I was recently chatting with an Episcopal priest about grace. He was very nice, and it was a pleasure talking to him. I asked how the message of grace was received in the Episcopal church. He suggested that while the Episcopal church is not very theological—in that people are not talking about and debating theology—he thought it was a very grace-oriented denomination.
Then it hit me—what he meant by “grace,” I would call “permissiveness.”
Actually, that’s not fair.
There were big chunks of agreement between us about what having a gracious God means.
For example, we agreed that God loves everyone, Jesus died for everyone, no one earns salvation by works, and God accepts messed up people—no matter how messed up—at the point of faith.
Frankly, those are important areas of agreement about what it means for God to be graceful, and many churches would strongly disagree with us. (We didn’t get into the nitty gritty of faith alone or eternal security, so I don’t know what he would say about that.)
But as we continued to chat about grace in the Episcopal church, the subtext became about grace and homosexuality, transsexuality, and other behaviors. He didn’t mention those things explicitly. I think that’s what we were really talking about. And for this priest—if I read him right—the graciousness of the Episcopal church meant saying those things are not sins. And that’s when it hit me that for him, “grace” included permissiveness.
Admittedly, even here, you could find some agreement between us. Free Gracers would agree that God loves homosexuals and transsexuals. We would say those sinners, like all sinners, can be saved by simply believing in Jesus for eternal life without having to clean up their lives first. God takes them as they are, through faith, apart from works. And if they believe in Jesus, they’ll be eternally secure forever, whether they change their lives or not.
The Episcopal priest would probably agree with most of that (I don’t know about the eternal security part, though), except he might clarify they don’t have to clean up their lives because there’s nothing to clean up. He might say, God approves of homosexuality and transsexualism and all the rest of it. (Again, I don’t know for sure if that was the priest’s views, but it would be the view of many within the Episcopal church).
So, oddly enough, in that particular battle, we might be on the same side. And I think that’s a significant battle—for the freeness of eternal life. I would want people who identity as homosexuals and transsexuals to know that God loves them, Jesus died for them, and they, too, can receive eternal life freely, by simply believing in Jesus for it.
HOWEVER—
“What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?” (Romans 6:1).
Paul’s answer is no.
Despite claims that Free Grace will promote sin, the truth is we have a strong doctrine of practical holiness.
That is, you are not just righteous in your position—you are expected to be holy in your behavior.
We take grace seriously. Very seriously. But taking grace seriously means taking practical righteousness and holiness seriously, too, just as Paul does in Romans 6– 8.
We should not let sin reign in our bodies (Rom 6:12).
We should not present our bodies as instruments of unrighteousness (Rom 6:13).
Sin should not have dominion over us (Rom 6:14).
Of course, when you sin, you have an advocate in Jesus (1 John 1:8, 10; 2:1). If you walk in the light and confess your sin, Jesus will forgive you every single time (1 John 1:7, 9). And more than that, God gives you grace, so you may not sin (1 John 2:1).
Grace is forgiving, but not permissive.
Jo Ann
Thank you, Shawn, this article made very clear the issues discussed!! You remind me so much of Zane Hodges in this regard.
Leo Z
Thanks Pastor Shawn. One of the classic arguments against the Free Grace (FG) soteriological perspective of “once saved always saved”, is that it promotes licentiousness. That probably would be true only if FG did not teach the whole counsel of Scripture, the full counsel of God (Acts 20:27). FG teaches “grace” as God’s favor extended to all sinners in His offer of the free gift of eternal life to whosoever would believe in His Son for it (John 3:16-18; John 4:13-14; Revelation 22:17; John 5:24; 6:35). But it does not end there. Like you said, FG also teaches God’s expectations of experiential holiness and righteous living from believers (Romans 6-8). Scripture is also replete with passages on the consequences of sin in the present and of future loss (rewards).
Titus 2:11-14 is a passage that speaks of this balance. God’s grace brings salvation to all and it also teaches us to deny ungodliness, worldly lusts and exhorts us to live soberly and righteously in the here and now from the perspective of the future hope to come.
In earnest prayer for you and GES!
Timothy Grady
Thanks Shawn . Brilliant example of the implications, and biblical parameters of grace .
Dr. Francis Schaefer used the term “Freedom with form”.
Gracias Leo for the Titus reference . Over the target .
Unhappily , Episcopalianism does not really hold to Sola Scriptural . Nor Sola Fide , as Shawn infers .
Much like Romanism , they practically reduce to a form of moral relativism – not entirely , but noticeably . The disconnect is mystifying .
