Scott McKnight on Grace Grinders

Unfortunately, I have to agree with the words I quote from Scott McKnight below.  More unfortunately I have to admit that I have been guilty of what he speaks of.

I can't put my finger on the book right now, but I remember reading a book by Gary Thomas a few years where he talked about how there are some people, whose holiness is beautiful and life-giving, and there are others who feign a kind of holiness that is condemning, harsh and that repels people from the grace of God.  I have been that second kind of person and I think Scott's words address this.

I have also heard it said that Calvinists are the only people in the world who can make the grace of God sound like bad news.  Guilty again.  I hope the following words from Scott speak to you as powerfully as they did to me.

Scott McKnight - Grace Grinding

There is a kind of writing, preaching, and talking about grace that instead of offering grace and extolling the goodness of God, seems to use grace as the backhand of God that is used to grind humans into the ground as it talks about grace. I’m having a hard time being gracious about this.

It is the sort of communication that does extol grace, God’s good grace, but it makes that grace an angry thing God has to do because he is gracious. God, being so loving but downright ticked off with humans for their sins and stiff-neckedness and hard-heartedness, is still gracious to us. That sort of idea.

This is a massive distortion of what God actually does to us. James tells us, don’t forget, that if we ask God in faith that God gives to us simply or unbegrudgingly — and the grace grinders tend to make God a begruding God of grace rather than a delightful and pro-active God of grace.

These people can’t talk about grace without emphasizing that we are wretches;
they can’t read Yancey’s What’s So Amazing…? without saying it isn’t the whole story;
they can’t preach obedience without saying this isn’t works;
they can’t talk about grace without talking about all those who are on their way to hell;
they can’t preach love without showing holiness is behind it all;
they can’t talk about grace without reminding us that it is all for God’s glory and that God didn’t have to do this and that we ought to consider ourselves lucky;

in other words, they can’t accept that God’s grace is God’s benevolence toward us because of who God really is (a gracious loving God) and because of who we are: his chosen people in whom he delights and for whom he has crafted a gospel that restores us to be Eikons who are in union with God and communion with others.

Forgive me if I’m being ungracious to the grace grinders, but it wounds the gospel to use grace as a grinding instrument.

Grace, so it seems to me, should make us aware that we are special to God not the reluctant objects of mercy.

Comments

[Scot McKnight]

David,
Perhaps the greatest thing about grace is that God's embracing grace remains with us, and with me, and with you. Thanks for your honesty.

[Catez]

Scott (the one who wrote this) - this is the most brilliant thing I have read in blogging since I started blogging 2 years ago. You've brought me to tears. I am so tired of hearing about judgement and so on.
GOD IS LOVE
Thankyou.

[Bobby Grow]

Many times the grace, forwarded by the "grace grinders" ends up being the very thing they are so vociferously opposing, i.e. James Yancey, etc. In other words they fail to realize that there is a symmetry between their definition of grace and def. of sin. If they view grace from a thomistic cooperative model (i.e. enabling grace)as "Calvinist" post Calvin has historically understood (i.e. Beza and forward)the implication ends up being that there definition of sin sounds like the very semi-pelagian understanding they are so desparately opposed to. In other words, sin is only a "wounding" not "death"--thus all we need is God's "created grace" to cooperate with God's salvation--thus the "obedience/works" correlation drawn by Scott McKnight above. Does this make sense?

The thomistic anthropology undergirding current classical theistic understanding is defined by the the "intellect/will" as the core component of man. Biblical anthropology sees the "affection"/heart as the primary defining feature of man. It is through the affections (heart) that we assign value by which we choose (intellect) and ultimately act out (volition/will)upon that which we assign "value" to. One of the implications of the "grace-grinders" anthropology (thomistic)is to emphasize the intellect which fits right in with their anthropocentric focus on works which "proves" their election thus providing assurance of their salvation.

Biblical anthropology recognizes that the human/natural heart is captured by competing affections motivated by "love of self" (concupisence/Augustine's def. of sin--post-Pelagius); until God "enflames the affections of the heart of man" there is no chance for natural man's bondage of love of self to break out and look outside of self. This understanding assumes that sin=death, and grace=God's unilateral act of love upon the heart of man. This understanding guards against the grace-grinders anthropocentric focus upon "works". Anyway, that's enough for now--I'm sure I'll need to clarify this for some of you . . . let me know :)!

[Dave C.]

