Declaring You Are “Weak on Sanctification” is Not Something to be Proud About
There has always been a problem among Christians, and Lutherans, with how we view the place and role of good works in the life of the Christian. It is a very old problem, indeed, for even St. Paul had to combat the attitude that as long as we are believers in God’s grace, we need pay little heed to our behavior. Paul says, in Romans 6:1 “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means!”
We must continue to resist any attitude that would mislead us into thinking that we are not to be concerned about living according to God’s commandments, letting our light shine before others and thus bringing glory to God through our good works. As Jesus tells us in Matthew 5:14-16: “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.”
When we witness examples of falling away from the way Christ would have us go, our reaction should be one of humble repentance. As St. Paul urges in 1 Corinthians 10: “These things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come. Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall. No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.” (1 Corinthians 10:11-13)
It is time to put an end to irresponsible and anti-Biblical attitudes about sanctification. It is time to stop excusing sin and lazy attitudes about good works. The Gospel does not excuse sin, it forgives it, and sets us on the path we are called to walk. Let’s keep straight what we sing about in the great hymn Salvation Unto Us Has Come: “Faith clings to Jesus’ cross alone, and rests in Him unceasing. And by its fruits true faith is known, with love and hope increasing. Works serve the neighbor and supply the proof that faith is living.” And when we fail and once more fall into sin, we cling to Jesus Christ alone. “Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.” (Hebrews 4:16).
As I have been saying the last few weeks it is sad how Johannes Agricola style antinomianism has become hip again.
A Triple AMEN, Pastor McCain!
MM
Amen and Amen. Well said, Pastor McCain. Posts of these nature are what initially attracted me to your blog. Keep it up. By the way, is there really a shirt out there that is has “Weak on Sanctification” proudly displayed on the front?
McCain answer: Sadly, yes, there is.
I agree this message is problematic. Grammatically, it is a fragment with no subject it could be taken to mean a few different things. If it means “proud of my sin,” then it demonstrates an attitude that no Christian should show. If it implies that God is weak as it comes to transforming humans, then it is even more objectionable. If it is the Lutheran reformation that is “weak,” then we are are conceding to Rome one of their main arguments against Luther.
I could possibly endorse a message like “[I am] weak on good works,” but while that is true, it is nothing that I am proud of, as I pray and devote myself every day to the vocations to which I’ve been called. The folks selling this T-shirt tend to be pretty good theologians, in my opinion, so I’m inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt; but this is nothing that I would order or wear.
McCain response to this comment: There is no weakness in the Lutheran Reformation, only weakness in we poor, miserable sinners who are its heirs. The t-shirt is ill advised, to say the least. While I have no doubt that the intentions behind it are good, the road to hell, as they say, is paved with good intentions. It is an error in judgment on the part of those selling, and defending, this shirt and they should simply quietly get rid of it.
Some claim that this shirt is an apologetic against evangelicals and thei over emphasis on sanctification. I can understand this to a point. The problem is, this mind set is turning many into border-line antinomians. I see this particularly among younger Lutherans, who are quick to label as “pietist” anyone who talks about good works and being concerned to walk in the works to which we are called (see Ephesians 4). Not all are this way, but I do see this happening. I also see more and more of this amongst laity in our LCMS congregations.
Paul,
Respectfully, I think that you are misreading the “weak on Sanctification” line as antinomian.
You know better than I do that the word “weak” is frequently used in the Lutheran Confessions in reference to Christian Sanctification.
A few examples:
For our best works, even after the grace of the Gospel has been received, as I stated, are still weak and not at all pure….
…while nevertheless scarcely a weak and feeble fulfilling of the Law occurs even in saints….
And hence they will understand why we have declared above that men are justified by faith, not by love, because we must oppose to God’s wrath not our love or works (or trust in our love and works), but Christ as Mediator [for all our ability, all our deeds and works, are far too weak to remove and appease God's wrath]. And we must apprehend the promise of the remission of sins before we do the works of the Law….
We believe, teach, and confess also that notwithstanding the fact that many weaknesses and defects cling to the true believers and truly regenerate, even to the grave, still they must not on that account doubt either their righteousness which has been imputed to them by faith, or the salvation of their souls, but must regard it as certain that for Christ’s sake, according to the promise and [immovable] Word of the holy Gospel, they have a gracious God….
