One of the main limits on willpower, though, turns out to be…willpower. Exerting self-control in one domain makes it harder to exert self-control in another, at least right away.
Thus reads a line from the article “Resisting Temptation” in The Observer (the magazine put out by the Association of Psychological Science). The piece summarizes some of the most interesting research in psychology. Another excerpt:
In a study led by APS Fellow Roy Baumeister (Florida State University), a group of hungry participants was forbidden from eating freshly baked cookies sitting on a plate in front of them and made to eat radishes instead. These paticipants gave up faster on a subsequent frustrating task than did a control group who had been freely allowed to indulge their sweet tooth (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice, 1998). And in a study led by Mark Muraven (SUNY-Albany), participants made to suppress all thoughts of a white bear for five minutes consumed more beer afterwards in a “taste test” than did those in a control group, even though they knew they would subsequently be taking a driving test (Muraaven, Collins, & Nienhaus, 2002).
Numerous variants of this paradigm — making a group of participants exercise restraint in one situation and then comparing their performance with that of a control group in a subsequent self-control task — have shown the same pattern: Self-control is a limited resource that can be drained through exertion (Baumeister, Vohs, & Tice, 2007). Baumeister and colleagues call this fatigued state “ego-depletion,” and it is a significant discovery because it explains why many of our specific willpower failures occur when our strength has been taxed by other self-control demands. Refraining from blowing-up at one’s boss during the day may make it hard to resist a big meal of comfort food that evening. The constant effort of sticking to a diet may cause us to make more impulsive purchases at the mall.
The muscle that controls willpower does much more than just keep our impulses in check. It is part of a larger set of executive functions involved in self-monitoring, coping with stressors, weighing alternatives, and making decisions, all of which draw on the same energy source.
It is even possible to become ego-depleted by watching other people exert willpower…Exercising vicarious self-control led people to be willing to spend more on the consumer goods, as compared with a control group (Ackerman, Goldstein, Shapiro, & Bargh, in press).
A couple of weeks ago JAZ posted on Malcolm Gladwell’s take on America’s ‘rugged idealism’ – the American Dream required a sense of self-sufficiency, self-reliance, and self-control. But does it really work? My take (and you may disagree) on this is that the more we try to control ourselves and do the right thing (i.e., following the Law), the more we fail at subsequent attempts to control ourselves (i.e., transgressions are not decreased). In fact, the harder we try to exert self control, the more we will fail because of ego-depletion – we only have so much (or so little!) of willpower to begin with! It seems to ring true with Paul’s words: “Where there is no law there is no transgression” (Romans 4:15) – where you don’t have to exercise self control (no ego-depletion), there is no subsequent failure in exercising self control!
COMMENTS
42 responses to “Controlling Your Self Control: Temptation, Ego-Depletion and the Limits of Willpower”
Leave a Reply
Very helpful insight into the will, Bonnie. This came to mind as I was reading your post:
Sorry, the link didn’t work for some reason. Take deux:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTuOr2vlC-c
This reminds me of the old saying that I have heard about many lawyers: “He was a nice guy until he gave up drinking.” My question with this, that I have never been able to answer, is that the same “Paul” who wrote all that about the “law” increasing transgression, also wrote Gal. 5: 22-24:
“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, SELF-CONTROL; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.”
What are we to make of that? Does the Holy Spirit give the believer “self-control” as a gift? If not, what is Paul saying here, because that seems to be what he says on its face.
Look at those eyes!
Hey Michael,
I’m gonna try and tackle your excellent question:)
I think the nature of self-control as a fruit changes the classic way we think about it. Bonnie gives examples of when people were asked to consciously control themselves, which to me defines the self-control as an action motivated by our will, as she points out. That seems different to having self-control be born out of you freely because of the work of the Holy Spirit.
As the studies show, when we consciously make the effort to control ourselves, we can only maintain that for a short while, if at all (who can actually not think of a white bear when asked? As soon as the words are said my mind forms the image instantly). However, when something is a fruit I believe that by definition it requires no effort. Apple trees don’t have to try to produce apples they just do because that’s who they are. It simply happens naturally, and to me that means in an unconscious manner. Free, unconscious action is not burdensome or exhausting like willful and deliberate action has clearly been shown to be.
