is not in order. He wants goods with desire, which gave him the Creator, but rushes to things which are not good for him while missing real goods. ”

In this vein the essence of the redemptive work of Christ is considered. Turning the good nature again in the right direction – toward God from selfishness and self-love. That’s what Augustine says about the redemption of human nature:

“The residents of the holy city of God, which in the journey of this life live in harmony with God, fear and desire, grieve and rejoice. And as their love has right direction, all their passions are good”

And further redemption is manifested in social institutions, which are formed by the people and their relationships. Thus Christ did not destroy or opposes culture, but it converts. John the Evangelist symbolically expressed it by representing Christ’s first miracle changing water into wine.

Questions for the dialogue:

1. Of the five views expressed by Niebuhr, which one most closely matches your view of how Christians are supposed to relate to the culture around them? Why?

2. What would taking such a view look like in your context?

3. What view is most commonly taken by Christians around you?

The important question then, is what are the marks of a work that is done by the Spirit?

How should we could judge any activity and determine if it is produced by God’s Spirit or not? Edwards provides the answers from 1 John 4.

1. When Biblical Jesus is lifted up.

This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world. (2,3)

When people are interested in Jesus, respect him, seek for him and love him more then they did before – it is a true mark that the action is produced by Holy Spirit. Biblical Jesus means Jesus who was described in Bible. Jesus who came as the man, which was born from the Spirit and the virgin. Jesus who is the Son of God and the Christ. Jesus who became the only Savior for mankind, without whom we have no hope. Just Holy Spirit could lead human to this Jesus. And any false spirit could not and never will not do it. The spirit of antichrist can just draw and preach some another, mystical Jesus, who is not the Biblical Savior from sins.

2. When the Spirit acts against Satan’s kingdom.

You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. 5 They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. (4,5)

The one who is in you (Holy Spirit) is opposite to the one in the world. By “the world” the Apostle means human’s lust and corruption (1 Jn. 2:15, 16). So the Spirit which reduced people’s desire toward world sinful pleasures and honors, and instead makes them to sincere seek the God’s kingdom and righteousness is the Spirit from God. This Spirit shows to people the horror of sin and hell, waking up their conscience and compels them to look for the salvation. Satan will not drive out Satan (Mk 3:23). So Satan will never wake up the conscience, which is a God’s representative in one’s soul and will never inspire the sincere fear for sin to the person.

3. When the Bible is respected as true and inspired by God.

We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood. (6)

Here “us” means Apostles and Prophets who were inspired by Holy Spirit to bring God’s message and will in the world. The Holy Spirit will move people to have a greater regard for Scripture, moving people to regard the Bible as true, moving people to regard the Bible as divinely written. Satan will never motivate people to respect the Bible and to apply to it for guidance for their lives and salvation. He will not let them to ask answers from God’s lips. Satan does not speak like Abraham did, “They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them” (Luke 16:29). Neither will Satan speak like the voice from heaven concerning Christ, “Listen to him.” (Luke 9:35). The Spirit of Truth always leads us back to the written text of the Bible.

4. When people see the world and themselves like they really are.

This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood (6b)

Here the Spirit of God is described as the Spirit of truth who is imitated by false spirits. If the Spirit convinces person it the things which are true – this is the Spirit of truth. So if the Spirit convinces the person that there is God, who is holy and hates sin, that life is short, that there is another world, and there will be God’s judgment – this could not be a false spirit. The Holy Spirit does not ignore or gloss over or try to change the facts of our life. The Holy Spirit leads people into the light and truth, while Satan is the king of darkness and lies.

5. When people love God and love their neighbor more.

Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. (7, 8)

Almost all following verses of the chapter talks of love. He talks of love like it was the very nature of God’s Spirit. He talks of love like it’s presence in the person is the same as God’s Spirit presence. So the true love toward God and God’s people, which is based on God’s love revealed in Gospel, is really true mark of God’s Spirit work.

Yes it is true that among those who is led by false spirit could be some kind of false love as well. For example if they are hated by all other people because of some particular qualities, sure they will love and welcomed those who are similar to them in this point. But this love is based on their love toward themselves. And then it will make them even more proud of these qualities. This love is very similar to love between pirates. But Christian love always comes from God’s wonderful grace and follows along with our humbleness.

