The Corruption of Grace
February 25th, 2008 | by Scott |In 1993 I had been working at a medium sized church outside of Nashville for less than a year. I was 25 and still somewhat immature. The first year was a bumpy one as I learned on the fly what it meant to be a minister and I am still grateful to the godly shepherds in that church who stood by me when no one would have blamed them for cutting me loose.
However, after I had been there about 9 months I got a call from a church in Northern Alabama to come and interview with them. I had been recommended by a minister friend to them and, feeling special to be solicited, agreed to come down on a Wednesday night.
When I arrived I met with the search committee and then taught a teen class. After that I met with the elders for an interview time. Things were going relatively fine until this exchange:
Elder: Do you believe that people in denominations can go to heaven?
Me: Well, I am sure that there are some areas in my beliefs where I am mistaken. I expect God’s grace to cover me where I am mistaken and imagine that He can do that for other people as well.
Elder: What areas are you mistaken?
Me: Well, if I knew that I wouldn’t be mistaken, would I?
Needless to say the interview ended shortly after that and I never heard from them again.
At that point in my life grace was still a relatively new concept. It had only emerged on my permanent radar over the previous 3-4 years as men such as Rubel Shelly and Brennan Manning challenged my legalistic thinking.
Initially I came to believe that grace had a moral thrust. That God would cover my inner failings (provided that they weren’t big ticket items) if I would regularly repent and attempt to never sin in those areas again.
Grace was for minor-to-medium sized personal struggles and provided that I offer adequate contrition. And most people in the church would agree with that. However, it was still a very legalistic interpretation of what grace actually was.
By the time of the aforementioned and ill-fated interview my view of God’s saving grace had progressed to realizing that there was a doctrinal component as well. That was where me and that particular elder parted ways.
And that was an insurmountable difference in understanding. It also would serve to place me within the “liberal” or “progressive” wing of the Churches of Christ.
It would take me some years before I realized that I still held on to a very corrupt view of God’s grace. I had heard people proclaim for a long time that grace that didn’t seek true change was “cheap grace.” What I failed to realize for so long was that I held onto my own version of a corrupt and tawdry notion of grace.
Although I was “progressive” and focused on God’s redeeming love for those with moral struggles and doctrinal differences I had turned my sights on another group to withhold grace from: those with ideological differences.
And that is where many of us who find ourselves in the “progressive” wings of our conservative churches need to take longer looks at the bastardization of grace that we have concocted.
There is an internet message board that is comprised of those who practice moral and doctrinal grace within the churches of Christ. They pride themselves on being open and loving, practicing unity and fellowship. And yet in the midst of that approach to God’s redeeming love there is an inner core of venom and toxicity for those who differ from them ideologically that would surely break the heart of a loving God.
I’ve been guilty of that. For years I thought you couldn’t be a true Christian and not be a Republican. I thought that coming down on the right side of the issues of the day were true litmus tests of worthiness. And that is a constant battle to ensure that I understand that my views, interpretations and understandings must never be seen as normative for others.
If God’s grace is truly grace then the ideological must exist alongside the moral and doctrinal components. If the love of God can cause the lion to lay down with the lamb then there might be room for donkeys and elephants as well.
God’s redeeming love does not see barriers. There is no distinction between us when it comes to His merciful embrace.
May we repent of claiming to be “grace-centered” when we still err at being so exclusionary.
—————-
Now playing: Nick Pagliari - Heart Unwound
via FoxyTunes
26 Responses to “The Corruption of Grace”
By Phil Wilson on Feb 25, 2008 | Reply
What I think is amazing about the progressive CofC movement is that we sometimes judge people by their outward actions (particularly in a worship setting) as much as someone we might condemn as a conservative. If someone doesn’t clap or raise their hands or whatever, we can automatically judge them as a traditionalist.
And from there, it’s easy to judge anyone who disagrees with us. And as a result, are we anymore grace-full or -filled than those we point and snicker at for being “traditionalists.”
By Scott on Feb 25, 2008 | Reply
Great point. And that’s what I try to remind myself of. We take up such a small range on the overall “liberal vs. conservative” debate that there isn’t a wide gap between us.
By Shane on Feb 25, 2008 | Reply
No matter how much grace is out there amongst CofC types, it is hard to shake the fear of how others will respond when we reveal we’ve changed our mind on something “important.”
By Belinda on Feb 25, 2008 | Reply
G A S P ! ! !
You mean to tell me that a non-republican can indeed be considered a christian?? You must not be reading the same Bible as the folks here in North Alabama.
