Thanks, Scot, for those sentiments. Your post reminded me of a beautiful passage in Isaiah that identifies God’s holiness with His grace; it says, “For thus says the high and exalted One Who lives forever, whose name is Holy, “I dwell on a high and holy place, And also with the contrite and lowly of spirit In order to revive the spirit of the lowly And to revive the heart of the contrite.” The cross demonstrates that God is not the angry abusive Father many people think He is. Richard Bauckham’s little book, God Crucified along with Gorman’s Cruciformity were really helpful for me in this regard.

BlueRaja,
I liked Bauckham’s book alot.

And Gorman’s.

Thanks for that, it is a great reminder that grace is well GRACE.
your blog is encouraging!

It is such a magnet of human nature to default to a religious (works) system of salvation, even if we communicate under the guise of grace. It seems when we feel that we have done something to earn our own salvation we cannot accept God’s grace for others (the older son).
I too appreciate your blog.

i absolutely agree with your point scot…one of my friends just left a sovereign grace church because there was no balance on the matter…good grief, we KNOW we’re sinners–isnt that why we need it in the first place?…what is happening in certain circles of the church is that some pastors/teachers are content to mimick their grace grinding mentors..do i need to call names?…of course not…

Scot, you wrote about the grace grinders, “… they can’t preach love without showing holiness is behind it all…” I’ve come across these types, too, and it’s almost a “bait and switch” gospel and Christian life they live. And for all their efforts, they don’t seem joyful and free. Thanks for being passionate about it; it’s the closest to a “rant” that I’ve seen from you. (That’s a good thing.)

Amen and amen. I love to preach the grace of God. My challenge, however, is that I find it’s cathartic for my parishioners to be told what to do and not to do (since Jesus clearly gives us an ethic by which to live). Is there a way in which we can see the Sermon on the Mount (for instance) as God’s grace, even though there is clearly a lot of “do this and don’t do this” to it? God’s goodness and grace not only free us from guilt and condemnation, they free us to live a new life that makes a kingdom difference in the world. I suppose the fear of grace-grinders is that too much of a good thing is not a good thing. Is that possible with God?

Wow, nicely done. You’re on a roll today – “CNN” and the “Grace Grinders” all in one day!
Seriously, I seem to run into this kind of preaching and thinking a lot in my reformed circles. I’m sure it’s not peculiar to us, but when anyone makes a statement that really focuses on God loving us/liking us, and delighting in us…it seems like everyone gets real uncomfortable. I’m thankful for a few friends who have really challenged me in this area…and it has been SO FREEING!
This may be my favorite post of all time on your site!
GRACE, and peace!
Fr’nklin

This line 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; is great. I’ve come across many in my reformed circles who see glory as the defining motive and character trait of God. I’ve never been able to figure out exactly why their conviction bothers me so, but I think you may have hit on it. If God’s love or grace to us is really only a manipulative way for us to give God glory then it’s not really grace at all. Grace becomes not an act of self-gving on the behalf of God, but a means of control. I kind of doubt this is what the reformers meant when they emphasized the preeminence of God’s glory, though honestly I haven’t read much of what they said on the subject.

I recently spoke on Eph. 2. Paul uses an interesting word συγκαθίζω (SUGKAQIZW) ‘seated with‘. I admit I have a somewhat novel approach to the text, but hear me out. I told the people this doesn’t refer to our sitting on a really big lap on a really big throne. But (keeping to the context), that it refers to our sitting in a large board room with Jesus at the head of the table–we’re seated with him. He’s the project manager and he has a project to do–”so that … He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us…“. And we’ve been supplied by God’s benevolence with everything we need for this project. Paul goes on to say “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.” He hands out specific tasks to each of us.
We’ve been graced for work. “Grace grinding” preaching only looks backward; there’s a whole forward looking view, too that says we’re fully equiped.
Now, why do I bring that up? Because “grace grinding” preaching seeks to subvert the very project God is accomplishing. It subverts the forward looking perspective.
Thanks Scot. Good word.