Although this voluntariness [liberty of spirit] in the elect children of God is not perfect, but burdened with great weakness, as St. Paul complains concerning himself, Rom. 7, 14-25; Gal. 5, 17; 14] Nevertheless, for the sake of the Lord Christ, the Lord does not impute this weakness to His elect, as it is written: There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, Rom. 8, 1….
For concerning the presence, operation, and gifts of the Holy Ghost we should not and cannot always judge ex sensu [from feeling], as to how and when they are experienced in the heart; but because they are often covered and occur in great weakness, we should be certain from, and according to, the promise, that the Word of God preached and heard is [truly] an office and work of the Holy Ghost, by which He is certainly efficacious and works in our hearts, 2 Cor. 2, 14ff; 3, 5ff….
…as soon as the Holy Ghost, as has been said, through the Word and holy Sacraments, has begun in us this His work of regeneration and renewal, it is certain that through the power of the Holy Ghost we can and should cooperate, although still in great weakness….
For since, according to the doctrine of St. Paul, Gal. 3, 27, all who have been baptized have put on Christ, and thus are truly regenerate, they have now arbitrium liberatum (a liberated will), that is, as Christ says, they have been made free again, John 8, 36; whence they are able not only to hear the Word, but also to assent to it and accept it, although in great weakness.
While a t-shirt isn’t the best place to express Lutheran theology, the phrase “weak on Sanctification” accurate, insofar as it goes, and need not be understood as antinomian.
TW
Pr. Wilken, I thoroughly agree with everything you said, except for the parts I don’t agree with.
Seriously, all your points are entirely true and thanks for sharing those quotes.
My concern however is that in a certain zeal, for various reasons, to combat real or imagined “legalism” or “pietism” or whatever the -ism is of the moment, we have created problems on the other side of the issue, of which the t-shirt is merely symptomatic. I would be in favor of a t-shirt that says, simply, When I am weak, then I am strong. Now that would make a much better “conversation starter” for the Gospel!
As it is now, the t-shirt is “insider jargon” that is so fraught with the potential for confusion I think it only stirs up strife and disunity. Ungood.
I agree with Reverend McCain’s objections to the T-shirt for a variety of reasons, one of which is that the overall message of the shirt appears to completely confuse “justification” with “sanctification”. The sanctification statement on the front of the shirt suggests that it is either restating, or at least follows from the Scriptural passage about faith, justification and salvation on the back of the shirt. That is blatantly false. Unless I am misconstruing Romans 4:5, this passage refers to justification, not sanctification, “However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who JUSTIFIES the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.” [emphasis added.] Admitting you are a sinner is great but especially in the context of present-day American culture, advertising pride in complacency is unworthy of support, to say the least. Just my humble opinion.
Reverend McCain, thank you for having the courage to communicate some important truths in your article. There are obviously a variety of issues in the Law-Gospel debate but I’ll limit my comments to one or two of these issues. My own analysis of primary and secondary source material in addition to observational analysis has led me to the conclusion that in present-day America, suffering and unbelief is usually not due to any lack of access to the Gospel message, rather it is due to a failure to understand God’s Law through which the Holy Spirit prepares hearts and souls for the Gospel. The average American in this 21st Century has heard the Gospel message but has been indoctrinated and figuratively assaulted from a very early age with the world view that God’s laws, especially those associated with sexuality for example, are not laws at all and are not really worth worrying about. What most Americans understand is that with some exceptions, we are not seriously expected to keep God’s laws and that most people do not actually keep God’s laws. When it comes to God’s commands, our culture has effectively abolished the serious consequences for breaking them, so most often, Americans do not take God’s laws seriously and do not even believe that God takes “those things” seriously. That is the predominant view of Americans today and for over a decade there has been little communicated outside of some very small communities (maybe), to suggest that God’s laws are serious, that defiance of His laws causes serious harm, or that a perpetrator is responsible for restitution to the one harmed even if the victim does not take the perpetrator to court. (I inserted the “maybe” qualification because even in orthodox Lutheran communities, I see these laws being actively avoided and even joked about more often than addressed seriously these days.)
