The Complete Green Letters

by Miles Stanford

INTRODUCTION

Miles Stanford’s book, The Complete Green Letters, published by Zondervan in 1983, is an exploration of a believer’s identity in Christ. The theme of Stanford’s work is that all spiritual growth rests on a believer’s status as a new creation living positionally in Christ. The author provides a topical examination of spiritual growth by first uncovering the implications of a believer identifying the new self in Christ and then, in part two, excavates the connections between the believer’s new position and actual experience. The following provides a brief summary, critique, and personal application of Stanford’s work.

SUMMARY

Stanford utilizes a topical organization structure to explore spiritual growth. In part one, the author weaves the concept of a believer’s new creation status through eighteen different topics such as faith, purpose, consecrations, self, rest, and help. In part two, Stanford continues with the same basic framework by merging the experience of a believer’s position in Christ into theological topics such as justification, reconciliation, security, and sin.

Stanford first addresses the topics of faith, time, and acceptance. The foundation of faith must be facts based on the Word of God, not human effort attempting to believe something will happen (Stanford 1983, 3-5). Next, the author illuminates the importance of time by suggesting spiritual growth takes years, not days and contrary to a prosperity gospel, authentic growth requires both pain and joy (6-9). Acceptance by God based solely on the work of Christ, not human effort, is the next topic, followed by nine paradoxes that focus on depending on the work of Christ rather than self (10-13). Without question, the author launches the work with a strong Pauline influence, which reminds the reader of Paul’s rhetorical question, “After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?” (Galatians 3:3 NIV).

The next three topics introduced by Stanford are purpose, preparation, and completeness. The purpose of believers is to have Christ formed in them, especially through the process of failure (Stanford 1983, 14-17). The preparation of individuals is through the recognition of a growing need for Christ, which often results from personal struggles (18-22). Finally, the Christian life progresses not through effort but in deepening the knowledge of what is already possessed from regeneration (23-26). Critics may now become nervous in Stanford’s passivity toward spiritual formation, but the author’s emphasis is on the origination and direction of growth, not the lack of engagement, for “God is the aggressor in the realm of development” (26).

Appropriation, identification, and consecration are the next topics addressed. By appropriation, the author means that believers recognize what is possessed in Christ and are conscious of its necessity (27). Specifically, every spiritual blessing is available to all believers, but experience is required to appropriate the fullness of Christ into the crevices of life (28-30). In other words, a gap exists between availability and appropriation, which may result in the allegation of spiritual elitism. However, if appropriation is progressive, then the accusation weakens, as elitism, by definition, is difficult to apply to gradualism. Stanford then explains that the old self died on the cross with Christ and a new identity formed in believers (31-34). Finally, Stanford highlights that consecration is not the process of improving the old sin nature, but instead, authentic consecration is only available to the new self (35-38).

The topics of self, the Cross, and discipleship follow Stanford’s discussion on consecration. First, the author undermines the notion that self can “cast out self” (41). In other words, manufactured efforts to overcome self, such as mortification, training, and confession fail – the only option is death (43-47). Regarding the cross, Stanford expands the focus of grace alone to both justification and sanctification in order to overcome self (50-51). Finally, the author explains that discipleship is the process of continuous failure of the self’s effort to sanctify self so that the believer finally gives up, dies, and then beautifully bears supernatural fruit (53-60).

Rest, help, cultivation, and continuance are the final four topics of part one. Stanford believes that once a believer possesses an understanding of justification, acceptance, position, and identity then resting in these truths is necessary for God to produce authentic supernatural activity (61-64). Accordingly, Stanford concludes it is often illogical to continue “asking God for help” (65). Alternatively, David Earley provides 17 biblical references to the Psalms in support of asking God for help (Early 2008, 77-79). The apparent contradiction resolves itself when Stanford’s context relates to blessings already received (Stanford 1983, 65-67). Next, Stanford reinforces the importance of time, which is necessary for cultivating maturity and discourages forcing spiritual growth (68-71). Finally, the author reminds the reader that progressing from “doing” to “being” is a process that will often appear to be void of any spiritual activity, thus patience and perseverance is an essential ingredient for continued advancement (72-74).

Part two begins the experiential phase and focuses on position, justification and assurance, and reconciliation and acceptance. First, the author boldly asserts, “All growth…is based upon the principle of position” (77). Using the metaphor of the vine and branch, Stanford emphasizes that the branch’s sole source of nourishment comes from the Vine and because of the cross and resurrection, believers are justified (80-83). Stanford defines justification as an imputed righteousness of God that assures salvation due to the forgiveness of past, present, and future sins preparatory to further growth (84-89). Accordingly, understanding one’s acceptance in Christ, due to his righteous standing, eliminates the need to continue the sinful “struggle to improve his condition in order to feel acceptable to God” (90-91). In other words, Stanford’s approach to spiritual transformation significantly decreases the risk that Christianity falls into what Dallas Willard coined a “gospel of sin management” (Willard 1997, 41). Instead, the Holy Spirit applies the work of the cross to eradicate areas of sin in the life of the believer (Stanford 1983, 92-94).