Shortly after I started preaching for a living I had an old woman — a dear, sweet 80-something woman — tell me, “If you don’t get in trouble and accused of teaching grace, grace and nothing but grace — you’re not doing it right. They did it to Jesus. They did it to Paul. They ought to do it to you, too.”
I’ll never forget her.

Scot:
A couple years, I had the chance to ask Mike Yaconelli about grace, and what he said stuck with me ever since. I’m going to paste in his answer, if you don’t mind the length. (The quote is from the December 2003 Covenant Companion)
Here’s the reality—we do not believe in grace. We are scared to death of grace. We are worried that it is going to be abused or misused. And of course, we only worry about that after we are in. And then we decide to help God by becoming grace monitors and grace police and by sort of saying, “God’s really busy and he has got a lot to do, so we will make sure that nobody else gets in.”
We make all of these rules, just like the Pharisees did, that determine whether or not you are functioning in grace.
Our secular pagan culture doesn’t make us get drunk, it makes us dull. It robs us of our creativity. We don’t sit around thinking, how can I redeem this situation? We have lost the power of the tiny, of the small, of the little thoughtful things that we can do for each other that will make all the difference in the world. That’s what happens in a pagan culture.
It’s not that we run around doing these horrible sins. It’s that we don’t run around doing these little acts of grace that we ought to be doing. We have lost the power of the tiny, of the small, of the little thoughtful things that we can do for each other that will make all the difference in the world.

Thanks, Bob. Kris and I just finished Messy Spirituality, so this comes at a nice time for us. Very true, too.

John,
Good story; don’t all pastors have people like this in their congretation? And isn’t it often the case that many don’t listen to them? Until later. Gilead is like that lady.

Scot,
Well, I listened to her, and it got me run out of that congregation! But I don’t regret it for a moment!

John,
Sorry to hear that.

Good word Scot. Grace to you.

So true!
Those folks who respond to What’s so Amazing about Grace and Messy Spirituality by saying, “Yeah, but..” trouble me. How they can even speak is beyond me.

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”!
Thank you Scot for highlighting such a pertinent issue, that has real life consequences relative to our daily spirituality.

As a former “Grace Grinder” myself, it took some serious hardship in my life to open my eyes and heart to this “thing” called Grace. What a wonderful God we serve. Many thanks Scot, preach it bro!

David,
Thanks. I’ve been knocked around on a few sites for this post on grace grinding, but on this one everyone has been agreeable. So, thanks for your comment.
Indeed, those who were grace grinders (as I was myself) seem to be the ones who see it for what it is the best.

Im not sure if I am a grace grinder or not, maybe Im just not understanding properly or dont have my theology 100% down. I do believe that the absoloute bottom line is one of grace but (and theres the but) is there not a place to address issues of what Bonhoeffer calls cheap grace or the abuse of grace? This is something I have wrestled with for a while and need help! Where does the responsibility and the decision of the individual come into play? To do “our part”or co-labour?. Ive heard many people say “I just dont have the grace or the grace lifted” when things get tough. Maybe this is exactly when grace is needed and appropriated, “when things get tough”. Maybe I just havent faced the cross honestly enough? Has anybody written anything about grace and holiness? Is there a book or paper you can reccomend? HELP!

Pete,
For my entire teaching career (and before that) I have used and adapted the concept of cheap grace — and I believe in it still fervently. The issue is not cheap grace so much in this post as it is the use of grace to grind people under and down. Cheap grace undercuts backbone in our discipleship, etc., and I’m totally against that.
On grace and holiness, perhaps J. Edwards, Religious Affections? D. Bonhoeffer, Cost of Discipleship?

scot, i heard you were stirring up the blogosphere with this post so i had to stick my head in. Hope you werent kicking your dog or destroying your living room when you wrote that.
well written! Reminds me of “Grace Awakening” by charles swindoll
thanks.

Andrew,
Good to hear from you. I’ve been over to your site frequently but haven’t made many comments of late, and I don’t know how to do trackback.

i could see yac’s fingerprints on this one – he was the man who finally helped crack the door for me on this. he truly understood and lived grace. love your new term – grace grinders – so very visual. great post!

amazing… all of it… paul’s letter to the galatian church shows that this is not a new problem…