I have been writing and speaking out for years that one does not need the Gospel if one does not take the Law seriously and that is precisely why we are where we are today. I confess that I cringe a little bit when I see all of the comments of those who apparently cannot understand how we got to the point where the ELCA has taken the actions it has taken recently. Forgive the simplicity but it is pretty simple. A recent Gallup poll shows that a little less than one third of the adult American population believes the Bible is true and trustworthy as God’s word. Like the majority of our culture, this institution identified as the ELCA has not trusted the claimed authority of Scripture on what God’s laws are. When rebellion and refusal to submit to the authority of God’s Scriptural commands is tolerated, it is predictable that those who have been empowered by the tolerance will then reinterpret God’s laws to accommodate a lifestyle that is comfortable for them. As comfortable, secure sinners, what need is there for the Gospel as we know it?
The same Gallup poll shows that the vast majority of Americans who believe in the equivalent of a heaven believe they are going to heaven and that whether one “believes in Christ” has no bearing on whether anyone goes to heaven. In essence, the majority believes their “mistakes” are irrelevant and that God will “forgive” them for any “mistakes” and they will end up in heaven because God is a loving God who would not punish them with hell. What Christ did isn’t really an important part of the picture because God just forgives those “mistakes”; sins are not that big of a deal. Forgiveness has become merely an earthly security blanket, so to speak, to cover any remaining guilt and eliminate any bothersome responsibilities like those of restitution for harm caused.
The Christian Gospel and “forgiveness” have been perverted by the majority to mean nothing more than an excuse for avoiding personal responsibility to one’s neighbor; to avoid responsibility for the restitution element of repentance which is usually the most difficult part of repentance. The prevailing attitude could be expressed this way, “I’m so sorry I hurt you but Oh, NO, NO, NO, don’t even think about the idea of me giving up my comfort and happiness to help restore what I’ve destroyed in your life.” I’m sorry to have to say it but that’s the world we live in folks. Sad indeed, but nothing will change if we do not face the facts, unpleasant though they may be. “The repentant thief vows to return that which was stolen.” CTCR, “Church Discipline In The Christian Congregation”, St. Louis, 1985, p. 19.
Martin Luther expresses his valuation of the “Keys” this way, “Despite the sharpness and severity of the key which binds, the achievement of its effect requires a good deal of effort. Therefore the strong key which binds is for the pious Christians a great consolation, protection, defense, and fortress against evil people. Also, it serves as a wholesome medicine and has a beneficial effect on evil persons, although it is terrifying and annoying to the flesh.” LW, Vol 40, p372. Contrary to those who are still living in the age of Luther when Rome’s distortions of the Law were potentially the most threatening adversaries to truth, this is a different age and the adversaries that most threaten the truth at present are not the Rome of Luther’s time, but more in the realm of Antinomianism.
The firm, respectful, forthright preaching and teaching of the law, the need for repentance, including restitution, plus the administration of church discipline when it is called for, are vital in our present American culture. In our culture that glorifies the perpetrator who holds the attitude that could be expressed this way, “Oops, I’m sorry (but I’m even sorrier that you caught me); OK fine, now my life goes on . . .” and ignores the suffering of the victim, the Law and personal responsibility for restitution need to be communicated in ways that help people understand the serious nature of them. We also really need to clean up our own act when it comes to joking about sins, especially sexual sins for example, when so many people are suffering (e.g. stats show 1 in 4 women will be sexually assaulted or raped in this country.) So those are my comments in a nutshell. Again, thanks for the article.
I beg to differ. This is one of my wife’s favorite t-shirts that she owns. It is not saying that Lutherans are weak in their teaching on sanctification; it is making an admission that I myself am weak on sanctification, that my good works are done only with much weakness. Around here it is a good conversation starter. Where you’re at, surrounded by countless other Lutherans, I can see where it would not make much of a statement. But it gives my wife a chance to explain to her perfectionistic, pietistic Christian friends that she is not perfect in this life, and never will be until the putting off of the flesh, and how because our sanctification in this life is not totally perfected, but only beginning, we cannot possibly rely on our “new obedience” in Christ for our justification, our standing with God.
McCain response to this comment:
Paul, I thought you were going to say, “This is one of my wife’s favorite t-shirts that she bought for me and likes it when I wear it.” Frankly, I think we can do better than putting easily misunderstood and relatively obscure theological nuances on t-shirts! I’m still hanging in there for a change of this shirt to: “When I am weak, than I am strong.” Would accomplish same purpose, but less confusing and divisive and inaccurate!
Karyn,
All I can say is WOW and thanks! You expressed in words what I’ve been thinking about for a long time, but just couldn’t get it down on paper.