Next, the author revisits the concepts of completeness and security; sanctification and consecration; and identification and growth. Once an understanding of justification and reconciliation exist, the believer can live in the completeness that positionally occurs in Christ (95-99). Through abiding in Christ, the believer is available to be set apart from identification with the world and becomes a consecrated vehicle for Christ (100-105). With overtones of Keswick theology, the strong connection between abiding and consecration risks the accusation of quietism from a Reformed perspective that regards sanctification as a progressive “lifelong struggle” (Naselli 2010, 300). Finally, the identification of the new self in Christ acknowledges the death of the old self and resurrection of the new, which empowers a life that focuses outward toward a hurting world, rather than inward toward the preservation of self (106-111).

In the final section, the author explores the topic of sin in relation to purged conscience, conscience, light, and confession. First, the author observes that a carnal Christian lives from his condition of self rather than his position in Christ; thus, the risk of self-righteousness or debilitating guilt significantly increases (112-113). However, the spiritual man lives positionally in Christ and, although awareness of sin exists, condemnation does not (114-117). It is here the influence of Keswick theology may be most evident. One wonders if the author’s differentiation between a carnal Christian and a spiritual Christian implies a “chronological separation of justification of sanctification resulting in two categories of Christians” (Naselli 2010, 299). In light of Stanford’s alignment with Keswick theology, further clarification would be useful. Second, Stanford explains that believers have a dual advocacy of Christ’s intercession and the Holy Spirit’s influence on the conscience that produces confession (Stanford 1983, 118-120). Accordingly, while believers continue to deal with sin, restoration is ongoing through the work of Christ and the Spirit (120-123). Third, the author suggests that believers are to walk in the light but acknowledges various stages of growth (124). Specifically, spiritual infancy focuses on what the believer is doing for Christ, while spiritual adolescence focuses more on living in Christ rather than for Christ (125-129). Finally, when living positionally, the illumination of sin in Christ’s light does not condemn, but instead, prompts confession, which continues the believer’s fellowship with God and encourages personal responsibility without debilitating guilt (130-136).

CRITIQUE

Without question, Stanford’s strength lies in the critical connections made between a believer’s spiritual growth and identity, which rest in Christ as a new creation. Three additional concepts are particularly noteworthy. First, in a quick fix westernized society, the acknowledgement of the necessity of time as a key ingredient for growth is beneficial. Second, in light of the recent influence of a prosperity gospel on American Christianity, the emphasis on the requirement of pain and suffering is also welcome. Finally, relief from the burdensome impact of certain evangelicalism that promotes self-effort to overcome sin, which unfortunately, often leads to unhealthy pride or debilitating guilt, is long overdue and quite constructive.

The most significant and glaring weakness of Stanford’s work is the lack of practical examples exhibiting a life lived in Christ, rather than a life lived for Christ. For example, simple illustrations of detachment, which may have included the benefits of finding value and worth in Christ rather than in the world of other people’s opinions, personal performance, or life’s circumstances, may have greatly enhanced the work’s applicability. Three other minor weaknesses also detracted. First, the inordinate amount of references to other works often appeared to undermine the author’s ability to develop fully the sub-themes within each topic explored. Second, references to Keswick theology caused more confusion than clarity. Keswick theology has changed significantly since its inception in the mid nineteenth century, and accordingly, the vague references distracted. Further clarification of assumptions or omission of the references would have benefited the work. A third weakness is an apparent potential anomaly regarding confession. On the one hand, the author asserts that all a believer’s “sins, past, present, and future, have been forever forgiven” (86). However, Stanford simultaneously suggests that unconfessed sin disqualifies believers “from fellowship with our Father” (136). Further clarification would be helpful to reconcile a potential conflict.

CONCLUSION

Stanford’s book provides a powerful exploration of spiritual growth in light of a believer’s new creation in Christ. The author effectively utilized topics to enhance the reader’s understanding of the theoretical perspectives as well as the experiential nature of positional living in Christ. The work certainly proved its thesis that spiritual growth rests on a believer’s new creation status in Christ. Furthermore, although the omission of practical examples certainly detracted, the other weaknesses were minor and the strengths certainly triumphed. Significantly, Stanford provides an essential contribution to thought development and scholarship regarding spiritual growth and sanctification in the sphere of evangelical Christianity.