This too bleeds over into their political worldview .
Remove the objective standard , and the arbitrary becomes commonplace.
Leo Z
Thanks for the keen insight Timothy. I don’t know much of what the deeper views that Episcopalians hold, but if Pastor Shawn’s assessment on their permissiveness of certain things (i.e. homosexuality), then they are guilty of cherry picking what God’s Word says about sin(s) for their own end. Then again, if they don’t hold to Sola Scriptura, it’s not a prudent expectation for it to be any different from those that don’t.
Scripture is clear, homosexuality is just as serious an affront to God’s holy character as heterosexual sins of adultery and fornication are. To see the former differently from the latter and justify it as permissible in whatever measure outside of the breadth of the full authority of Scripture, is a blatant disregard of what God says in His divinely inspired Word.
It is sad that such cognitive dissonance exists with such prevalence in what is called Christianity.
Timothy Grady
Agree Leo .
The cognitive dissonance resulting from a skewed mixture not unlike Rome , where Reason (man’s fickle opinions) , and Tradition – along with Scripture – form a deposit of authori
Not surprisingly , the fallible and fickle often supplant biblical doctrines .
Most importantly , they collapse sanctification into justification , thereby removing certainty of eternal life .
Its sacramental system again mirrors the RC view , where grace is parceled out much like going to a gas station when the tank needs a fill up .
Such prevalence indeed.
This article outlines their deposit of authority :
http://www.anglicancatholic.org/sources-of-authority
Timothy Grady
Pg. 1. …deposit of authority…
Sorry ? just fired myself again !
Leo Z
Timothy, thanks for the link. Good resource for learning. Yes, I agree. Very much a mirror of Romanism, equating (maybe even elevating) Tradition and Reasoning with the authority of Scripture. Definitely NOT Sola Scriptura!
Michael
Excellent comment, thank you. Perhaps Satan’s second most effective tactic is that of works righteousness rather that grace (faith alone in Christ alone) is a way towards salvation and the resulting relationship with God. Very anti-biblical, as if human works can ever be found to satisfy an absolute righteous God. Satan’s first tactic of course, that he, and God, and angels, even exists. Both tactics are an effective strategy when coupled with the world system (cosmos) and the sinful nature of all mankind. Satan is not only powerful, evil and wicked, he is very clever. Regarding the “sin” issue found in Shawn Lazar’s Insightful article, I’m reminded of the following…
“If my sinfulness appears to me to be in any way smaller or less detestable in comparison with the sins of others, I am still not recognizing my sinfulness at all. … How can I possibly serve another person in unfeigned humility if I seriously regard his sinfulness as worse than my own?”
D. Bonhoeffer
KEN TAMASHIRO
Hi Pastor Shawn,
I think Grace allows for time and space for growth and development, much like Sanctification does also. It would be unrealistically to stop sinning or give up homosexuality. The process does take time and only when they understand totally that God loves them as they are and this will aid in the recovery process. I like the idea that there is no condemnation to those in Christ despite the failed attempts to change one’s life,
I feel very strongly that by bringing Christ into your sins, even while sinning will help the individual to gradually come out of his sinful behavior and grow towards being healthy again because the Holy Spirit is working in him also.
God is not ashamed about bringing Him into your sins,… but is rather happy that you brought Him in and wanting Love and Understanding from Him so as to eventually grow out of what is holding the individual back from his growth.
The process of Sanctification can be a beautiful thing because there God and Man can grow together without the fear of condemnation.
Grace and Peace to You,
Ken Tamashiro
Leo Z
Ken, thanks for your input. To clarify, no one here said that homosexuals can’t be saved or are not loved by God. Of course He loves them because He loved the entire world, hence, He sent His son to die for the sins of all men (homosexuals included). Yes they can be saved as anyone can be, if one believes solely in His Son for eternal life. They too are part of the “whosoever” of John 3:16 and the “whole word” of 1 John 2:2. No one is questioning that the practical, present sanctification of a believer as a time involved process, nor denying the sad presence and reality of sin in a believer’s life either (1 John 1:6-10).
The point of this discussion, is the Episcopalian church’s, equation of God’s “grace” as the “acceptance” of homosexuality as normal and its “permissiveness” of it, as Pastor Shawn inferred, instead of them calling it out as a sin, just as they would call out adultery, fornication, and murder and such, as an affront to God’s Holy character.
KEN TAMASHIRO
Leo Z,
Would you mind refraining from trying to teach me here?
I think my comments are my comments and you are not the moderator nor my teacher here at GES.
Ken Tamashiro,