What I got out of this was that "Grace Grinders" insist on including all the teachings of the Bible that liberal Christians just can't wait to cut out. After all, is Yancey's pop theology the whole story? His books are lighter so since they're the "whole story," can I leave my Bible at home next time I go to church? And what about: "they can’t preach love without showing holiness is behind it all"? Is holiness not behind it all? Is it not all for God's glory? If it's not, then it's also for man's glory, right?

Reading these statements in the negative says a lot about the theology of the person that wrote this and it's all man-centered, man-glorifying IMO.

But I guess that makes me a grace grinder. I'll wear that badge with pride. :)

[Tim]

I am a grace grinder but not a grace monger.

I am a grace grinder because so many are grace hucksters that I feel compelled to make certain that I am understood when I speak of God's Amazing Grace. Nothing irritates me more than libertines who cheapen God's Grace.

[Bobby Grow]

Not necessarily, Dave. Just because Scot doesn't advocate "Grace Grinding" (worm theology)--doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that he endorses "man-centered" theology. Maybe you do, and you just don't know it! What's your definition of grace? What is grace--a "created quality" or the person of the Holy Spirit poured out upon the heart? I think your answer to this will be a telling guage as to whether or not you forward the very thing you're condemning (which it should be), man-centered theology.

[Spunky]

Off topic to post. My apologies I couldn't find an e-mail address.

However, I want to order more than one of the shirts in two different sizes that you have for sale and there appears to be no way to do this without doing two separate orders and shipped separately. Any help you can give is appreciated. Please feel free to e-mail me.

[Dave C.]

"Grace grinding," "worm theology," "truly reformed." You know, it occurs to me that if our Arminian "brothers" would spend more time in God's Holy Word, they might have less time to waste thinking up cute little names for those of us they disagree with. :)

[CH Prost]

I just don't see this Reformed Calvinist world McKnight and Jollyblogger and SO MANY PCA pastors/preachers describe.

I think we are all looking for that slippery elusive "balance" that only the Holy Spirit can give to a mind and heart steeped in the Word. That balance is only to be found in the wording and TONE and manner and attitude of the Word. Go to the preaching and teaching of Jesus and Paul and Peter and James, and I suspect if our preachers from our pulpits talked like that today (or like the sermons of the Whitefields and Edwards and Asahel Nettletons of old, take a look) they would be accused today of being "out of balance" with all their warnings, talk of God's glory as His and our highest end at every turn whether its redemption or anything else, with all that striving and working out your salvation with fear and trembling and beatings of your body and making it your slave and without holiness noone seeing the LORD and daring to talk so much more about judgment and a wrath to come based on deeds rather than a reiterating of the milk of justification by faith alone thru grace alone... I'm also suspicious of any critique that slips in as even a small part of the problem explanations of it all being about God's glory and His holiness being behind grace as "downers" or "grinders" rather than the biblical model of ecstatic doxology.

While I have heard indeed too often Reformed preaching lacking spiritual love or graciousness, or too focused on intellectual truths without appropriate corresponding emotions and affections and zeal that should be excited by that knowledge that truly knows, I have never heard anyone by implication or directly claim or suggest in any way that God is "begrudging" of his grace, and wonder if anyone else has. I HAVE heard many Reformed sermons and internet blogs like this tilting at windmills of too much "concentrating on the glory of God", too much talk of Hell and warnings and "legalism" and not really "getting grace" to the point that the larger part of our Reformed leaders and thinkers today are innoculated against any voices in the wilderness that heaven forbid God just might send today with clear calls for deeper repentance and holiness, innoculated against anyone who would say our problem is a LACK of warnings against orthodox counterfeits among the multitude of assured carnal professors that preceded any great revival of history and innundated the writers of the greatest Puritans we pretend to hold up as our heroes of ministry. Compare the plethora of books available by mainstream Reformed and evangelical authors on "grace" today in the past 15 years compared to any century before in Reformed thought... now find one book in the last 50 years dealing significantly with warnings of the counterfeit confessor/hypocrite/falsely assured orthodox churchgoer, ANY book of the top 1000 by mainsteam Presbyterian authors in 30 years of the hundreds of books that makes a point of emphasizing the need for those who "believe" salvation by grace alone thru faith alone could still be in danger.

