ERADICATION VERSUS INTEGRATION

A -- OUTLINE

Introduction

The human mind is easily taken in by the novel, the spectacular, or that which seems to be miraculous. There is a place for these things, but we should not worship at their footstool. That which is old in terminology, or in any other field, should not be discarded unless we are sure that we really gain thereby.

There are those who in their search for that which is new or different think that they have found an excellent substitute for the phrase entire sanctification in the term integration. This, as we shall see later in this paper, is not the case. If we are really eager to present something unusual in connection with this experience of entire sanctification, let us really live it. This will impress those about us more than any new terminology which we may use. There is nothing so convincing as the logic of life.

I. Integration Defined

The central thought involved in integration is unity. It "is the process by which activities of any sort become organized." Integration was first a mathematical, next a biological, and then a psychological term. It came into psychology by way of J. B. Watson's materialistic behaviorism. In every sphere it has referred to oneness, or unity; and from the standpoint of origin, it is just as materialistic as eradication. As G. W. Allport says: "Personality, for Watson, is synonymous with the integration of an individual's manual, visceral, and laryngeal habits." No doubt integration has moved away from its etymological significance, but it has certainly not outclassed eradication in this respect. In fact, it does not have as good a record in this respect as eradication.

II. Integration a Dangerous Substitute for Entire Sanctification

Integration carries with it an inadequate conception of the sin nature. It gives us the Greek, or negative, view of depravity rather than the positive, or Hebrew, conception. Sin for it is just a deprivation and not a depravation, a lack of organization, or unity. It is not something which is essentially bad in itself, but rather just an immaturity, or lack of development. Sin, therefore, consists in being unorganized, incomplete, undeveloped, or ununified. This is a rather tame view other great Christian doctrine.

Again, entire sanctification is a supernatural crisis, while integration as understood in psychology does not rise above the level of the natural or that which is gradual. Further, in entire sanctification we have integration by subtraction, or by the eradication of sin, rather than integration by addition, or development, which is certainly the usual connotation of integration.

An added argument against using integration for entire sanctification is found in the fact that the former is a psychological, scientific, descriptive, quantitative, or behavior word, while entire sanctification is a philosophical, theological, normative, value, qualitative, or conduct term.

III. Integration May Be Either Good or Bad

Integration may be about a bad or a good motive. In other words, it may come about by the pursuit of either a bad or a good goal. The contrast is not, as some clearly imply by their misuse of integration, a weak, or unintegrated, character as over against a strong, or integrated, character; it is rather a weak character as over against a strong character -- which can be either bad or good. Thus an integrated person may be a devil or a person who is sanctified wholly, according to the motive around which his life has been integrated. One can resist God until he obtains the peace of death; and when he has arrived at this state, he has an integrated personality -- but he is far from being entirely sanctified.

The pastor of a church in one of the larger denominations in a certain university city tells about helping a young lady to integrate her life. She had been reared in an old-fashioned Christian home, and when she finished high school she went away to the university in the city where this minister was pastor. The liberal teaching of her professors brought on a conflict in her life between her home training and that at the university. She was on the verge of a nervous breakdown, and what might easily have resulted in insanity, when she went to the pastor for advice. He told her there was nothing to her home training, and she gave it up, accepted the liberal views of her professors, and, according to him, found peace, sanity, and integration -- but not entire sanctification.

Conclusion

It is one thing to be integrated, but it is quite another to be integrated around the proper criterion, or standard. The person who is sanctified wholly does possess the highest type of integration, but the former and the latter are never to be identified; for there can be integration on the level of the lowest values. Allport points out in his great book on personality that religion does give us the most comprehensive philosophy of life, but it does not give us the only philosophy of life. There are many other unifying philosophies of life.

B -- MAIN BODY TEXT

The human mind seems to be especially fascinated by that which is novel. This is proved by the fact that new religious movements, no matter how irrational or unethical they may be, always catch some people. This craving for the novel is no doubt akin to the longing for the miraculous or spectacular. Please do not misunderstand us here. There is a place for the novel and the miraculous, and even for the spectacular; but we certainly should not make a god of them. Changes should be made only after we are sure that we shall gain something thereby. The old and accepted in terminology is not to be exchanged for the new unless we are convinced that some benefit will accrue.