5. When people are stongly influenced by the personal example of others. Personal example plays an important role in human life and in all interactions among people whether or not the Spirit is moving. If many people begin to take action after being influenced by someone’s personal example, and if many people or many groups begin to exhibit similar thoughts and behaviors, it means nothing.

6. When the behavior of people affected by a movement seems irrational or incoherent. Edwards writes, “We are to consider that the end for which God pours out his Spirit, is to make men holy, and not to make them politicians.” The Spirit works to draw people to God and is not much concerned about appearances or outward behaviors. During outpourings of the Spirit, all kinds of people may be affected, including those who may be young, inexperienced, or unbalanced. It is very natural that some could behave unreasonably and irationally. They may break rules about behavior and act in ways that are unscriptural while being under the influence of the Holy Spirit. People remain sinners all their lives, and the corrupted nature still lives in them and affects them. The church in Corinth provides a good example of this. In Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, he points out many problems and sins in the congregation, and yet there was still powerful evidence of the Holy Spirit in their midst. God does not want us to be lukewarm. Spiritual enthusiasm is a wonderful thing. But when Spirit-driven enthusiasm comes, human corruption — the pride and passions of the flesh — may be invisibly mixed in with it. The time of enthusiasm may also be a time of dangerous, unbiblical extremes, and movements of the Spirit can bring forth good fruits in the presence of these corrupt fruits.

7. When mistakes in thinking and even satanic deceptions are present. The Spirit does not wait until people have pure, infallible doctrine in order to work in them. Many godly, Spirit-led people have exhibited incorrect teachings and practices. All saints live in a state of corruption, and until Jesus comes, the kingdom of God will coexist with evil.

8. If some people who were involved in a movement later left or even became great heretics. The presence of false teachings does not rule out the presence of truth. Great movements of the Spirit are often accompanied or followed by great errors. For example, the heresy of Gnosticism arose during the age of the Apostles. Edwards, who was unabashedly Protestant, noted that, “How great was the number of those who for a while seemed to join with the reformers, yet fell away into the grossest and most absurd errors, and abominable practices.” Even in the ministry of Jesus, among the twelve apostles there was a Judas.

I want to stop here for a moment and say that Points 6, 7, 8 were very interesting and challenging to me. I learned two important principles here. First, I learned that when mistakes, sins and heresies are present, that is not conclusive evidence that a whole movement is not inspired by the Holy Spirit. This makes me want to be very careful in making judgments and jumping to fast conclusions. As long as we are living in this present world, we cannot expect everthing to appear just black or white.

The second thing I learned is that even when the work of the Holy Spirit is clearly present, we should expect human mistakes and sins to be intermingled with the Spirit’s work. People who are moved by the Spirit may be seriously sinful, mistaken and deceived on some points. So, even in the presence of great evidence of the Spirit’s work, no one can be sure that he is above reproach. Even when God is using someone greatly, he must always be ready to repent and correct his ways.

9. When hell and God’s holy law are strongly emphasized. Jonathan Edwards is remembered for preaching on God’s wrath, judgment and hell, and some of his critics thought that he over-emphasized these things. Edwards argues that the holiness and wrath of God may be preached in order to lead people to the gospel. Preaching God’s holy law is useless without Gospel, but apart from the law the gospel makes no sense. It is perfectly reasonable for Spirit-led preachers to speak of God’s holiness and wrath to prepare the way for the gospel. But they must never do so in a cold, insincere, uncaring or flippant manner. And Edwards acknowledges that some ministers emphasize law and wrath too much and preach on other topics too little.

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world

Jonathan Edwards was a witness to and one of key figures in the Great Awakening (c. 1730-1745). During this great revival, the Holy Spirit came and worked in new and unexpected ways. This revival touched many lives and had many followers, but it had many strong opponents as well. The opponents pointed to unusual phenomena within this movement, claiming it was not the true work of the Spirit, and because of it questioned the validity of whole movement.

Very often (if not always), a great work of the God’s Spirit will be accompanied by false imitations. Phenomena which are not produced by Holy Spirit, even though they may appear to be acts of the Holy Spirit, can be dangerous and ruinous. This happened even in the earliest days of the church.