I think the issue is that we powerless to not take Paul’s descriptive words about the fruit of the Holy Spirit and turn them into a prescription that we are to follow and TRY to bring about in our lives. BUT the very fact that he calls them “fruit of the Holy Spirit” tells us that they are NOT in fact our responsibility at all. It is up to the Holy Spirit to work them out in our lives, and we can trust that He will and does. As soon as we begin to think about them and worry about them they have ceased to be fruit and have become our own works for which we subconsciously want credit.
Does this make any sense? I apologize for the train-of-thought sound to it:)
Sean- I tend to agree with this view of Christian “self-control” as a “passive” or “unconscious” gift of the Spirit, but there are problems with this interpretation: (1) A “passive” interpretation does not seems to be consistent with Paul’s statement that, “And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.” “Crucifying the flesh” does not seem to be a passive, effortless, activity.
(2) It forces us to divide the NT into “Catholic” and “Protestant” parts, when we run up against 2 Peter 1:5-11
“Make every effort to add to your faith goodness and to goodness, knowledge, and to knowledge, self-control…”
We may want to say, I’m a Paul guy, not a Peter guy, but that to me makes a mockery of any claim to being “apostolic”.
and, (3) I am not aware of Paul saying anywhere that the Christian life does not require effort, and much to the contrary.
This is not to say that “the law” is ever a “cause” of any self-improvement, I am just saying that the “descriptive not prescriptive” answer seems to me a bit thin.
Hey Michael,
I would agree with you that it is thin except for when I take into account my actual life. Just because Paul and Peter wanted me to do something in my Christian life in an active sense does not necessarily mean that I can. In that regard it would seem that the thing they prescribe, if it is indeed a prescription for action, is law by definition and therefore its purpose (as used by God) is to once again expose my inability and drive me to the cross.
Paul may have indeed intended me to be active in self-control, but I don’t think that means that I am able to do it. It still seems I end up back at the cross where I am reminded that there is in fact nothing left to be done because all things have been done by Jesus on my behalf. If this is true, then whatever follows after the cross that seems to be in the form of a prescription must be interpreted through the already fully completed work of Christ for me. It seems to me that it falls under the idea of interpreting the minors through the majors.
Thoughts?
Sean- I think I agree with the basics of what you are saying, but I do not think that Paul or Peter intended their comments on the Christian life to be taken in a “second use”, or condemnation use, of the law, as I think you suggest. I do agree with your conclusion, however, that we are to cling to the Cross (meaning our passive receipt of forgiveness) as the motivating “proximate cause” of all “effort” in living the Christian life. I thing that the Holy Spirit acts in us to point us always back to the Cross and our passive position before God of “being loved”, and that the Holy Spirit is not some holy rocket fuel that makes us somehow super-capable of doing God’s will. This means that “repentance and true faith” is the 1st and most fundamental “fruit” of the Spirit, and to that extent “not being able to do it”, is the first step in “doing it.”
I do think that the “descriptive vs. prescriptive” paradigm (I HATE that word!) should be scrapped, because there are just too many passages, even in Paul, which are clearly more than “descriptive”, but, I would argue, are also not “prescriptive”, at least in the way that is commonly understood. I would argue that we must look behind these “exhortation” passages to see what the writer understands to be the “motivating cause” for the various laudable Christian “results” that are urged. I see the one and only “motivating cause” which can trigger the “active” Christian life as, ironically, the constantly passively received love of God in Christ through the Cross. I think that Paul, Peter, and even that gospel bad-boy James are in agreement on this “motivating cause.” I think that it is a fair reading of these “exhortation” passages as calling for “action”, but action that is always motivated, and always and only flowing from, a passive,broken heart that is loved by God.
Can I just step in hear and say “this is awesome y’all.”
Bonnie, that may have been the best post I’ve read in a long long time.
And the comments have been truly off the chain…I mean really good.
Please continue…
Hey Michael and Cliff,
Michael, I think we agree. I don’t mean to present the Holy Spirit as some sort of “rocket fuel” as you say. What you described as the motivator – a broken heart because of God’s perfect love for us – I believe comes from the work of the Holy Spirit in our hearts. So, I guess what I am saying is that is what I meant:) You said it in a much more articulate way.
Also, I agree that many of the passages do not come off as purely descriptive, and I think you’re right about the authors’ views on the motivation coming from the contrite and passive heart before an active loving God. My point was about how the words hit us in our lives (and this goes to your question too Cliff). The imperatives in the NT often hit us in the exact same way as the Law in the OT. After all they are simply a re-affirmation of what it means to love the Lord your God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself. To say, “Yeah, but now we have the cross so now we can do the good works.” I think turns the cross into a means to an end rather than the end. There is no moving on from it.