Often we meet those who insist that they want new ways for presenting this old truth of entire sanctification. Integration, they tell us, gives us this opportunity; it is a psychological term in good repute with the best thinkers of the day, and yet it signifies just what takes place when a person gets the second blessing. This, we shall see later, is not the case. However, let us emphasize here that the best way to get the novel and the spectacular is to live the blessing every day. If we live it, really exemplify the Sermon on the Mount and the thirteenth chapter of First Corinthians, we shall stand out in the community where we live. People will take note of you if the self is really dead and you are living for God and others. It was Phillips Brooks who said, "Do not ask for the power to work miracles. Ask God to make a miracle out of you." This certainly will be true of anyone who gets the blessing of entire sanctification and lives it. You will be a novelty and will not need to seek for the miraculous or the spectacular in terms of anything else.

Next we shall present a definition of integration. It is taken from the glossary of psychological terms which are given in Vaughan's text on psychology, and reads as follows: "Integration is the process by which activities of any sort become organized."

The outstanding thought in this and other definitions of integration which might be given is that of unity or co-ordination. Let us keep this fact in mind as we proceed to a consideration of the origin or etymological meaning of this word. Allport has this to say about integration: "The original significance of integration is best understood by referring to the cell theory of biology. The initial fact is that a human body contains about ten trillion cells, over nine billion of which are found in the cortex. Somehow out of this bewildering array of elements a relatively unified and stable personal life is constructed. The single cells cohere in such a way as to lose their independence of function. From the many there emerges the one; the motto implicit in integration is e pluribus unum.

"Even though a person's life exhibits contradictory trends, even though the unity is never complete and final, it is nevertheless obvious that the number of totally independent qualities is not very great. Probably only a very few specific segmental reflexes remain unassociated with the complex activities of that great integrative organ, the cortex. Within this organ the links and combinations are of such profusion that every function seems joined in some way and to some degree with almost every other function." (G. W. Allport, Personality, A Psychological Interpretation; New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1937, p.138; used by permission.)

Integration started out as a mathematical term. Then it passed over into biology, as this quotation from Allport indicates. After this it came into psychology first through the behaviorists, who were wholly materialistic. In a footnote Allport gives us these words: "V. M. Bechterev (General Principles of Human Reflexology, trans. 1932), and J. B. Watson (Psychology from the Standpoint of a Behaviorist, 1919), are two writers who regard personality, above all else, as an integration of separate reflex arcs. Bechterev holds that the combining of reflexes is the only guide needed, and Watson speaks of the reflex level of functioning as occurring first in infancy, followed, through virtue of integration, by the conditioned reflex level and by the habit level. Personality, for Watson, is synonymous with the integration of an individual's manual, visceral and laryngeal habits." (Allport, p. 139.)

But someone may ask why this discussion of the relation of the word integration to mathematics, biology, and behavioristic psychology. For the express purpose of pointing out the fact that integration has a decidedly materialistic origin and background. And even though it now is used in other types of psychology than the behavioristic, its etymological significance must not be ignored by those who are anxious to exchange eradication for it because of eradication's etymological grounding in that which is materialistic. Why trade a word for another one because of its materialistic background when the term for which it is traded is just as materialistic, if not more so? Still, some may urge that, as they use integration, it refers to unity on the psychological or personal level and not mechanical unity or the oneness of physical parts or cells. This we would not be at all inclined to deny. However, we would hasten to state that the meaning of eradication has moved just as far from its etymological significance as integration has. This will have to be admitted unless present-day usage is ignored altogether.

With the preliminaries over, we shall proceed to indicate the futility of attempting to replace the phrase entire sanctification with the term integration. Integration is a dangerous substitute for eradication because it implies an inadequate conception of sin. It carries with it the Greek concept of sin rather than the Hebrew. For the former, sin is just a lack; while for the latter, it is a positive something within the soul. In the first instance, sin is just a deprivation; while in the second, it is a depravation. It is easy for the integrationist to think of sin as immaturity, lack of development, "the tail of progress," or "holiness in the green," or as some would say, "Sin is just moral growing pains," which we will slough off when we become integrated in personality. This is what we are easily led into if we follow the "psychological frame of reference" instead of the Biblical or theological.

In other words, integration implies that sin is a negative principle instead of a positive principle, as Wesley and Paul taught it to be. Curtis, in his Christian Faith, seems to have fallen short at this point. He appears to make sin in the heart of man nothing more than a lack of organization. Entire sanctification, then, would be nothing more than the complete organization of man's moral self. As one writer, following Curtis, states it: "From the psychological frame of reference then, eradication may be defined as that act of God which exhausts a common disarrangement of man's moral motivation, made possible through a consecration of the total person to God on the condition of faith."