In his short book The Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God, Edwards defended the Great Awakening as an authentic work of the Holy Spirit. He described phenomena which were wrongly used as evidence against the movement, and he showed how the authentic works of the Holy Spirit could be recognized according to 1 John chapter 4 which the Apostle John devoted to this very question.

In Part 1 of the book, Edwards mentions nine “negative signs,” characteristics which do not provide conclusive evidence one way or the other of whether a movement is a true work of the Spirit. Edwards talks very specifically here, because he wanted to defend what had happened locally during the Great Awakening, but his observations are interesting and seem broadly applicable to other times and places.

Here are the first four of the negative signs mentioned by Edwards. Once again, by calling them “negative signs,” Edwards is not saying that these marks prove that the Holy Spirit is not at work. He is saying that these signs may accompany a true movement of the Spirit, but they may be found in counterfeit movements as well.

1. When people experience a dramatic change of mind and are influenced in extraordinary ways. God is very creative and powerful. He has done unexpected, marvelous things in the past and surely he will do them again. His own word in the Bible does not limit his activity, so we should not limit his activity either. An activity may be inspired by Holy Spirit even if we don’t like it and have not seen anything like it before. Quite the opposite, it is in line with God’s character to amaze people and angels. So even if people behave in ways that we have never encountered, we cannot not use their unusual behavior as evidence against the presence of the Holy Spirit.

2. Tears, trembling, groans, loud outcries, agonies of body, or the failing of bodily strength. The human soul is confined by space and time within a physical body. If someone’s soul is significantly affected by the work of the Holy Spirit, it is clear that his body may be affected as well. Realization of the truths of God’s judgment and hell, of God’s holiness, forgiveness and love are powerful enough to affect people’s physical bodies, but they are not required to do so. Edwards pleads for an open mind on this part. The presence or absence of physical side-effects does not prove that the Spirit is or is not working.

3. When the activity is accompanied by a great deal of noise about religion. When there is a lot of talk about Christianity the Bible, it doesn’t mean that the work of the Holy Spirit is going on. Edwards points out that even the Pharisees talked a great deal about religion.

4. Vivid imagination, ecstatic experiences and visions. Even without any supernatural interference, a strongly affected mind can conjure up images of Christ, of heaven or hell. Intense dreams and visions may be the work of God, but they are not necessarily so.

If we take the Bible seriously, none of these marks mentioned so far should surprise us. These signs were regarded as unusual in Edwards’ day, and when bystanders saw them during the Great Awakening — for example, what they saw highly emotional outbursts in church settings that were normally staid — some claimed it was evidence that the Holy Spirit could not be at work. But it should not surprise us if the Spirit produces dramatic reactions in people, because the Holy Spirit is powerful and creative.

I found that statement pretty interesting, and I have been personally wrestling with this issue for some time. Although many things have already been said in articles and comments on this website, I decide to write a piece about the relationship between mission and sanctification, in order to clarify these things in my own mind.

Mission has been our context for understanding the will of God in the world around us, especially with regard to preaching the gospel, raising disciples and planting new churches. Our understanding of mission is expressed fairly well in how we select passage for our conferences. First we call sinners to repentance through passages about the Samaritan woman, the paralyzed man, and the tax collectors Levi and Zacchaeus. Then we preach on the crucifixion of Jesus and sometimes the resurrection of Jesus. Then we inevitably turn to the Great Commission and passages that speak about our mission as we understand it. But we don’t say much about growing in holiness or walking in Spirit. Thus it is understood that the mission of preaching the gospel and raising disciples becomes the basic purpose and responsibility of our lives.

The mission, understood as I described it above, is truly a great purpose. It is almost a comprehensive motivator for the Christian life. The goal is preaching the gospel around the world and the subjugation of all peoples to faith. There are always people to whom the Gospel has not preached, someone who has not yet received an invitation to discipleship. This desire to reach new people and raise new disciple does provide us with a dynamic life.