MM
The dangers of antinomianism and legalism are equal. Believe me, the legalism/pietism is no straw man; it it not merely perceived, it is real. You know as well as I do that the Church Growth movement is fundamentally pietistic and legalistic. Of course, the answer to both errors, antinomianism and legalism, is the proper distinction between Law and Gospel. On this we do agree
Good point Pastor Wilken, the right answer is the proper distinction between Law and Gospel. One of the hard things to grasp and deal with in our theology is the tension that lies between Law and Gospel. With that tension lies the seduction of extremes that even we Lutherans get seduced by. But I do think, in our zeal against modern evangelicals, the pedulum is beginning to swing to far in the other direction. I do think Karyn nailed this with a bullseye. As she pointed out, I think we all been infected with the PC culture and the Gospel has been reduced to “Jesus loves you sermons”. When I read sermons from Luther, Walther and Maier, I cannot help but wonder how they would be received in today’s LCMS congregations. You got the full weight of the Law with them: calling parishioners sinners, preaching on proper christian conduct and then came the sweetness of the Gospel. They seemed to handle the tension between Justification, Sanctification and Law & Gospel much better that we do.
MM
First, thank you Mr. Mapus for your comments. I’ll try to keep this reply as brief as I can since I know we don’t want to keep this going much longer. I just thought I should add a couple of things. Mr. Mapus is correct in summarizing one of my points as “the pendulum [has swung] too far in the other direction.” The majority of present-day America is on the antinomian side of the scale as opposed to the legalism side. There is no argument with Pastor Wilken’s point that the dangers of any extreme or false doctrines are a threat to truth but that is not the issue. Anyone who has read Walther’s writings realizes that in making the proper distinction between Law and Gospel, it is necessary to use discernment and consider who your audience is. If you are communicating one on one, you may have a better perspective on what the individual needs, but when you are communicating (witnessing, counseling, teaching, preaching) to a mass audience of average Americans, it is important to understand that the majority are more likely to be on the antinomian side of the scale than the legalism side right now.
If you ask the average American, he will have knowledge of the basic Gospel message and he can probably tell you all about “forgiveness” because it is very trendy to be “forgiving” in our culture right now. But ask the average American what he knows about the Ten Commandments and I think you might be surprised at the ignorance you would find. I wonder what percentile would even be able to name 5 out of the 10? Concepts about which I wrote earlier, like the voluntary restitution involved in repentance, are completely alien to most people. The extent of the evidence is probably not conducive to the forum of a blog site but at present, America does lack an understanding of God’s Law far beyond any deficit in its awareness of the Gospel message. I also agree with Mr. Mapus’ insight that at least concerning the sermons I’ve heard, it is rare that I hear the full weight of the law preached and explained. What I hear most often is a barely perceptible, watered down version of the law and a lengthy discourse on all the freedoms of the Gospel. I won’t try to explain again what message this sends to most people; all I can suggest is that there is a problem and there are perceptibly harmful ramifications.
Also, I am assuming there is some reasoning that is escaping me behind Pastor Wilken’s statement that “ . . . the Church Growth movement is fundamentally pietistic and legalistic.” I don’t see any reason to agree with that statement because on the contrary, the Church Growth movement is all about tolerance in general and accommodating alternative worship styles in order to increase the size of a congregation. That is shameless antinomianism; exactly the opposite of legalism. It is throwing out certain laws and rules in favor of tolerance and accommodation and I would consider it another example of the prevalence of antinomianism in our age.
@ Michael: I was unaware of a “tension” between Law and Gospel, or between Justification and Sanctification. Permit me a response: There is no balancing between Law and Gospel. To do so is to confuse the two. The Gospel isn’t in tension with the Law. The Gospel is the answer to the Law. The Gospel answers the perfect requirements of the Law completely and silences its accusations completely. If it doesn’t, we’re doomed. It isn’t as though legalism belongs to the Law, and antinomianism belongs to the Gospel. Antinomianism isn’t an over-emphasis on the Gospel. Antinomianism is a FALSE Gospel.