Integration is the organization of the unorganized, the completion of the incomplete, the development of the undeveloped, the unifying of the ununified. Sin, therefore, consists in being unorganized, incomplete, undeveloped, or ununified. This makes sin rather tame. It is difficult to understand the death of Christ in the light of such a view, the place that the Bible gives to the terribleness of sin, and the blackness of the human heart as manifested in the deeds of men during two world wars. In this connection, it is well to remember that John Wesley and Daniel Steele after him have warned us that the first and most dangerous step toward heresy is a false or inadequate view of sin. Belief that man is born with a positive bent toward sin is the most important differentiation between Christianity and heathen religions, according to Wesley. To accept, therefore, any interpretation which belittles sin is exceedingly dangerous.

There are two other differences between integration and entire sanctification which we must mention in this connection. They follow from or at least are closely related to what we have set forth above. Entire sanctification results in an integration of personality which comes, not by growth or development, but rather by the eradication of the contrary principle of sin, with which every part of Adam's fallen race is afflicted. It is a unity which comes about by means of subtraction instead of addition. Along with this, we must remember that the organization of personality which comes about by entire sanctification is caused by a supernaturalistic crisis, a divine intervention, and not by a naturalistic process. Thank God, it is cataclysmic rather than evolutionary.

But this is by no means all that can be said against substituting integration for entire sanctification. Integration is a psychological, scientific, descriptive, or factual term rather than a theological, philosophical, normative, or value word. It is interested in behavior and not in conduct. It is amoral and, therefore, studies that which is mental, regardless of whether it is good or bad. To put it another way, integration is a quantitative and not a qualitative term. On the other hand, entire sanctification is just the opposite. As a word, it is pre-eminently theological, philosophical, normative, or qualitative in character. It is moral or ethical and is significant for character and conduct. It is never merely behavioristic in meaning. All of these differences between integration and entire sanctification indicate that it would be difficult for the former to take the place of the latter. This will be evident constantly as the discussion continues.

Unity, as we have already stated, is the central thought involved in integration. From the standpoint of integration, this oneness may be built up about either a good or a bad motive. Too many who have wanted to use it in connection with entire sanctification have incorrectly assumed that it could arise only in alliance with a good motive. This is certainly not justified. This integration must "always take place in respect to something," and this something may be either good or bad. These facts are excellently stated by Mr. J. Lowell George in the following words: "A popcorn ball may be integrated in that the popcorn particles form the unity by adhering to a sticky compound. But this is not the case with personality. For the individual, there must be an objective which will so challenge the whole being as to draw out inherent power, and develop every capacity possible, of the intellect, emotion, and will in the pursuit of the goal toward which the individual has set himself. The goal may be evil or good, but the pursuit of the goal makes for personality integration." (J. L. George, "The Relation of Entire Sanctification to Character Development"; a thesis submitted to the Nazarene Theological Seminary faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Divinity. Used by permission; page 53.)

Mr. George substantiates his position on this point by two quotations from authorities. The first one deals with the man of strong character and reads thus: "He possesses the attitude of a master, not of a slave -- a dominating, ruling, directing attitude, which uses both impulses and circumstances as amenable to his own purposes, and makes them his tool. There is a calculation, a deliberateness about him which the creature without character has not got. He may be a good man or a bad man, but he will be masterfully good or bad. He may indulge his evil impulses as the 'other fellow' does; but if so, it is with deliberation and set purpose. He may also restrain his impulses; but if so, it will not be out of a weak fear of being caught, or a dread of unpleasant consequences, but out of deliberate policy and set purpose, because he has an object in view . . . These principles may be good or bad, right or wrong. But there they are; and it is due to their presence that he is what he is, and consistently what he is." [A. Fitzpatrick (ed.), Readings in the Philosophy of Education, New York: D. Appleton, Century Co., 1936, p.375; used by permission.] No one can deny that we have here the picture of an integrated personality; and it is clearly brought out that this personality can be unified around either good or bad motives.