The person who truly accepts this sequence — repentance, gospel faith and mission — can no longer see his life apart from this mission. The mission defines his ministry and determines how he treats the people around him, especially if he becomes a leader at any level. With this orientation, life outside of this mission seems pointless and flawed. If we consistently follow this thinking to its logical conclusion, then every part of life which is not dedicated to advancing this mission appears to be waste of time, and all aspects of life should be fully devoted to this mission. For example, the family becomes a house church for the raising disciples. Work becomes a means of self-support for the purpose of raising disciples.

Although we rarely talk about sanctification, we do have a similar notion as we promote continual repentance and spiritual growth. We do struggle against sins of lust, materialism, selfishness, and other things. But this repentance is usually aimed at leaving something that keeps us from carrying out our mission. To repent of selfishness and laziness means to preach more diligently and make more disciples. This kind of spiritual growth leads to greater degree of preparedness and dedication for of the mission (e.g., becoming a better Bible teacher). Our repentance and spiritual growth are designed to serve the mission and thus are secondary to the mission.

Sometimes we do reveal a deeper understanding of spiritual growth. We do want to know God and be more like Him. However, we rarely consider or discuss these apart from the mission. Mission, it is said, is the context in which we come to know God personally and grow in the image of Christ. And participating in the mission is seen as the outward evidence and fruit of knowing. Therefore, our spiritual practices such as prayer, Bible study and church activities are concentrated around the mission and not much else.

Now let’s think about sanctification. What is sanctification’s biblical meaning and value? Perhaps there is a more precise definition, but here I will define sanctification as an increase in holiness. It is to experience gradual emancipation from the domination of the sinful nature remaining in the Christian life, and to progress in accordance with the spiritual nature acquired by new birth.

In Reformed theology, the process of sanctification occupies the entire period between justification (new birth) and glorification of the saint (physical death and resurrection). Sanctification continues throughout the earthly Christian life, and it is easy to understand why this is so. The commandment that we have been given is no less than “Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.” The depravity of the human being is deep and thorough, whereas the holiness of God’s is infinitely high and wide. The goal of being released from sin and bringing your life into conformity with the holiness of God is so voluminous and ambitious that even if we were to live a thousand years, that would not be enough time to complete it, even though it would move us closer to the goal.

Who can say, “I’m holy enough?” Who can say, “I know God quite well and now am close to Him?” Who among the saints has no craving and necessity to be sanctified more? The Apostle Peter wrote, “But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do” (1Pe 1:15, NIV). Sanctification is a process that touches every single aspect of human life. If we are in Christ, then sanctification should be happening through and through. We are being sanctified in our thoughts. We are being sanctified in all our dealings with all people near and far, with believers and nonbelievers. We are being sanctified in the workplace, at home, in the church, and everywhere in between. We are being sanctified when we eat and drink, sanctified when we read books, sanctified when we are using the internet.

The process of sanctification requires constant spiritual warfare. If we are serious about our sanctification, then we find a considerable need for prayer, studying God’s word, learning from the Christian experience, communication with other believers, consultation with elders, reading books, and so on.

Sanctification is warfare, but it is also a sweet process of knowing God, being transformed into his image and displaying his glory to world. It is the process that the Holy Spirit is continually doing in us. The process is monumental. It fills the whole duration of life and gives meaning and beauty to all its spheres. Sanctification is sufficient to guide us and provide dynamic development for the individual, the church and society.

Can sanctification be regarded as secondary or subordinate to mission? In my opinion, the answer is no. Sanctification is the direct will of God. It has intrinsic value in itself. God called Israel to be a holy people in the land to which he was leading them. He gave him the law as a standard of holiness. Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, which is often called “the constitution of the kingdom of heaven,” is all about holiness. In 1 Peter 2:9, the apostle called all Christians to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation, to proclaim God’s perfection through their words and their lives. And then, in the remainder of 1 Peter, he shows us what that entails: to be holy in every respect, to follow the nature of Christ, to learn to live a holy lives in society, the workplace, family and church. Sanctification is found in so many places throughout the Bible.