By jasonk on Feb 25, 2008 | Reply
Great post, Scott. I was thinking as I read it, “that sounds like the response of a 25 year old man.” I was the same way, and still am, to a certain degree. I’d have said the same thing to that elder, and would have skipped happily all the way home. I had a similar interview with a church when I was in my 20s. The interview went great until the guy asked me about my views on the King James Bible. I told him that I did not even own a copy of the KJV, and did not plan on buying one anytime soon. That was the end of that!
Grace is grace. As soon as anything else begins to creep in, it completely ceases to be grace.
By Doug Freeman on Feb 25, 2008 | Reply
Is there any hope for a person who is more or less a traditionlist?
By Scott on Feb 25, 2008 | Reply
Shane, I think there is also a fear of mentioning that you no longer believe an issue is important at all.
Belinda, yes. And even Republicans.
Jason, that’s a funny story. And I can relate. You are so right. When we start putting our spin on grace then it becomes something else entirely.
Dad, read my post again.
By Doug Freeman on Feb 25, 2008 | Reply
Scott, I was caught up in the phrase of snickering at a traditionalist. I have come a long way in my views. This has been borne out during the past four months.
By allison on Feb 25, 2008 | Reply
If it doesn’t make any difference, what is the point of having any belief, doctrine-wise, at all?
By Scott on Feb 26, 2008 | Reply
Dad, Phil was saying that those who are more progressive should NOT snicker at traditionalists. That each of us can be judgmental if we aren’t careful.
By Scott on Feb 26, 2008 | Reply
It’s not the having beliefs or doctrines that are a problem. It is when the individual makes THEIR opinions and beliefs normative for others. When that is done over against the example and teachings of Christ then we place ourselves in the position of judge and arbiter of who belongs and who doesn’t.
That’s not grace.
By LukeD on Feb 26, 2008 | Reply
Allison’s question got me thinking: from a practical standpoint, doesn’t judgment HAVE to be a part of evangelism?
Unless you come from a universalist perspective (which you might, I don’t know, I’m just speaking in general), you basically believe that some will be saved and some will be lost based on certain criteria.
Take, for example, the issue of baptism. Based on what the N.T. teaches about baptism, I believe it to be an essential part of salvation.
If I’m studying with someone and discover that they believe the same thing and have already been baptized, I might continue to study with them on other issues (discipleship, Christian living, whatever), but I wouldn’t talk about baptism.
On the other hand, if I discovered that the person had not been baptized, based on my judgment that baptism is essential, I would make sure and cover that at some point.
I guess what I’m saying is, from a practical standpoint, some form of judgment seems necessary (who needs to hear your message and who has already heard it).
To me the important thing is that the judgment be based on Biblical teaching rather than personal opinion.
Of course, that leads to the issue of what the Bible actually teaches, but (unless universalism is true), there is still a line somewhere–not everything is open to opinion.
By Scott on Feb 26, 2008 | Reply
I never said everything is open to opinion. It’s one thing to have beliefs and doctrines. We all do. We also are commissioned to share that good news with others.
It’s something else entirely to take the mantle of judgment on who is in and who is out based upon our feeble understanding.
By LukeD on Feb 26, 2008 | Reply
Hmm, maybe I didn’t explain very well, because you didn’t really address what I was referring to at all.
I’m certainly not suggesting that I know “who is in and who is out” and I’m not saying that you should advertise your opinion when you’re studying with someone.
What I am saying is that in order to tell someone what they need to hear, some judgment has to be made.
If you’re studying with a Muslim, a Catholic and a teenager who has grown up in your church, would you say the same things to all of them?
I would argue no: you would make a judgment based on where they were in relation to God and then proceed accordingly. For example, with the Muslim, you might have to lay quite a bit of groundwork about this Jesus guy that you wouldn’t have to with the other two…
By Scott on Feb 26, 2008 | Reply
OK, I got you. Sorry if I didn’t understand previously.
I understand what you are saying. I guess I would prefer the term “discernment” in those cases. Whenever I prepare a sermon or a class I do that. It’s trying to determine where the people are in order to meet their needs. That may be semantical but, to me, it’s not a conclusion on God’s saving power but on where they could most be blessed with the Good News.
By Belinda on Feb 26, 2008 | Reply
You know, until 2000, I never even realized the republican/democrat thing to be such a divisive issue. It seemed to really burst wide open - maybe even got worse in 2004. Seriously, we had wives of deacons writing things like “Morality Matters - Vote Republican” around here. I take great offense to that. Maybe it’s not as bad in other parts of the U.S. - I certainly hope not. How did that message (republicans - godly vs. democrat - anything goes) ever gain legs?
