Legalism and antinomianism.

I read this yesterday and still find it stuck in my head. This is from an interview by Justin Taylor with Tullian Tchividjian on his new book Surprised by Grace: God's Relentless Pursuit of Rebels. The transcript that Taylor posted on his blog began with: Is the gospel the middle ground between legalism and lawlessness?

---------------

Tchividjian: This seems to be a common misunderstanding in the church today. I hear people say that there are two equal dangers Christians must avoid: legalism and lawlessness. Legalism, they say, happens when you focus too much on law, or rules. Lawlessness, they say, happens when you focus too much on grace. Therefore, in order to maintain spiritual equilibrium, you have to balance law and grace. Legalism and lawlessness are typically presented as two ditches on either side of the Gospel that we must avoid. If you start getting too much law, you need to balance it with grace. Too much grace, you need to balance it with law. But I’ve come to believe that this “balanced” way of framing the issue can unwittingly keep us from really understanding the gospel of grace in all of its depth and beauty.

I think it’s more theologically accurate to say that there is one primary enemy of the gospel—legalism—but it comes in two forms.

Some people avoid the gospel and try to “save” themselves by keeping the rules, doing what they’re told, maintaining the standards, and so on (you could call this “front door legalism”).

Other people avoid the gospel and try to “save” themselves by breaking the rules, doing whatever they want, developing their own autonomous standards, and so on (you could call this “back door legalism”).

There are two “laws” we can choose to live by other than Christ: the law which says “I can find freedom and fullness of life if I keep the rules” or the law which says “I can find freedom and fullness of life if I break the rules.”

Both are legalistic in this sense: one “life rule” has as its goal the keeping of rules; the other “life rule” has as its goal the breaking of rules. But both are a rule of life you’re submitting to—a rule of life that is governing you—which is defined by you and your ability to perform. Success is determined by your capacity to break the rules orkeep the rules. Either way you’re still trying to “save” yourself—which means both are legalistic because both are self-salvation projects.

---------------

You can read the whole thing here.

I found that this is how I usually view the two ditches of legalism and antinomianism, with the gospel in between the two. Luther emphasized a more grace focused approach in his churches, and the Reformed Zwingli and Calvin wanted more discipline in their churches (third use of the law). This is how I've interpreted Romans 6 and 7 many times; Paul addressing going either of two directions off course of a "cross-centered life". But I think Tchividjian is being very insightful here, and helpful as well--if we see these as two different categories/ditches, then we've put the gospel of grace on a spectrum and also have robbed grace of its true implications and meaning.

General Updates:

• Been busy furnishing the house; my desk arrived yesterday so I'm almost fully situated.
• Was Kasey for the day at CHBC, manning the front desk answering phones. Also grabbed a really good fish sandwich at the H Street Corridor with Dangus because Ashley had seen it spoken of on the Food Network. I actually recall going here before on Urban Plunge but not getting anything.
• I'm excited to be grabbing lunch with the Leemans today out in Cheverly and dinner with the Merkers after moving some of their stuff.
• I've begun watching Lost (yes, from episode one) with Matt P. We're supposed to just watch one a day, but yesterday we splurged and watched three episodes...this may be going in a bad direction!
• Still waiting to hear back from two internship possibilities, but in the meantime I've been busy running errands.
• Happy birthday Kevin!