some notes on grace
I must say at the outset that I believe “grace” is a term closely linked to the idea of salvation - soteriology. Thus, below, when I closely link the term “grace” with “doctrines of grace” I hope I have not done so as an exercise in sophistry, but that they are, indeed, inextricably linked.
To not understand the concept of grace is a very sad thing for a Christian. Grace (XARIS) is something that is shown by God to humans in the act of the Cross of Christ. What an act of mercy it was that was shown to us on that day! How undeserving we are to be the beneficiaries of such love!
To define grace I couldn’t do better than a friend of A.W. Pink, who he quotes in a footnote on page 25 of his book The Sovereignty of God:
“An esteemed friend who kindly read through this book in its manuscript form, and to whom we are indebted for a number of excellent suggestions, has pointed out that grace is something more than “unmerited favour.” To feed a tramp who calls on me is “unmerited favour,” but it is scarcely grace. But suppose that after he has robbed me I should feed this starving tramp—that would be “grace.” Grace, then, is favour shown where there is positive de-merit in the one receiving it.”
Now, Pink cites this illustration not to explain anything about human relationships at all. Rather, he is talking about God.
No doubt, there are times when we can be imitators of his grace. In Victor Hugo’s Les Misérables (I’ve only seen the 1998 film which portrays this quite beautifully – I haven’t read the book), Bishop Myriel forgives Jean Valjean in a way that is a clear, stark reminder of the grace shown to Christians by God. Not that I deserve credit in any way, in a small handful of occasions I, myself, have been able to look to the Cross of Christ (and, of much lesser importance, to Bishop Myriel) and behave towards people in a more favourable way than I otherwise would have – and by my definition above, this only comes into play when someone has wronged me, not when it comes to run-of-the-mill human relations with no wrongdoing. However, even this is by no means the central thrust of the teachings about grace.
What is this central thrust? It may sound a cop-out, however, with regard to Scriptural quotations to illustrate my point, there are too many to number (and I do feel that “proof-texting” is overly maligned these days). I have on my lap my NIV complete concordance. A scan down the column indicates to me that grace originates in God, is of God and is primarily concerned with God.
There are three problems with Yancey’s book “What’s so Amazing about Grace” as I see it.
(1) Sometimes a popular book is so because it is populist. This book has the word “grace” in it’s title, and is a bestseller. Rather than reach for the book presented to us at the end of the aisle at Koorong (or, more typically, Word), we’re better off with C.H. Spurgeon’s “All of Grace”, for want of a book with “grace” in it’s title.
(2) The main enemy in Yancey’s book appear to be fundamentalist Christians. Sure, these guys have their problems, and I put aside for a moment the fact that I actually consider myself to be one of them. If we don’t listen to the fundamentalist Christians on the topic of grace, who do we listen to? Wasn’t it the Reformers and their progeny, indeed the Puritans and later the fundamentalists who inherited the teaching of the doctrines of grace? Indeed, a google search of “doctrines of grace” will show exactly where the term comes from. If the fundamentalists did not inherit the Calvinist tradition and teachings then which tradition did they inherit? These things cause me to conclude that it really is silly to write a book about grace whose main enemy is the fundamentalist Christian.
(3) As you know, Amazing Grace is a hymn by John Newton. To make use of the first line of this hymn as the title for this book, it begs the question: Would John Newton and Yancey agree or disagree on the subject of grace? Banner of Truth publishers refuse to publish any books that disagree with Calvinist teachings (doctrines of grace) – and they publish books about John Newton. John Newton is also known to have leant on the side of Calvinism, yet was relatively non-committal. He certainly didn’t see entirely eye-to-eye with the Wesleys on the issue/s. Given this, are Newton and Yancey on the same page? This is no small point. We’re talking about the very definition of grace, which is a very important subject to a Christian. To me it would be more forgivable if Yancey had written a book which gave God his rightful glory, rather than robbing it and giving it to humans, but had a spelling error in the title. “Whats so Amazing about Garce” or something. Maybe one could say that Yancey was more in agreement with Wesley. Let him quote Wesley then.
Further to the above, do even Wesley and Yancey agree on grace? A quick google found the following God-centered article: http://godonly.wordpress.com/2007/11/18/john-wesley-on-grace/
No comments yet.