I believe it is out of context to quote James as saying God gives so "freely" in this type of context without understanding that for many it says they do not receive because they ask with wrong selfish motives, that this orthodox Christian church with faith lacked works, and therefore could be caled "adulterous people" (not for a lack of understanding free grace by faith in salvation) must "Grieve, mourn, and wail, change your laughter to mourning etc.". And THAT is the question of the hour for those who like you speak to (largely Reformed) evangelical audiences... are American like our over-entertained affluent evangelical Christians being exasperated today by Reformed preaching that beats them over the head in a way going way beyond someone like an Edwards who helped spark the Great Awakening, or are they being fed a cheap grace and false cheap shallow assurance that calls for no deep true repentance, that calls for no grieving mourning and wailing, and then when the sick congregant looks to its shepherd for what ails them is told they just need to understand the "freeness" of grace to some mystical greater extent? I myself but rarely preach with this "voice in the wilderness" style of warning, just a typical expository exegetical pericope-by-pericope preacher to maintain balance, but throw those thoughts out there with a smile for what I sense is a problem in our professional malpractice diagnosing what we know is a sickness in the body, and the medicine and remedy we therefore offer is just aggravating the sickness.

To test this hypothesis, can someone point out to me where IS this "grace grinder" in any significant pulpit or platform in the PCA or other mainstream Reformed pulpit that does what is described by McKnight? Where of the thousands of mainstream evangelical magazine articles or "stuff" on the internet by mainstream Reformed people is there ONE like what you described if it is so prevalent? Where Jollyblogger in your thousand or so archived blogs is an example of this "grace grinding" tendency you profess for yourself. Where are these sermons on the internet of the thousands available in writing and audio of this grace grinding type if this is so symptomatic a problem today? Its bad enough evangelicalism (even Reformed Calvinism) has gone so mushy today in a mushy relativistic postmodern culture, but its perhaps more frustrating to me that we then improperly diagnose ourselves as not understanding that "grace is SO free" when that is the one piece of mothers milk we are all such experts at as we isogete away the hard and narrow way of Christianity that mandates a taking up of our own cross and holiness and dying to self... AFTER a man truly understands that to which he is called even as a Christian if he wants to persevere and not have a mere head knowledge fruitless mere propositional faith of the "freeness of grace" and its accompanying false assurance, he will then hunger and thirst and "ask for" and receive and truly taste spiritually that wisdom and grace God freely gives that brings a joy and righteousness the world cannot know but will see and glorify God.

Its late, just got back from long drive after fun weekend w/ the kids and maybe I've just been reading too much Edwards lately, this is one of those long tirades no one will wade thru anyway and those who do will write me off as nutty, so lets send this before the more prudent parts of the brain take over...

[Douglas]

Who deserves God's grace?

[Sarge]

Interesting thoughts. Thanks for sharing.

[Scot McKnight]

I'm sorry to say this but I grieve about the attack mode of some of your readers here JollyBlogger. Grace permeates our being, not with caustic language but with the glorious gospel. Grace is God's final word.

[Catez]

Good grief. I wish I'd kept my comment to myself. I still think this is brilliant - in the spirit of what it is saying. Haven't read Yancey so can't comment there. It wasn't about that for me.

[Jamie Arpin-Ricci]

Living and ministering in an inner city community, I cannot help but feel the stones are meant for me, not the gangs, prostitutes, etc. because I see how clearly we, the Church, have failed to be an authentic witness. It is not only they that need this precious grace.

Thanks for the timely reminder.

Peace,
Jamie

[Douglas]

"Christian! the only thing that makes you differ from the vilest being that pollutes the earth, or from the darkest fiend that gnaws his chains in hell, is the free grace of God!" ~ Octavious Winslow

Unless we see the exceedingly sinfulness of sin in our lives, grace is meaningless.

"Alas! it is an infinite righteousness that must satisfy for our sins, for it is an infinite God that is offended by us. If ever your sin be pardoned, it is infinite mercy that must pardon it; if ever you be reconciled to God, it is infinite merit must do it; if ever your heart be changed, and your soul renewed, it is infinite power must effect it; and if ever your soul escape hell, and be saved at last, it is infinite grace must save it." - Matthew Mead

Nothing in my hands I bring, Simply to thy cross I cling; Naked, come to thee for dress. Helpless, look to thee fro grace: Foul, I to the fountain fly; Wash me Savior, or I die.Rock of Ages, cleft for me, Let me hide myself in thee. ~ AUGUSTUS TOPLADY Rock of Ages

"But for the grace of God there goes John Bradford." - John Bradford English reformer quoted while seeing criminals taken to execution. He was burned at the stake at Smithfield, a Protestant martyr. Quoted in Dictionary of National Biography according to Oxford Dictionary of Quotations 1953

As an ex-bike gang member and prison inmate, God's grace meant absolutely nothing to me until I saw clearly that I had sinned against Him and His Holy Law! As each day passes I become more aware of how sinful sin really is.