By Justin on Feb 26, 2008 | Reply
I think, Belinda, that it had something to do with democrats pressing acceptance of lifestyles on people that the christian community at large didn’t agree with. For a long time, evangelicals just didn’t care all that much, and then after the 60s and 70s, they started to care. They voted in Jimmy Carter, and he was an absolute disaster. Then they chose Reagan, and the country turned around from probably the worst decade in our history. That could have something to do with it.
Though, one could ask similar questions as to why african americans vote 90 percent for Democrats, when the argument could be made that they’ve been promised that democrats will make things better, and its gotten worse for them.
By Robin on Feb 26, 2008 | Reply
Scott - welcome to the reformation.
By Scott on Feb 26, 2008 | Reply
Justin, I think that might be overstating it a bit. The birth of the Christian right wasn’t over Dems pushing acceptance but more over race issues and private colleges. That morphed into the Right to Life movement and the Reagan movement.
Robin, I wouldn’t align myself with the Reformation. Same problems as mentioned above. I view it more a post-Reformation.
By JTB on Feb 26, 2008 | Reply
Re Allison’s question: the point of the post seems to me to rest on the acknowledgment that doctrine matters, not the opposite. Doctrine matters because our beliefs inform our actions; the belief that we’re right leads all too easily to the quick judgment that all others are wrong. To say that this sort of judgment–from either side of the aisle, so to speak–is damaging is not the same thing as making the claim that doctrine doesn’t matter. On the contrary, it acknowledges (implicitly) the great power that doctrines have over the formation of lives and character and behavior. Some Christian doctrines can lead to some pretty crappy behavior.
And thus the connection btw orthopraxy and orthodoxy made so often on this blog: if a doctrine leads to behavior that is un-Christlike, i.e., the corrupted view of grace under discussion in the post, then that doctrine must be seriously re-examined.
Further…the post itself makes the point that grace is not dependent on correctness of belief not perfection of moral character/behavior. If we can accept that, then the question of why it matters what we believe becomes one centered on the impact of our beliefs, not on our eschatological salvation, but on our here and now relationships with others; and yet again we come to the intersection of orthopraxy/doxy. It matters what we believe because these ideas give us the motivation for respecting, helping, loving others…or ignoring them, treating them like dirt, or telling them they’re going to hell.
By Brian on Feb 27, 2008 | Reply
I almost feel like I’m ‘interrupting’ a conversation since I’m new here. First, I’d like to mention this is a very good/healthy discussion. It’s good to see folks who might not see eye to eye on doctrine having a polite discussion. I wish it were like this everywhere.
With that said, I’d like to make mention that being “normative for others” also applies to ourselves. Is there anyone out there who’s understanding of the Word hasn’t changed? I know I’m not one. I’ve been a believer for the better part of my life, but I sure don’t see things the way I did 20 years ago. I’ll be the first to admit, I’ve argued points before with other believers that I now see differently myself, and I’m almost ashamed to say that on some points, I now would stand beside the one I argued with.
The only belief I have I can truly say will never change is that Christ died for my sins. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not some flighty politician, constantly changing with the latest opinion poll. I don’t expect my beliefs to change much, if at all, other than a few refinements as life and God continue to impart their wisdom on me, but I have to be honest, not only with others, but with myself, that I don’t know all the answers and I must keep an open mind.
By Scott on Feb 27, 2008 | Reply
Very well said, JTB. Doctrine does matter and that is why the perversion of it can cause so much discord.
By Scott on Feb 27, 2008 | Reply
Brian, welcome to the discussion.
Your point is an excellent one. As we grow in our understanding we must all be willing to re-examine our own deeply held beliefs. I have met those who say with pride that their beliefs have never changed including at least one preacher. The result is a highly dogmatic and divisive individual whose beliefs have become normative for others.
By JTB on Feb 27, 2008 | Reply
I believe it’s Fred Aquino who used to say in class that if we came through his course without having changed how we viewed at least one matter then we’d all just wasted our time…
One can imagine a divine version of the sentiment, one of those pearly-gates conversations.
St. Peter: You mean you went through that whole life without changing your mind about anything???
Preacher, proudly: Yes!
St. Peter, calling over shoulder: What do we do with this one, boss? Reincarnation?
By Scott on Feb 27, 2008 | Reply
But that’s one of them liberal universities
By JTB on Feb 27, 2008 | Reply
well…I was sitting there in that class after all…what more damning proof do you need?