Cliff, I don’t think bringing in our experiences of interacting with the Word of God is a bad thing. It was given to humans to be read and understood in our lives, and how it actually plays out in the human life is an important factor in how we understand it. I don’t think this changes the face reading of the Scripture. I believe that Paul and Peter often intended the imperatives to be followed, but my question is does that mean that we can follow them? They say it all in light of the cross (the indicative) for sure, but we still constantly fail to live in light of who we already are, at least I do. I see the same problems in the church today that Paul addresses in all of his letters. This leads me to always depend on the finished work of Jesus on the cross. I trust that he does bring about new life, but more often than not all I increasingly see is my sin.
Personally, I do not worry too much about Christian discipleship as I think it quickly becomes about improvement and action for all the wrong reasons. I think you’re right that Christ’s completed work on the cross results in freedom, which usually looks like loving God and loving your neighbor. But as soon as you begin to focus on the action as the important thing you move quickly away from Christ’s work for you to your own work for him. I feel much more peace by always emphasizing his completed work for us and trusting that he is in control of all Christians through his Holy Spirit and he will bring about whatever change he wants in their/my life.
I may not be doing a great job of explaining what I mean, but I think a helpful read is Forde’s treatment of this in “Five Views of Sanctification”.
Sorry, if any of this is not clear. You guys are helping me clarify as we “talk”.
Sean, I did not mean to suggest that you see the Holy Spirit as “rocket fuel”; that is the view of the “infusion” camp. And I think we agree that the passive receipt of grace in the Cross is always the only true motivation for the “active” Christian life. (any other Christian activity is not born of love, and we know what Paul says about acts, no matter what, without love) I am trying to process the “exhortation” passages, which are many, in a “gospel” light, while steering clear of the “descriptive v. prescriptive” formula, which I think is weak. The idea of “passively received love” as the basis for real Christian “activity” can be seen as historically true, beginning in Acts where those who had just crucified Christ, and been forgiven for it, suddenly were so overwhelmed with love that they “shared all things in common.” This was also the case with the pre-RC Irish church in which monks freely boarded the so-called “White Ships” and set off into the Irish Sea to go where God would take them to preach the gospel, and it was also true of the early years of the 19th Century missionary movement. But all of the great “active” moments of Christian history, which were motivated by true gospel-glad, broken hearts, are almost always followed by a “second generation” of those who turn the original “activity” into a “program” (i.e. “law”) to be followed as a “method” to spread the so-called “gospel” with which, ironically, they are no longer in touch. I do not want the “gospel-law” insight,shared by many here, to suffer such a fate.
I completely agree with you Michael. Wonderfully said, and Amen.:)
This is a great conversation, and one that, at times is over my head, a little at least.
I’m no scholar, for sure.
Most of ya’ll have spent a great deal of time learning in theological colleges and have alot of degrees and such, and are far more qualified than I to speak on most matters brought up here on this magnificent blog.
That being said, I’ll throw in my “two cents”.
I’ve struggled with/been perplexed by Paul’s apparent “doublespeak” in his letters as far as it pertains to grace vs. law, passivity vs. action, etc.
I can ask some questions, however. If you happen to view Paul’s (or Peter’s or James’)”exhortations” as prescriptive, and that’s how you are taking them and so ordering your life, then…. in the immortal words of Dr. Phil, “How’s that workin’ out for you?”
Who can live up to these exhortations? Is there not a reason they so resemble the laws of Deuteronomy or Leviticus? Maybe it’s because they are the same, at least in the way they are “heard”.
And, if they are the same in this way, is the response to them any different?
I don’t know. Maybe someone here can tell me. But, when I hear in the Old or the New Testaments that I ought not commit adultery, whether it’s Moses, or Paul or even Jesus who says it, will I be able to live up to it?
Especially in light of the Sermon on the Mount.
Where does this leave me?
This isn’t just about experience or biblical truths, this is about ME, the guy who God made the Sabbath for.
To be honest, I’m sort of tired of talking about the whole thing.
Paul says in Romans 7 that he is incapable of doing the things he requires later in the same epistle.
Either he’s schizophrenic, or his description of grace, or his exhortations are misinterpreted.
In light of the Cross, if It is to be afforded any real significance, the latter MUST be either descriptive or “second use”.