We live in age of easy, greasy, wishy washy, lovey dovey, cheap grace.

[Arch Van Devender]

It seems to me that the term "grace-grinding" is applied to what should be a laudable attempt at maintaining the tension between rejoicing in the "grace in which we stand" (Romans 5:2) and the need to be diligent to make our "calling and election sure" (1 Pet. 1:10, the context being the need to add virtue, knowledge, self-control, etc to faith).

I know of no preacher, including myself, who doesn't struggle with that tension. Comforting those who grieve over their sin with the certainty of God's grace and yet reminding those who are arrogant that God chastens His elect and condemns the reprobate to eternal Hell. I don't believe that anyone can preach a single sermon to just one group of people in the congregation. The sheer fact that we face sheep and goats in every congregation requires that law and gospel be forever proclaimed, each unto their end.

Help me out here - is this what is being called "grace grinding"?

[Bobby Grow]

It's interesting to me, I guess I didn't pass the litmus test, just because I said "worm theology" I'm now an Arminian, who doesn't read his Bible, talk about an "ad hominen" attack; but I guess that's what people resort to when they don't have anything of substance to say.

In my first post here I actually highlighted a monergistic ordo salutis that was trying to probe the significance of understanding our informing anthropologies. Likewise, I also asked Dave to give me his definition of "grace"--which, I guess he doesn't have.

This discussion can go no where until grace is defined by its relationship to sin; in other words there is a symmetry between the two. I believe most "classical theists" have imbibed a thomistic anthropology which believes "grace" is a created "substance", and that man, in his essence, is defined by "intellect". This leads to anthropocentricism, and should be jettisoned. Why don't people here define there terms, and maybe the discussion could be more fruitful.

[David Wayne]

Arch - you said:

"It seems to me that the term "grace-grinding" is applied to what should be a laudable attempt at maintaining the tension between rejoicing in the "grace in which we stand" (Romans 5:2) and the need to be diligent to make our "calling and election sure" (1 Pet. 1:10, the context being the need to add virtue, knowledge, self-control, etc to faith)."

I don't think that is what Scott was getting at here - he further defines himself in a new post on his own blog -

http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=365

He didn't write his original post in order to define grace or offer a systematic theology, although he does offer the following:

"grace is God’s benevolence toward us, we who are cracked Eikons, in order to restore us to union with God and communion with others, for the good of others and the world. The assumption of grace is our crackedness; the point and purpose of grace is our restoration. If we dwell on our crackedness, we fail to see the glories of grace. If we see what grace does to us and for us, which does bring glory to God, then we can dwell in God’s embracing grace. But, if we choose to be the accusing finger that must reduce humans to humiliation in order to speak of grace, we fail the love God shows for us in Jesus."

That's not a complete systematic theology of grace, but he hits the high points.

When he is speaking of "grace grinders" I think he is speaking from a different perspective of the same people of whom Doug Wilson said:

"In contrast, if it is on account of an obnoxious and churlish presentation, then there is no honor at all in being called a "Calvinist." Some who call themselves by this name do have a reputation for an approach which is not characterized by Christian charity. As John Newton pointed out, self-righteousness can feed on doctrines as well as works."

And . . .

"Nothing is more incongruous, therefore, than to see individuals who affirm the doctrine of election, but whose lives are characterized by harshness. We are taught here that the uniform of those who understand election is tender mercies."

Most of these comments are proving Scott's point for him.

[Bobby Grow]

Thank you for the response, David Wayne. I realize the original post wasn't intended to be a systematic treatise on grace and nature--but I did think the intended point of beginning discussion, as you have here, on grace (using Scot McKnight's idea as a springboard)was to invite discussion that might provide a fuller orbed view of all of the ingredients that make up what Scot has called, "Grace Grinders." If so that requires more depth of discussion than saying, "nice post" or "ad hominen" attacks by some.