Pastor Wilken,
Maybe I should have explained myself better. From God’s perspective, there is no “tension” between Law and Gospel, but we as 100% saints and 100% sinners create that “tension”. Let me explain what I mean by tension. That tension is the suduction of exremes that lies between being a legalist or an antinomian. As I thinking about this more and more, I agree with you that the tension doesn’t lie with the Gospel. It lies with on how we use the Law. As I read the “Old Lutherans”, in their sermons they would simply preach the text and the Holy Spirit would apply the application of the Law on wether it’s a 2nd or 3rd use. It seems like many today are trying to “shoe horn” the 2nd use of the Law into every passage that gives a command. I could be way off base, so please correct me if I’m wrong. But I can’t help but noticing a difference between the “Old Lutherans” and us newbies, on how they use the Law. Hey, maybe it’s time to have a week long series on Law and Gospel, get a mix bag of theologians like Saleska, Rosenbladt to Baker? Or maybe a pastors roundtable?
Blessings
MM
Pastor McCain’s concerns are quite legitimate. Also, I believe that personal resistance to Sanctification and obstinacy are widely underestimated and we need those ‘old time’ sermons when the pastor names the sins and then asks, “How about you?”. Those always cut me to the bone and encourage self-examination. Wonderful!
Could you give me some sources on where I can find some of those “Old Lutheran” sermons? I’d like to use some of those for my own self-examination.
Thank you for this post. You cannot be weak on sanctification without at the same time being weak on justification. Those whom God declares righteous He makes righteous. There is no such thing as God leaving one who He as justified under the dominion of sin. In Christ we are freed from sin to serve our Lord Jesus. An interesting topic you might want to blog on the future is the idea that there is no growth in sanctification. No progress in the area of holiness. I do not see this idea supported at all by Pieper or any of his orthodox predecessors but have read confused contemporary Lutheran descriptions of sanctification which seem to rule out any idea of growth in holiness.
Lindsey,
You can find Luther’s sermons at christianbooks.com at a realy great price. You can google search for Walther’s sermons, there’s a few websites that publish them.
Greg,
You bring up a good point about growth in santification. I was reading the BOC sections on good works and L&G. The reformers also mention growth in santification. While at the same time mentioning the Holy Spirit produces that growth by convicting us of our failure to keep God’s Law and turning us back to the righteousness of Christ. God also is the only one who can actualy see that growth, because He’s the only one who can see the true motivation of the heart. If we went by externals only, Mormon’s, Budhists, JW’s and even some athiests could seem righteous. I think it’s good that we Lutherans focus on Justification like we do, but at the same time, I think it’s dangerous to downplay santification. Our forefathers didn’t.
MM
This will be my last post on this topic. Here is an interesting section from the BOC Tappert Edition on the Righteouness of Faith in the Solid Declaration.
“42] Many disputations also are usefully and well explained by means of this true distinction, of which the Apology treats in reference to the passage James 2:20. For when we speak of faith, how it justifies, the doctrine of St. Paul is that faith alone, without works, justifies, Rom. 3:28, inasmuch as it applies and appropriates to us the merit of Christ, as has been said. But if the question is, wherein and whereby a Christian can perceive and distinguish, either in himself or in others, a true living faith from a feigned and dead faith, (since many idle, secure Christians imagine for themselves a delusion in place of faith, while they nevertheless have no true faith,) the Apology gives this answer: James calls that dead faith where good works and fruits of the Spirit of every kind do not follow. And to this effect the Latin edition of the Apology says: Iacobus recte negat, nos tali fide iustificari, quae est sine operibus, hoc est, quae mortua est. That is: St. James teaches correctly when he denies that we are justified by such a faith as is without works, which is dead faith. ”
Looking at my past posts and reading my BOC, I have decided, I better get cracking, I have alot to learn.
MM
Thanks Micheal!!!
@Lindsey
The sermons of C.F.W. Walther; http://cfwwalther.com/
I guess I’m getting old, but I find the ‘weak on sanctification’ statement just as trite and self serving as the ‘not perfect just forgiven’ or ‘work in progress,’ shirts and bumper stickers we used to see. Maybe they should just have a shirt that says ‘I don’t really understand the Third Article of the Creed, and I’m proud of it.’
But preaching the law is not preaching sanctification. It is preaching the law. Even 3rd use is still not preaching sanctification. Pagans and heathen talk about loving your neighbor, doing good, avoiding evil (at least as far as the second table is concerned). If someone is preaching the law thinking he is preaching sanctification more likely than not he doing nothing more than preaching moralism.
The one passage where Paul attaches sanctification to some directions of the Law is 1 Thess. 4:3. And that preface by some strong gospel promises in the chapter before. Sanctification should be preached flowing from justification and is just as must good news as justification is.