Anyway, I’ve gone off course.
How’s it working for you? What sort of fruit is being brought forth by your attempts to follow Paul’s exhortations? To what extent is the Kingdom of God being furthered by them?
How are sufferers being helped by your attempts to follow these exhortations or your attempts to “help” the same sufferers follow them?
Is this Jesus character someone who showed up on the scene just some dude with a huge ego who needs a bunch of folks to follow him around in order to feel good about themselves, or did he come to SAVE us FROM ourselves?
Pardon my use of non-theological terms such as “dude” and “sufferer”.
Wow, what a discussion! Trying to wrap my head around all that everyone has said…
When I consider the ideas of self control and discipleship (and as many of you have noted that the Apostles’ exhortations, as well as the fruits of the spirit, include self-control), I am reminded of Jesus’ words: “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” (Matthew 11:29-30).
This verse is important in putting discipleship (“take my yoke upon you and learn from me” sounds like discipleship to me) in perspective. I would imagine that to the ego-depleted Christian, this verse is welcomed relief.
So, like many of you have said, self-control can and does exist, and is supernaturally inspired. Ego-depletion is at its minimum – there is little exhaustion of the self-control muscle because it _wants_ to be, to the outsider, self controlled. Not resisting, but going with the flow.
I think the self-control-as-muscle analogy is particularly helpful because if you think about what causes our muscles to tire, it is resistance. Muscles are resisting when we lift weights or carry heavy babies (BIG T!). In the way, the muscle of self-control tires because it is in a state of resistance. Self control is resistance, and thus leads to ego depletion.
But to the Christian who has been inspired to be self controlled, the yoke of self control is easy, and the burden is light. Somehow there is little resistance in that. I believe that Holy Spirit-inspired self-control is resistance-free, does not tire the self-control muscle, and is therefore as Jesus said – the yoke is easy and the burden is light.
Just my 2 cents.
Cliff,
I want to think a bit about your objections to Forde if that’s alright:) I may address some of them, but I will probably hold off on a few too. I do want to say that your conviction and concern for the authority of the Bible in our lives is truly wonderful. I appreciate it so much because it really forces me to think through everything in that light.
I think Burton brings up some very apt points about how what the Bible presents (the unavoidable and obvious exhortations) play out in our lives. I agree with him that they function as law and lead us to the same place of need, which in turn leads us to the same place of salvation. I think allowing our own lives to be examined by the Scriptures usually, if not always, results in showing our lack of self-control, for example. This is the power of God’s Word used at first to convict and then second to save and revive.
I really hope that I am not downplaying the resurrection, Cliff. That is never my intention. It is certainly our hope! We wait for the resurrection of the dead (I posted on this just a couple of days ago actually. it’s called “Hope”). It is because of Jesus’ resurrection that we have any hope at all because we know that death has truly been conquered and all will be made new. I think when Forde talks about our smaller experiences of death and resurrection he has the final resurrection in full view. I think his argument is that our lives are a series of smaller events that point to the overall action of God in our lives: killing the sinner and raising the saint.
Through this business of death and resurrection we become more and more aware of Christ’s already completed and totally powerful action on our behalf. Sanctification, therefore, is God showing the completeness of our justification. Or, in other words, He continues to uncover areas in our life where we still hide in fear thinking He cannot and will not save us or love us or forgive us. BUT He shows that He already has forgiven, loved and saved those places through the cross and resurrection. There is nothing left to be done. This results in freedom in the person’s life and that freedom usually looks like what Paul, Peter, James, Luke and most importantly Jesus call for: loving God and loving our neighbor. I still believe that this happens to us just like every other work of God.
Bonnie, thanks for bringing this back to the actual post, which is great by the way:) Your comments are very helpful.
I think Mike Burton’s post is inspired.
Burton wrote: How’s it working for you? What sort of fruit is being brought forth by your attempts to follow Paul’s exhortations? To what extent is the Kingdom of God being furthered by them?
How are sufferers being helped by your attempts to follow these exhortations or your attempts to “help” the same sufferers follow them?
Which exhortations are you referring to in particular? I ask because many of the exhortations in the NT apply directly to the questions you asked: ie, bearing fruit, furthering the Kingdom, helping sufferers, so naturally following these exhortations would result in the things you seemed to imply wouldn’t happen.