No, I do not think that sanctification may be subordinated to mission. But the two are related. Sanctification contributes to the execution of the mission, and it is also produced through participation in the mission. It seems to me that mission must be subject to sanctification. As I mentioned above, Peter wanted the recipients of his letter to be holy in all respects – not to simply avoid sin, but to actively grow in holiness. And Peter is the first one to whom Jesus entrusted his mission. He is the one to whom Jesus said, “Feed my sheep.” When Jesus gave Peter and the other apostles the Great Commission, he said, “…and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you” (Mt 28:20). The Apostle Paul described his mission thusly: “We proclaim him, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone perfect in Christ” (Col 1:28). The sanctification of all people is an integral purpose of the mission.

Mission and sanctification are closely related, but they are not interchangeable. To make sanctification subordinate to mission will inevitably distort both of them.

According to the Great Commission, the mission of the apostles was to preach the gospel and raise disciples. If we understand the task purely in terms of replication – making disciples just for the sake of getting them to preach the gospel and make more disciples, who will then continue to preach and make disciples and so on, until the coming of Christ – then what has become of Christianity? Everything gets reduced to having a saving faith in Christ and living a lifestyle most conducive to continuing this cycle.

Can all of Christianity be reduced to these two steps of having saving faith in Christ and then adopting a mission-centered lifestyle? Or is there something more fundamental that God wants to accomplish in us? Preaching the gospel and making disciples is an outward manifestation of our faith. But these are not effective or pleasing to God apart from the inner reality of holiness. It is the inner fruit that prepares, enables and equips us for the mission.

To clarify what I am trying to say, consider these two alternatives. Do I grow spiritually in order to make disciples? Or do I make disciples in order to grow spiritually? To ask these questions reveals a misunderstanding. Being a disciple or growing as a disciple is no different from spiritual growth. Whether we say, “Grow as disciple to make disciples” or “Make disciples to grow as disciple,” in the end it’s the same thing. Whether we say, “Be a Christian to make Christians” or “Make Christians in order to grow as a Christian,” this definition of the Christian life becomes empty. It becomes a vicious cycle, devoid of content. All that remains is wandering in the darkness and lead others into the same darkness.

It is only when we restore sanctification to its proper place that everything begins to make sense. After justification, we must follow Christ and learn to live a Christian life. Christian character and values have their own intrinsic worth apart from mission. God conforms us to these values through the process of sanctification and then we pass these values on to others. Jesus’ words “Go and make disciples” should not be construed as “Making others capable of performing the same mission.” Rather, it is as Jesus said,” Teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you,” to restore them to completeness.

If we fail to give due attention to sanctification, then our faith becomes shallow and insipid. Moreover, the mission that we are trying to carry out loses its fundamental meaning and purpose. Focusing too heavily on the mission eventually begins to harm the mission. Evangelism and discipleship become less meaningful and reminiscent of network marketing.

I will conclude with a personal testimony to explain how these reflections grew out of my experience. For several years I was a fellowship leader, serving a student mission on campus. We regularly visited the campus, prayed, shouted slogans, sang songs, went into the dorms, preached the gospel and invited students. We were very active. This life was interesting, dynamic and sensational. There was always room to go out and preach more. There were long lists of potential sheep for whom we should pray. There were those who came and we prayed for them to change and grow. We were always inviting someone, somewhere. Overall it was a fun time, and I thank God for it.

Later, however, I became the leader of a ministry in a village where our church was located, and I served there until it left one year ago to pioneer in another place. Many interesting things happened, but I will make just one observation. In the village, a lot of people came to us. They were not like university students. They were men and women with various problems, dependencies and sinful habits. We proclaimed to them salvation in Jesus, but it was obvious that we could not make them conform to our mission plan. We couldn’t just tell them to write a testimony, repent and go out to preach and make disciples. Although it was clearly impossible to do that, I struggled to come up with a plan that was different and more suitable to them. I did not know how to organize a living and dynamic ministry that was not based on an ethic of constant missionary expansion. I even began to think that without a strong focus on evangelism and sending of missionaries, we could not be a church or educate anyone or help anyone. The problem was my poor understanding of Christianity. I did not know how to show people that, when we surrender to Christ, the conversion works in all spheres of our present lives. I did not realize the importance of sanctification in my own life or its relationship to mission, and I could not teach it in to the people who came to us. They needed to be instructed in sanctification, and mission could not fill that role.