Now we should preach the law in all its fulness and severity. And when we tell Christians how they should be living 3rd use, we need to remind them that justification will cause and transform them into such people who live this way and it is God in Christ himself who will be living and working this sanctification in our lives so that it is just as much good news as justification is good news.
If sanctification isn’t good news then it’s bad news and nothing more than moralism of the old Adam.
You are missing the point, again, Guillaume. We have a number of Lutheran pastors who go out of their way to avoid preaching about the life of Christian good works. I wonder if they have removed chapters from Romans out of their Bible. You are merely/only stating the obvious in your comment and it really does not speak at all to the stupidity of the Weak on Sanctification T-shirts. I’ve seen young men use this concept to justify some horrendous sinful choices in their life, and excuse it. No wonder…if they are told simply that “all is well, if only you keep receiving forgiveness. No worries, be happy.” That, however, is a truncated declaration of the life we have in Christ.
@Rev. Allen Bergstrazer Pastor Bergstrazer, I think you have “hit the nail on the head”! I think of Luther’s comment about those who are fine Good Friday and Easter preachers but seemingly know nothing of Pentecost and the work of the Holy Spirit. It is one of the sad realities of Lutheran history that our Church is seemingly unendingly plagued by antinomianism – and Crypto-Calvinism! I have to admit that I am simply horrified by the kind of theology which seems to say that there can be no growth in holiness on the part of the justified sinner. Doesn’t that come close to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? It also gives ammunition to those who denounce the doctrine of justification by faith as a “legal fiction” which it is not.”Dr. Luther’s statement remains true: ‘There is a beautiful agreement between faith and good works; nevertheless, it is faith alone which apprehends the blessing without works. And yet faith is at no time ever alone’” (Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration III 41). The hymnody of the Church of the Augsburg Confession and the historic liturgy provide a wonderful antidote to antinomian delusion. “Lex orandi/lex credendi/How we pray shows what we believe.” Adolf Koeberle’s splendid book, The Quest for Holiness, is a compelling refutation of anti-nomianism and a searching exploration of the relationship between justification and sanctification, faith and works. It is one of those books which can be read again and again with great profit.
One wonders about the value of slogans in general and T-shirt slogans in particular. I know I’m skating on thin ice here, but I have often wondered about the value of the slogan “Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide,” a slogan which often appears (usually in English) on the websites of our congregations. Although undoubtedly true when rightly understood, these slogans are scarcely an adequate summary of the doctrine of the Gospel in all its articles. How often “Sola Fide” has been used to justify antinomianism! How often “Sola Scriptura” has been used to justify a reductionist and unbiblical biblicism (whether fundamentalist or liberal!) which has no understanding of the necessity of the Church’s solemn confession of the truth! Or so it seems to me.
When I hear of those who are “Weak on Sanctification”, the name and teaching of Johannes Agricola come to mind. By arguing that the Moral Law didn’t apply to regenerate Christians, he became an erstwhile friend of Luther, and remained such
@Lindsey
Romans 4:5 is quoted on the back. It’s intent is a poke at evangelical belief that somehow our good works makes us more sanctified. Too bad folks don’t tell the whole story about this t-shirt. My guess is McCain won’t let my reply stand.
Pastor McCain will let your comment stand because it is not a good reason for using the expression “weak on sanctification.” It is irresponsible, to say the least.
Thanks Pastor McCain. It’s a perennial human error to respond so strongly to one error that one embraces the opposite error. I wish more Lutherans understood this.
And no, the two opposites in this case are not pietism and antinomianism. The two opposites are pietism and a different piestism.
The “missional” folks re-engineer Scripture in order to bring about a certain effect (filling the pews). When it comes to the Gospel, this means playing up sanctification (to the detriment of everything else), and when it comes to the Law it means playing up 3rd use. This results in the moralistic pietism we’re all familiar with.
The solution to this is to preach the whole counsel of God.
Unfortunately, too many anti-missional folks decide that a more effective solution is to re-engineer Scripture in order to bring about a different effect (preventing certain heresies from ever emerging in the first place). When it comes to the Gospel, this means playing up justification (to the detriment of everything else), and when it comes to the Law it means playing up 2nd use.
