QuakerQuaker

Primitive Christianity Revived, Again

Is ‘perfection in this life’ possible?

Doug Shoemaker, the Superintendent of Indiana Yearly Meeting, has been writing a series of ‘letters to George Fox’ that appear in the IYM Communicator. I find interest in these letters in considering whether I agree with them and also whether I think he construes George Fox in a way Fox would want to be understood. In his recent, eighteenth letter, Shoemaker addresses the possibility of human’s achieving perfection, or ‘entire sanctification.’

Dear George,

As a young man I remember quoting the words of Jesus from Matthew 5:48, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” A Quaker leader I respected a lot quickly cautioned me that none of us will attain perfection in this life. I’ve been trying to decide who I should believe, my beloved Quaker friend, or Jesus. I think I know a bit about how you felt when you often taught we are called to a level of Christian experience you called “perfection” while the rest of the church seemed to be lowering the bar to accommodate our human limitations.

In your Journal you wrote: For of all the sects in Christendom (so called) that I discoursed with, I found none who could bear to be told that any should come to Adam’s perfection, - - into that image of God, that righteousness and holiness, that Adam was in before he fell; to be clean and pure, without sin, as he was. You consistently raised the bar, calling us to a relationship with God that not only results in forgiveness from sin, but also power over sin. Holiness revivals of the 19^th century didn’t shape Midwestern Quakerism as much as they resurfaced the heart of what you called us to. “Thank you” for calling us to a transforming knowledge of God that holiness preachers later described as “entire sanctification.” Your goal wasn’t to just stumble into heaven by the grace of God. Thanks for pointing us to a better way.

-Doug Shoemaker

So what should we think? Is perfection in this life possible? Did George Fox believe it was?

0 members like this

Comment by Kirby Urner on 12th mo. 7, 2015 at 2:11pm: I agree with Patricia and it's part of the SCM (Standard Christian Model) that Divine Grace is received, not instigated or "won" by the one seeking convincement. Also by Patricia:

http://www.quakerquaker.org/profiles/blogs/convincement-or-uncertai...
I'm not saying to be convinced is to be perfected, more that the possibility of being perfect (Perfect Being) is what someone newly born into Quakerism might be convinced of. An experience of Divine Grace may be jarring and leave one feeling "less perfect than ever". But "perfect" in the sense of "complete" is not about being better or worse on some moral scale, for even the Devil is perfect in that role.

Comment by Patricia Dallmann on 12th mo. 7, 2015 at 2:43pm: Hello Kirby. I did write that grace is received through Christ. It's good to hear that you agree. I must take issue though with your stating that the link and ending paragraph is mine; it's another person's, someone whose first name is also "Patricia" but whose last name is something other than mine. "Jarring" is the last word I'd use to describe the experience of divine grace. It is rather experienced as peace that passes understanding.

Comment by Kirby Urner on 12th mo. 7, 2015 at 3:10pm: My humble apologies Patricia. I went out on the Web and Googled "Quaker convincement" and was brought right back into QuakerQuaker and thought I was reading something you'd said earlier, but I should have said: "Also, by a different Patricia:" [ URL ].

We will always suffer differences in terminology, such that some point to a disturbing experience that in retrospect woke them out of a sleep or dream, a "game changing" experience that for them was unpleasant, even felt as destructive at the time. What was "divine" about it is in came from beyond the self and welled up within, versus being just a physical circumstance, whereas "grace" has to do with its "saving power" in retrospect. So you have all this literature piling up that people point to, as transformative, that may involve weeping, repenting, and/or having deep dread.

You may wish to be more strict in your nomenclature and remove anything "Jarring" from your list of things that could be described as divine grace. That would be your right. We are not all forced to talk the same way as one another, not since the Tower of Babel at least. Apologies again for the mix up.

Comment

You need to be a member of QuakerQuaker to add comments!

Join QuakerQuaker

‹ Previous
1
2
3
Next ›

RSS

Welcome to
QuakerQuaker

Sign Up
or Sign In

Or sign in with:

Support Us

Did you know that QuakerQuaker is 100% reader supported? Our costs run to about $50/month. If you think this kind of outreach and conversation is important, please support it with a monthly subscription or one-time gift.