Heresy Is Heresy, Not the Litmus Test of Gospel Preaching
Antinomianism is not hostility to gnomes, and it's not fear of people from Nome, Alaska. Antinomianism is lawlessness, believing and teaching an obligation-free version of Christianity. In certain quarters of the evangelical world, being accused of antinomianism is increasingly considered to be a symptom of a healthy ministry. This belief has a long pedigree; no less an authority than Martyn Lloyd-Jones believed there was "no better test" of gospel fidelity than the accusation of antinomianism.
One can hear variations on this theme in a variety of places, particularly among younger preachers who self-identify as Reformed. In his new book Surprised by Grace, Tullian Tchividjian borrows from Lloyd-Jones in exhorting preachers to use the antinomian accusation as a self-assessment tool for ministerial fidelity. I've heard it used as a litmus test for pastoral search committees and as a rule of thumb for young pastors convinced that the ministerial task does not include the instruction of God's people in law or righteousness. While the precise wording varies, the common denominator is that accusations of antinomianism are an important barometer useful for determining whether the atmosphere of one's ministry is adequately pressurized by grace.
An accusation of theological heresy cannot be considered a fool-proof test of fidelity. Subjective human responses are rarely a correct measuring stick for faithfulness. I've also seen charges of heresy levied at other times, for instance, when studying the humanity of Jesus with laity who had been trained to see Jesus more or less exclusively in divine terms. However, I am not comfortable saying that a good test of my Christology is that I am accused of Arianism or Docetism.
Moreover, proffering the antinomian accusation as a barometric slogan prompts the question as to whether we should call our orthodoxy into question if we are not accused of being moralistic or legalistic (as Lloyd-Jones also taught). Many biblical passages—indeed, whole books—have received that charge from authorities ranging in theological savvy from Luther to Lady Gaga (the latter being the self-professed "least judgmental person in the world"). Jesus' requirements for any and all who wish to be his disciple and bear his name—self-denial and cross-bearing, holiness and purity—will inevitably sound like legalism in a restraint-free culture dominated by Eat, Pray, Love spirituality and Joel Osteen-grade theology.
But some believe that gospel grace is so neglected that special dispensations should be granted so that we can restore balance. While discussing D. A. Carson's excellent phrase, "grace-driven effort," one young Reformed pastor told me: "I grew up just hearing about effort, which is why I'm okay if some people have overemphasized the grace part. We can handle that for a season." A number of Reformed leaders believe that legalism and moralism are far greater dangers to the church than antinomianism and a lack of holiness.
Such assessments lead some to apply a slippery slope argument: one should not lay great stress (particularly in pulpit ministry) on the pursuit of holiness and radical descriptions of the requirements of Christian discipleship. These leaders almost always reject the label "antinomian," and while some of them mute radical discipleship, others are faithfully and passionately pursuing personal and corporate holiness. But in these circles antinomianism begins to be seen as something one might need to brush up against, so that the charge of antinomianism is very much welcome, to the point of being a stamp of authenticity, or "a badge of honor," as Paul Zahl puts it.
The 'Handicap Icon' Gets New Life
Sidelining the Stigma of Mental Illness
Not part of the community? Subscribe now, or register for a free account.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Newsletters
Google
Join the Conversation
Displaying 1–5 of 54 comments
See all comments
S Thomsen
Perhaps this is a fine distinction, but antinomianism can be defined narrowly to mean "against law," without meaning "against morality." The distinction is important. One might ask whether God Himself is under law. Of course the answer is no - yet He is perfectly holy. Law includes a set of moral principles, but it is more than those moral principles. Law is an externally imposed moral system that threatens punishment for disobedience. No one who has secured God's favor through faith in His Son can ever be punished for breaking God's moral principles. In this sense, they are no longer under the law. But this doesn't mean that we shouldn't expect a believer to grow in holiness. We should, because the same God who saves, also sanctifies, and this not by leveraging a fear of punishment, but by cultivating a love of what is good.
Steven McCarthy
I agree wholeheartedly. I would only say that I expect we will always meet with charges of antinomianism when we are preaching the gospel of grace, because the gospel is so upsetting to our inherent works-righteousness that when we hear the gospel we say, "shall we sin then that grace may abound?". I agree with you that our response must be: "Certainly not!" The objection is not warranted, but it is likely to come. I also agree with you that, in our current climate, we can expect to meet the charge of legalism when we are preaching the gospel of grace. This is so at least because folks today think that being serious about your faith and striving to be consistent in your walk is legalism.
Ken Stewart
Jason Hood: Thank you for this very timely article and its timely cautions. Multiple representatives of different branches of the Christian family have been tarred (inadvertently) with the 'brush' of antinomianism for their mere proclaiming the message of free acceptance with God by faith in Christ. But it is a charge they denied emphatically and which they did nothing to court. If your article spurs a return to this kind of circumspection, it will have done well.
D Mac
People need to know that they have fallen well short with regards to Law before they can come to appreciate Grace.
Teleplayer LeFever
I found this article to be of a slightly higher caliber than the Entertainment Today-style puff that CT seems to publish a lot lately. Possibly this is what readers prefer these days, but I come here to be challenged more than entertained. Might we have more of these? Unfortunately, Apostle Paul did not include a pie chart to help believers understand the relationship of these various aspects of our Faith. Rather than allowing the Spirit to teach and inform, too many leaders within today's Christianity use human logic, the desire for control and financial gain, and mathematical formulas to arrive at their perceived "balance." Hence all of the confusion, lack of agreement between sects, and the many current heresies. Nothing like good old carnal preaching, is there? Those who feel more secure following the "teachings of men," can take comfort in the fact that they're helping to fulfill end-time prophecies -- apparently right on schedule, too!