The Tchividjian/DeYoung sessions
Posted 6/23/2011 | By: R W Glenn
The recent discussion between Tullian Tchividjian and Kevin DeYoung at The Gospel Coalition (here, here, here, and here) has stimulated my thinking on the doctrine of progressive sanctification (the process by which a Christian is conformed to the image of Jesus Christ, our growth in Christ-likeness). This post represents some of my early reflections on their very important and very helpful discussion. But before I present my offering let me say unequivocally that although I've only met Kevin DeYoung once, I consider him a ministry ally in the cause of the gospel. And Tullian, well, Tullian is not only an ally in gospel ministry, but a friend. So please consider my contribution to this conversation as the contribution of a friend, not a foe.
Now on to the show...
Law and Gospel
First, Tchividjian and DeYoung seem to talk about the Law and the Gospel in ways that muddy the waters considerably. When they use the term “law,” even with a capital “L,” it seems that it is roughly equivalent with the word “imperative.” And, of course, when this happens, “Gospel” equals “indicative.”
Let me give you two examples:
God did not tell the Israelites, “Work hard and I’ll set you free from Egypt.” That’s law without a gospel. Neither did God tell them, “I love you. I set you free by my grace. I ask nothing more except that you believe in this good gift.” That’s gospel with no law (DeYoung).
DeYoung's illustration very straightforwardly uses “law” to refer to mandates, commandments, or imperatives, while the term “gospel” refers to an indicative, a declaration of God’s gracious pardon.
Here’s an example of the same terminological confusion from Tchividjian:
The question is: Where does our power to obey God’s commands come from? Does it come from the gospel—from what God has done for us? Or does it come from the law—from what we must do?
Here “the law” refers to “God’s commands,” and “what we must do,” which is distinct from “the gospel,” which refers to “what God has done for us.” One is an imperative-driven approach the other is an indicative-driven approach. Now I agree that new covenant living ought to be an indicative-driven approach, but I would add that old covenant living ought to have been the same: “I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me” (Exod 20:2-3). New covenant or old covenant, the motivation for obedience that pleases the Lord flows from the reality of what God has done for his people, not what his people do for him.
My point here is simply that there is a confusion of terminology regarding the Gospel/Law distinction, that creates problems as we try to move toward a resolution of the question at hand.
If you define the term “gospel” as “indicative,” you will create confusion when you encounter the imperatives of the gospel that are everywhere in the New Testament. And if you define the word “law” as “imperative,” you run the risk of losing the gracious character of the old covenant. So let me appeal to my brothers to talk about imperatives and indicatives of the Gospel (and of the Law, if they are so inclined) as imperatives and indicatives of the new covenant over and against those of the old covenant rather than resorting to what is a more Lutheran than biblical paradigm (Law/Gospel).
Reducing Remembering to Remembering Justification
My second criticism is leveled at Tchividjian alone: he reduces what we are to routinely and consistently remember throughout the sanctification process to justification. For example, when he handles 2 Pet 1:9 (“For who ever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten his purification from his former sins”), he says, “In other words, remembering, revisiting, and rediscovering the reality of our justification every day is the hard work we’re called to do if we are to grow.” Nevertheless, in support of this contention he cites Elyse Fitzpatrick:
One reason we don’t grow in ordinary, grateful obedience as we should is that we’ve got amnesia; we’ve forgotten that we are cleansed from our sins. In other words, ongoing failure in our growth is the direct result of failing to remember God’s love for us in the gospel. If we fail to remember our justification, redemption, and reconciliation, we’ll struggle in our sanctification.
For the record, let me say that I couldn’t agree with Fitzpatrick more! We will be ineffective and unproductive as we pursue holiness if we fail to remember our justification, redemption, and reconciliation. I believe that this is exactly what the Apostle Peter is getting at in 2 Pet 1:9.
But Tchividjian reduces the remembering to remembering our justification, rather than all the benefits and privileges of our salvation that Peter mentions. And I would go further and say that it’s not just our justification we need to remember; instead, we need to remember that our salvation from beginning to end (including our progressive sanctification) is already ours by grace.
On the other hand, when Tchividjian moves to his explanation of Colossians 1, he doen’t reduce our remembering to justification alone:
Similarly, in Colossians 1:9-14 Paul says: You will grow in your understanding of God’s will, be filled with spiritual wisdom and understanding, increase in your knowledge of God, be strengthened with God’s power which will produce joy filled patience and endurance (v.9-12a) as you come to a greater realization that you’ve already been qualified, delivered, transferred, redeemed, and forgiven (v.12b-14).