Mr. George also gives another quotation which is even more significant as a proof of the nonqualitative character of integration. Here it is: "The alternative to an integrated life that issues in integrity is not necessarily the loose and vagabond living we have been describing. A person can become powerfully unified on an ethically low level, around unworthy aims. Integrity is impossible without integration, but integration does not necessarily issue in integrity. Napoleon was not a 'good' man, but he was a potent personality with immense capacities for sustained concentration. Someone called him 'organized victory.' To an extraordinary degree he got himself together, focused his life, achieved centrality in his purpose. Psychologically speaking, he was usually all of a piece. He illustrates the puzzling differences between a strong personality and a good one." (H. E. Fosdick, On Being a Real Person; New York: Harper Brothers, 1943, p.39.)

Thus we see that "public enemy number one" may be a well-integrated person. The same may be true of any notorious criminal. The devil has an integrated personality, and so does the man who has committed the unpardonable sin. Integration may come about by the organization of one's whole life around the self or the "old man of sin."

One writer discussing "A Rest for the People of God" has this to say: "God's peace comes as His gift. Try to buy God's peace and the universe says, 'Thy money perish with you.' Try to lie your way into peace by an outward profession inwardly denied and the only peace you get is the peace of spiritual death. And before you reach that point you will have to pass through the tortures of the divided personality, the sorrows of a tangled soul." The person who has obtained the "peace of death" has an integrated personality, but he is far from being wholly sanctified.

The pastor of a large church in a city where a state university is located preached on the second coming of Christ. The whole sermon was built around the plight (according to him) of a young lady who had come to the university. She was on the verge of a nervous breakdown due to a conflict between her old-fashioned religious training at home and the liberal teaching of the university. The liberal preacher tells her story thus: "In childhood she was taught that Christ was coming 'on the clouds of heaven' 'most any day; that the world would come to an end; that the faithful would be caught up into endless bliss while the sinful would be cast into a lake of fire to burn forever. She was not allowed to go to a movie or a stage play, not permitted to dance or play a game of cards the way her friends did because, as her mother would always say, 'You would not want Christ to catch you doing any of those things when He suddenly appears in the clouds of heaven, would you?'

"When she came to this university Mother was no longer present to restrain her. She started using her student passes to attend the excellent plays given in the university theater; she saw a few movies and even went to a dance at the union. Then it was that the emotional conditioning of childhood began to play havoc with her peace of mind. She was indeed in a fair way to lose her mind. I shall here relate the line of instruction which set her free."

The line of instruction which this liberal preacher gave this young woman constituted his sermon on the Second Coming. In it he majors on the Millerites and many extremists on the Second Coming. He tells about many who have been mistaken on the subject and even includes the Apostle Paul in that number. The upshot of his whole discussion was that Jesus would never return to this earth.

Then the preacher adds: "When I had finished telling my student friend what has been here set down, she heaved a sigh of relief and her face was alight with a beautiful smile of hope." In other words, she gave up her old-fashioned faith and accepted the modernistic view of religion and the internal struggle ceased. She became an integrated personality, and "today she is poised and radiant in her new-found freedom." This case of integration of personality is surely not akin to the experience of entire sanctification. Integration can be around either a good or a bad motive.

In line with all that has been set forth above, let us quote again from Mr. George's thesis. He has two more paragraphs which are closely related and relevant to the problem which we are considering. His words are as follows: "Integration is clearly a major criterion of successful personal living, but integration itself needs a criterion. The normal person is striving to get order and symmetry into his make-up. Human life at its best is centered around the highest ethical and spiritual goals. To fail at this is not to have a loose and vagrant personality, for the person may be well integrated psychologically, but organized around aims 'intellectually trivial and ethically sinister.'" (George, p. 55.)

Thus "we are not simply striving to gain an integrated personality, but one that is integrated in respect to the highest ideals and purposes for which God made it, and one whose integration is sustained and bolstered by the development of character -- qualities consistent with the highest goals of life." (George, p.57.)

A person who has been sanctified wholly does possess the highest type of integrated personality; for personality in this instance has been unified about the highest possible values. However, entire sanctification and integration are never to be identified; for there can be integration on the level of the lowest values.

Lest there be someone who still thinks that we have not cited sufficient authority for the position which we have taken, let us refer to what Allport has to say on this subject. In his book Personality, a Psychological Interpretation, he clearly points out on page 226 that, while religion gives us one of the most comprehensive philosophies of life, it does not give us the only one. On this and several succeeding pages he points out the fact that there are many other unifying philosophies of life, among them the theoretical, economic, esthetic, social, and political. Further, Allport clearly implies by his discussion that one's life might be organized or integrated around the concepts of Buddhism or any other religion, as well as Christianity.