[CH Prost]

David,

Don't know if you are including my post as "proving Scot's point for him" (I suppose because of my 'harsh' tone which I perhaps wrongly think is appropriate passionate disagreement with what I think you are affirming from McKnights' comments below). I generally gereatly respect your opinion which I often silently read, seeing you as a like-minded minister who lists Piper first as your favorite author, who is my favorite living author/preacher as an evangelical Reformed minister. But I do think it would help further discussion, understanding, clarity, and a gracious spirit b/w the so-called "grace grinders" you would like to reach if you could provide a concrete example of something of your own (since you confess to often being one and have a mountain of archived material available) or someone PROMINENT (hint: not me or random commmenters to your blog) in the Reformed evangelical world in any book, sermon (there's much available online nowadays if this is an epidemic problem) that exemplifies such a grace-grinding, or other substantive response to my ranting below. Grace and peace, CH Prost

[Dave C.]

"It's interesting to me, I guess I didn't pass the litmus test, just because I said "worm theology" I'm now an Arminian, who doesn't read his Bible, talk about an "ad hominen" attack; but I guess that's what people resort to when they don't have anything of substance to say.

In my first post here I actually highlighted a monergistic ordo salutis that was trying to probe the significance of understanding our informing anthropologies. Likewise, I also asked Dave to give me his definition of "grace"--which, I guess he doesn't have."

Wow, you have a really nasty attitude. You were the one who referred to Calvinism as "worm theology" then you had the nerve to say that I was engaging in ad hominem attacks. Why don't you look in the mirror.

As for your challenge to me, I didn't respond because because it wasn't worth my time. It still isn't. Good day.

[Bobby Grow]

Dave C. originally said:

"Grace grinding," "worm theology," "truly reformed." You know, it occurs to me that if our Arminian "brothers" would spend more time in God's Holy Word, they might have less time to waste thinking up cute little names for those of us they disagree with. :)

I didn't ever use the term "worm theology", you did. There's no ad hominen from me.

Sorry to have offended you, shalom!

[arch]

Dunno David
I was reacting to the list provided in the original post
>>These people can’t talk about grace without emphasizing that we are wretches;
they can’t read Yancey’s What’s So Amazing…? without saying it isn’t the whole story;
they can’t preach obedience without saying this isn’t works;
they can’t talk about grace without talking about all those who are on their way to hell;
they can’t preach love without showing holiness is behind it all;
they can’t talk about grace without reminding us that it is all for God’s glory and that God didn’t have to do this and that we ought to consider ourselves lucky;

in other words, they can’t accept that God’s grace is God’s benevolence toward us because of who God really is (a gracious loving God) and because of who we are: his chosen people in whom he delights and for whom he has crafted a gospel that restores us to be Eikons who are in union with God and communion with others.<<<

The problem is (except for the Yancy thing, about which I know nothing) that most of these quotes seem to center on the idea that a "grace grinder" is concerned with qualifying his statements - he doesn't speak to the entire congregation as if they are all equal recipients of God's grace... he is making statements which should require some folk hearing him to think twice about the comfort they might be taking in the idea of God's grace..

Well, honestly, isn't that a valid concern? Not trying to be argumentative here, just genuinely puzzled about McKnight's characterization. In any given congregation, not all present are equal beneficiaries of God's grace - right? We may not know who they are but I am sure that down deep inside them, they do. How should we preach to them?

(I was particularly struck by his idea that a "grace-grinder" cannot talk about love without talking about God's holiness ... well, yes, it seems to me that that is how the Scriptures talk about God's love.)

[Bobby Grow]

Woops, on second look I did talk about "worm theology" first. I guess when I responded to you, Dave, the 1st time, you frustrated me with your cariacture of anyone who wasn't a Calvinist, as being Arminian and not spending time in God's Word. I consider this ad hominen, presumptuous, and just plain irresponsible.

I'm out of this discussion!

[Dave C.]

Bobby,
"Woops, on second look I did talk about "worm theology" first. I guess when I responded to you, Dave, the 1st time, you frustrated me with your cariacture of anyone who wasn't a Calvinist, as being Arminian and not spending time in God's Word. I consider this ad hominen, presumptuous, and just plain irresponsible.

I'm out of this discussion!"

Good. People who can't read shouldn't try to discuss issues. My "cariacture" came AFTER your comment about "worm theology." So you couldn't have been responding to that comment because I hadn't made it yet. Sayonara.