Here, he mentions the privileges of being qualified, delivered, transferred, redeemed, and forgiven, none of which can be reduced to or brought under the broad umbrella of the doctrine of justification.
Union with Christ
As I have thought about this over the last several days it occurred to me that I have been guilty of the same reductionistic approach to what it is as Christians we must remember as we fight the fight of faith. For years, I have said that just as the gospel is the hub on the wheel of the entire Christian life, so justification is the hub on the wheel of the gospel itself. I’d like to change my tune.
When it comes to understanding soteriology, I think the central truth, the hub on the wheel, can't be reduced to a proposition (the doctrines of justification, reconciliation, etc.), but a person: Jesus himself. Union with Christ is the hub on the wheel of the gospel of grace. For, as John Calvin has said, “We must understand that as long as Christ remains outside of us, and we are separated from him, all that he has suffered and done for the salvation of the human race remains useless and of no value for us” (Institutes 3.1.1).
It is in union with Christ and only in union with Christ that the benefits of salvation, including, but not limited to, our justification belong to us. It is in Christ that we have been elected and predestined for salvation (Eph 1:4-5). It is in Christ that we are called and regenerated (1 Cor 1:2, 9; Eph 2:5-6; 1 Pet 1:3). It is in Christ that we receive the gifts of faith and repentance as the means by which we experience our union with Christ (Acts 13:48; Rom 16:7; Eph 1:13; Phil 1:29; 2 Tim 2:24-25). It is in Christ that we are justified (1 Tim 3:16 w/ Gal 2:16, 20). It is in Christ that we have received the adoption as sons (Rom 1:4 w/ Gal 4:4-5). It is in Christ that we are sanctified (John 17:19 w/ 1 Cor 1:30). And it is in Christ that we are glorified (Rom 8:17).
The hub on the wheel of a biblical soteriology is union with Christ. And therefore, the hub on the wheel of the gospel – the good news that the time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand in the person of Jesus Christ – the hub on the wheel of the gospel is our union with Christ. Not regeneration alone. Not justification alone. Not adoption alone. But union with Christ alone.
Now please don’t get me wrong. Justification is essential. But to say that it is central (the hub) is different than saying it’s essential. In my mind, to say that justification is essential means that without justification you have no gospel. Take it away, and the gospel is gone. But to say that it’s central, means that it is the core of the good news. And what I’m suggesting is that it isn’t the core of the good news. The core of the good news is Jesus himself – not something that God does for us through Jesus Christ, but Jesus himself. Justification is but one of the essential means by which our personal union with Christ is experienced.
So when Tchividjian says, “If sanctification could be likened to our responsibility to swim, justification is the pool we swim in,” my response is that we do not swim in the pool of our justification only, but in the pool of our union with Christ, which includes not only justification, but our sanctification, redemption, reconciliation, qualification, deliverance, transfer, and forgiveness, to name a few!
Or when he says, “[J]ustification alone kills all of our self-salvation projects that fuel all of our bad behavior and moral failures,” I say that this statement fails on two fronts:
First, as I’ve said, it is union with Christ, not justification by itself that is the centerpiece of the gospel.
Second, I think it could be just as easily argued that regeneration is an even stronger killer of our self-righteousness since regeneration precedes our faith and repentance. I can imagine a person falsely taking credit for his justification since he is justified by faith; where regeneration allows for no such thing. And if that’s the case, why not say, that it is regeneration alone kills all of our self-salvation projects that fuel all our bad behavior and moral failures?
My problem is with the world “alone.” It’s not merely one aspect of the ordo salutis that kills our self-salvation projects and bad behavior, but our union with Christ, which makes every element of our salvation and all of its benefits ours by the sovereign grace of God.
And yet, Tchividjian doesn’t ignore union with Christ altogether:
My failure to lay aside the sin that so easily entangles is the direct result of my refusal to die to my natural proclivity toward attaining my own freedom, meaning, value, worth, and righteousness–not believing that, by virtue of my Spirit-wrought union with Christ, everything I need I already possess (emphasis added).
What I like about this sentence is that even though Tchividjian starts the paragraph referring to justification, me moves on to talk about what really is the heart of the matter: remembering our union with Christ: to believe “that, by virtue of my Spirit-wrought union with Christ, everything I need I already possess.”
Both/and vs. Either/or
Finally, both DeYoung and Tchividjian seem to be guilty of the fallacy of the excluded middle, the either/or fallacy, when both/and is called for. Here’s what I mean:
In my desire as both a pastor and a parent to see those under my care become more radical in their obedience to God, I have often fallen into the trap of going from the law (cutting off hope) to the gospel (forgiveness and life) and then back to the law, as if the gospel of free grace handled justification but can’t keep up with sanctification.
