"In the TGC/Tullian Tchividjian dustup, I’m not hearing much about a key part of the gospel"

“I doubt the ability of Christians to make much progress in holiness. I look at churches that are committed to transformation and holiness, and I fail to see that they are much more holy or transformed than other churches. …I look at my own life, and marvel at the lack of real transformation after 50 years of effort.”

Mark’s reasoning is surprisingly transparent. The gist is I don’t see the transformation, therefore we should read the Bible to fit what we see. Nothing much changes until after this life. (Ergo…what?)

We could talk fruitlessly all day about how much change ought to be expected and what reasons might exist for lack of change in individuals and churches (and I do have a post brewing on what sort of things we should be looking for when we’re evaluating our progress in the faith). But this is really all peripheral to the controversy.

Even if Galli is right that most believers don’t change much and most of the transformation happens after this life, it does not follow that we ought to emphasize obedience less or exclude the role of personal discipline in whatever growth does occur (limiting our role to gospel-awareness only). So, the expected-results question is distinct from the biblically-enjoined-responsibilities question.

I’ve also updated the index here

Aaron said:

So, the expected-results question is distinct from the biblically-enjoined-responsibilities question.

That is so true, Aaron. I personally see both sides to this.

Believers DO change. I am a very different person because of Jesus Christ in my life, and I can see areas in which I have grown — beyond just normal emotional maturity. Yet my basic personality is the same. There are areas in which I have not grown much, and there are areas in which I have grown a lot. A lot of growth is so slow and incremental that only folks who haven’t been around us for a while perceive it.

The idea of high PRESSURE, however, bothers me. Preaching for decision after decision is such a pressure. The pressure to PRETEND to be what we are not is very obvious in many congregations. The encouragement of the Body is a good thing. A good, gentle sort of pressure to follow the Lord can be a help, but, when put into the hands of spiritual salesman, hard-driving performance-driven types, or perfectionist idealists, is usually a bad thing, IMO. And so often these are the types of people who get in charge. Relational people are more often victims, but, when allowed to influence the tone of a fellowship, can help make body life what it was intended to be.

The truth is that many of our sins and weaknesses will plague us until we go to be with him, but others will be overcome and replaced, while yet others modified (i.e., sinning less). And the areas is which we struggle are often based on inherited personality. The genetically gloomy believer, for example, might grow to be less gloomy (or take measures to reduce spreading his gloom to others), while the lost person born with a sunny disposition spreads joy and cheer (except to the gloomy). There are many small modifications that bring us closer to God’s ideals, but, because they are limited in nature, we do not appreciate them.

Both sides have their points, but this is nothing to separate over.

This is the kind of “clarity” about issues we have come to expect from CT. Reading this was like walking through a swamp. If I had this kind of jaundiced view of the Christian life I would not expect much either.

Truman once asked his advisors to find him a one armed economist. The ones he had would give advice but immediately say, “But on the other hand.” CT needs to find some one armed theologians.

Well said, Ed. This discussion/debate/issue is definitely not something to separate over. Regardless of my sympathies for Tchividjian’s formulation, I was baffled by TGC’s action. Why not continue the debate at TGC rather than seek to end it by asking him to go elsewhere before he was ready?

BTW, TT has posted an apology for his post-separation defensiveness, which I thought was commendable. http://www.pastortullian.com/2014/05/30/reflections-on-my-break-up-with…

On the merits of the discussion, Aaron seems to me to resort again to mischaracterizing the position he disagrees with. Galli never said “we should read the Bible to fit what we see,” as Aaron describes it. Also, I think it’s too easy to say that “the expected-results question is distinct from the biblically-enjoined-responsibilities question.” They are related questions, and no discussion of the latter is complete without at least some discussion of the former. Correct me if I’m wrong, but this is the first time I’m aware of Aaron acknowledging that emphasis on the biblically-enjoined-responsibilities may not actually result in massive transformation. My impression has been that Aaron and others who really want to emphasize the imperatives do so in part because they expect to see, and expect those to whom they’re preaching to expect to see, massive transformation (or choose some other adjective that communicates an appropriate amount of transformation). Otherwise, why the seemingly great concern that an emphasis on indicatives will result in insufficient change? There is no reason or need for the “pressure” that concerns Ed if there is no underlying assumption that the pressure (and the imperatives) significantly affects the expected results.

My continuing concern is that those who emphasize imperatives, effort, biblically-enjoined-responsibilities, etc. — which almost always carries with it a list of modern-day applications that are heavy on observable, external behavior — sooner or later overestimate the spiritual value of those externals and simultaneously underestimate the vastness of the remaining sin in their and their audience’s lives. That is why, I think, this is the first acknowledgment I’ve seen that the expected results may not be all that different between the two camps. The spoken or unspoken assumption normally from the emphasizers of biblically-enjoined-responsibilities is that their emphasis is necessary because it produces results that otherwise wouldn’t happen.

Again I ask, WHO is the Gospel Coalition for? Who is its constituency? Is it a club?

To give up hope for transformation in this life, I feel sorry for him. Christians should expect to be transformed, however it is not in the same way as characterized by many legalists. I’ll use the term “legalist” because I can’t think of a better term at the moment. Fundamentalists have been guilty of this of course and that is how many of us see it, but the “legalism” error has plagued God’s people since the fall.

Paul tell his readers to see how zealous they were after he initially had to rebuke them for the failure of the immoral person at Corinth. We are to look at our progress objectively. We are all beat-up from our hearts condemning us and we tend to believe those lies (from our hearts). I think one solution is to truly evaluate ourselves and to build each other up in truth.

Sanctification is a comprehensive exercise it seems. It involves knowledge of God’s word aided by the Spirit who wrote it (Jn.17.17). This knowledge is not just rote or surface information but an understanding and striving for what God is saying (having eyes to see and ears to hear metaphorically). The Spirit will also bring sin to light in our lives and we need to be obedient in forsaking it and not rationalizing away this necessity (this involves a level of maturity without any notion of “perfection”). Finally, I see a relational aspect: walking with God and prayer.

Concerning TT, I used to think he was very accurate in his prescriptions. Now I think he could benefit from more study and then refine his message. Initially, I agreed with his assessment of Christ being “The Good Samaritan” but later corrected this idea in my blog. I had reblogged his posting on this but posted to disagree with him later. Sometimes it seems folks spill too much ink without studying enough. A right balance needs to be struck along with humility and sometimes admitting: “I was wrong”.

We see in a glass darkly during this life. Also we only “know in part and prophesy in part”. Paul’s prayer for the Ephesians was that the Spirit would enlighten them to know God better. Knowing God better and all that we have in Christ will cause the growth in sanctification too. Also, it doesn’t matter what people think of us ultimately. If we are fearing men we are not fearing God to that degree. The “fear of man” is a great hindrance to sanctification: “it is a very small matter to me to be judged of you or any human judgment” Paul stated.

Galli never said “we should read the Bible to fit what we see,” as Aaron describes it.

No, he doesn’t say it, he just does it. His reasoning is clearly “A cannot be true because what I see everywhere is B.”