Despite the noble goals, this has it’s own dire consequences. Lutherans should know better than anyone that when we leave out parts of God’s word for the sake our goals, our theology gets twisted up. When it comes to the Gospel, I’ve been around Lutherans who seem to imply a kind of saint/sinner Nestorianism where the person that’s saved is someone other than the sinner who goes around sinfully doing things. I’ve heard them mangle the theology of the cross so thoroughly through over-emphasis that it sounds like after we die from cancer, we’ll end up enjoying cancer eternally in heaven.
When it comes to the Law, they don’t actually preach the Law. They just cut right to the chase and tell you that everything everyone does is always tainted by sin. This is most certainly true, but it’s not preaching the Law–it’s preaching about the Law, and it makes original sin look like some abstract check-box on a divine spreadsheet. Without actually preaching the Law, you never recognize the hopeless depravity within yourself. You just hear that it’s there somewhere.
Fast forward and the result ends up being a new set of human-created rules that supposedly demonstrate the purity of our belief. For example, “Never concern yourself with piety,” “it’s improper to ask for instruction on how to better serve your neighbor,” or “it’s more holy to be ‘weak’ on Sanctification.” This is pietism! It just trades theological correctness for a broader moral correctness.
Make no mistake: THIS IS A PIETISTIC T-SHIRT. It’s just piestistic for sake of being anti-pietism. It’s not pietism on one side and antinomianism on the other. It’s pietism all around.
I agree-”ungood”. How about,”THE HAMMER OF GOD” ( BO GIERTZ) ?
It’s less confusing and more meanignful…
God bless your heart Paul. President Harrison gets it, why can’t you?
I happen to know he now knows the full context of the T-shirt and how the phrase “weak on sanctification” has been abused by way too many people to excuse their sin. As one chap caught up in this mess put it to me, “I can enjoy slasher porn movies and pornography rap lyrics, because I’m free in Christ.” And, he went on to say how he enjoys listening to rap lyrics glorifying abusing and raping women, killing policemen and so forth. Why? Because he is free in Christ! It’s ok therefore for him to be weak on sanctification. His very words to me. And, oh yea, a little while later the guy left his wife for another women.
Now, why can’t you get that, Craig?
You know nothing of the full context . . .
“You know nothing of the full context . . . .”
This conversation was carried on for days on a public Internet forum without remorse, repentance, qualification or retraction, but with repeated defensiveness and justification of themselves, and insistence, over and over, that, yes, we are free to enjoy slasher porn and obscene rap lyrics.
Over and over these ‘fine Christians’ reflected what their poor teachers had drummed into their heads: ‘you are FREE, don’t worry about works or sin, because you are FREE.’ That message has sunk in very deeply and the consequence of neglecting proper teaching/preaching about the good works that are necessary for Christians was painfully clear.
This has been a consistent pattern that has been noticed by many, not simply by me.
I understand what you’re getting at. For sure, the ‘solas’ are foreign to many contemporary Christians and in some camps have become code for something else. But they did and still do represent sound doctrine in our confessions, and I might add I’ve read several Catholic theologians expound upon their opposition to Sola Scriptura in particular as false doctrine, in some cases because they see it as a type of fundamentalism, and others understand the Lutheran concept correctly and also understand their docrine and canon are still apposed to it. So there is still a battleground there, though a bit of a cold war is going on right now. Thanks for your thoughts on that, I guess if we do use slogans or shorthand for doctrine it should be clear and concise rather than misleading.
I agree Paul, I’ve seen and heard this sort of attitude in varying degrees from a wide range of ages and backgrounds. Somewhere along the way they’ve either been taught or tempted into thinking the gospel nullifies the law, and so turn the gospel into a license for iniquity. Whenever I get in these conversations I sometimes remember what Dr. Rosenblatt would sometimes say (and perhaps still does) “instead of a national day of prayer, we need a national day of reading the book of Romans.”
Concerning the “solas”, when and by whom were they first referenced as such?
Originally, were there three “solas” only?
Was (is) “solus Christus” (or “solo Christo”) also one of the original “solas”? If not, was it later added and, if so, by whom?
Bach often used “soli Deo gloria”. Was that one of the “sola”, as well, or, did it originate with him?
Thanks.
@Jonathan Trost
In Lutheran parlance there are three solas, the explanation of them is found at http://www.lcms.org/page.aspx?pid=388. In Reformed circles (Calvinism) five solas are commonly referenced. Pastor McCain knows more about Bach than I, but I doubt that soli Deo Gloria (to God alone be the glory) originated with him.