As Mike Horton points out…in Romans 6:1-4 the Apostle Paul answers antinomianism (lawlessness) not with law but with more gospel! I imagine it would have been tempting for Paul (as it often is with us when dealing with licentious people) to put the brakes on grace and give the law in this passage, but instead he gives more grace—grace upon grace. Paul knows that licentious people aren’t those who believe the gospel of God’s free grace too much, but too little. “The ultimate antidote to antinomianism”, writes Horton, “is not more imperatives, but the realization that the gospel swallows the tyranny as well as the guilt of sin” (Tchividjian).
Here’s the either/or: either we go after antinomians with the indicatives of the gospel or we beat them over the head with the imperatives of the gospel. Obviously, Tchvidjian prefers the former. But why does it have to be either/or? Why can’t it be both/and? Why, especially, can’t it be both/and since we have instances in the New Testament where, for example, Paul goes after people who are cavalier in their attitude toward sin not only by reminding them of their union with Christ (indicatives), but also with strong imperatives, and even threats?
1 Cor 6:9: Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, (10) nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (11) And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (12) “All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be enslaved by anything. (13) “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food—and God will destroy both one and the other.” The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. (14) And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power. (15) Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! (16) Or do you not know that he who is joined* to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written “The two will become one flesh.” (17) But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. (18) Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. (19) Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, (20) for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.
In this passage you get the glories of our union with Christ (vv 11, 14-15, 19-20), clear imperatives (vv 18, 20), and the threats to people who practice evil (vv 9-10). The point is that what we need in the warfare of our progressive sanctification is the full spread of the new covenant: indicative and imperative (and threat), not one or the other.
DeYoung also seems stuck within this either/or paradigm:
True, there are lots of Christians who need to know the glorious good news of their forgiveness. American Christianity tends to be overly activist and can drive timid souls to despair. But just as surely, there are lots of professing Christians (and non-Christians!) who feel perfectly justified but are not growing in godliness and may not even be God’s children. They do not doubt God loves them. They do not worry that they might not be accepted. They have no problem with grace. They do not come to church with crushed consciences. They do not need to work hard to rediscover God’s forgiveness. They need to work hard to live like they have died to sin and been raised with Christ. The basic New Testament ethic is “be who you are.” This requires believing “who we are” and working hard to “be” just that.
I take issue with this paragraph on two grounds. My first concern is with the notion that people who “are not growing in godliness” “do not need to work hard to rediscover God’s forgiveness. They need to work hard to live like they have died to sin and been raised with Christ.”
The answer to this is a text we looked at earlier, 2 Pet 1:8-10: “If these qualities are yours and increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of him who called you. He who lacks these qualities is blind, short-sighted, having forgotten his purification from his former sins. Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about his calling and choosing you, for as long as you practice these things you will never stumble.”
Peter says straight up that the reason why Christians are ineffective and unproductive is because they have forgotten their purification from their former sins. Therefore, if there are ineffective and unproductive Christians in our churches, one of the things they need to do is to work hard to rediscover God’s forgiveness.
But that’s not all they need to do. They also need to add virtue to virtue, they need to “practice these things,” which refers to growing in living a holy life. It is not an either/or proposition, but a both/and. People who are cavalier about their sin need both to remember their union with Christ and to add virtue to virtue. It’s not one or the other.
Here’s another example from DeYoung:
On the one hand, some Christians are beating themselves up to be more like Jesus when they first need to realize that in Christ they’ve already died to sin and been raised with Christ. And on the other hand, some Christians are stalled out in their sanctification for plain lack of effort. They are lazy and need to be told so.
While I agree that “some Christians are stalled out in their sanctification for plain lack of effort,” the question is, “What is the effort supposed to look like? What’s involved?” For my part, progressive sanctification involves both the hard work of adding virtue to virtue and the even harder work of remembering our union with Christ. It’s not that weak, wobbly-kneed Christians need to remember their union with Christ and “strong,” stiff-necked Christians need to add virtue to virtue. Both need both. We need both the glorious indicatives of union with Christ and the glorious imperatives of the new covenant to keep us on the path of progressive sanctification.
Conclusion
Finally, let me conclude with a quote from Tullian Tchividjian – a quote I couldn’t agree with more:
The greatest danger facing the church is not that we take the commands of God lightly. To be sure, that is a bona fide danger but it’s a surface danger. The deep, under the surface danger (which produces the surface danger) is that we take the announcement of God in the gospel too lightly.
We have an easier time hearing the imperatives of grace (because we’re wired post-fall for self-righteousness) than we do the indicatives of grace. But we must proclaim both if we are going to be faithful stewards of the new covenant.