Although married to a theologian, I am far from one myself. I completely agree that we must all cling to the cross, broken, empty people assured of forgiveness. Yet I am confused as to the message that the exhortations in the NT are the same as the OT, meaning only to point to law. Does that mean, according to this theory, that we don’t follow them at all because to do so would be legalistic? Or does it mean we only follow them when we feel like it, inspired by the Holy Spirit? Or something else I’m missing altogether?
I personally like CS Lewis’s Wormwood’s words on the subject, and I paraphrase: “Our greatest enemy is the man who feels nothing but obeys anyway.”
Interesting discussion, and one I’m sure I’m hardly qualified to join!
Katie
Katie, don’t sell yourself short! A wise man once said, “Being a theologian just means thinking and speaking about God” (Forde). That probably covers anyone who reads or comments on this blog.
In any case, I really appreciate your questions, and can identify with some of your concerns. I have also puzzled about these very same things, but I must say that I now pretty much agree with (Mike) Burton in what he says…
“How’s that workin’ out for you?” is something that I have asked myself more and more as I have gone longer in the ministry (I am an ordained minister of 10 years). What I have come to realize is that so often as Mike said, the “imperatives” of the Bible are “heard” in the same way. Whether in the OT or the NT. “Good” Christians tell themselves, because we should do it and yet I don’t, so I will fake it till I make it. That is a recipe for hypocrisy if I ever heard one! And so we cover up our pain. We spout platitudes like “With Christ in the vessel we can smile at the storm” that are cover-ups for what is really going on inside. And so we hold each other at arms length, afraid that if we get to close, the facade will slip, and people will see the real me.
It has been my observation in many of my conversations with parishioners how even in the midst of real, personal pain and suffering, they feel the need to say “but I’m just smiling in the Lord” while grimacing. It’s like they take that line of the old hymn, “We should never be discouraged” and try to put on a happy face, and consequently bury what is going on inside. Or that their relationship with God must be pretty good since they are doing their daily quiet time, no matter what is happening in the home, or at work (or non-work as is increasingly so now).
Ultimately it is not the in law-keeping (and I use “law” broadly to mean the “ought” that drives us) that we are saved. Rather, as we are saved, the life we then lead begins to look a lot like “law-keeping.” I don’t know if this sounds a little circular.
What I mean is that the action is not the problem, but who is the prime-mover of the action. We like to believe that if its going to be, it’s up to me. But the reality is even if I “succeed” at it, all it really breeds is a kind of smug, self-satisfaction at “how good I’ve become.”
Too often as good evangelicals, we hang our hats on Phil. 2:12 where we are encouraged to “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” failing to see that the thought continues in the next verse, “for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (v.13).
God alone is the source, the mover, the one who shapes our will and causes it to happen in us. Not we ourselves. So if we try to read the imperatives as a set of instructions we need to follow to get ourselves right, we set ourselves up for failure! Like the kid who tries to put the bike together with the “easy to follow” directions included in the box.
This is how I have come to see things. I don’t know if this helps you.
This is a very good discussion, and very needed I believe. I do not think that Paul’s “exhortations,” for example, in the latter part of Romans, should be lumped in the “law” bin, or that Paul should be condemned as “schizophrenic” because he gives us some things we are to do as Christians. I am simply not prepared to take the position that I know more about “grace” than the apostle Paul! This is why I have tried to understand these “exhortations” in the light of, and consistent with, Paul’s other writings that are more obviously dealing with God’s grace to us in Christ. As I understand these “exhortation” passages, they are simply saying that we, for example, should “love our brother.” But the unspoken understanding of this “exhortation,” based on the foundation of grace that Paul has already laid earlier in Romans, is that this “love for brother” flows from and is motivated by God’s love for me and forgiveness of me through the Cross of Christ. The problem in much of evangelical Christianity, as I see it anyway, is that the FIRST part of Romans is virtually forgotten, in practice, and the “exhortation” parts are taken as “stand alone” “rules for Christian discipleship.” This results in the utter, hopeless failure that you allude to. The real problem is that the Cross and the Gospel are seen as the means to “get you in the door” or, for the old-fashioned, save you from hell, while the new Christian is left with nothing after that, in practical terms, but a new set of rules to obey. But this, in my view at least, was never Paul’s intent. God certainly wants me to love my brother, but because of Christ I am already forgiven for not doing it. Because I am already forgiven, I am free to truly love, rather than trying to love in order to fulfill some requirement or earn God’s favor. This pattern is common in other parts of the NT, for example in 1st John, which starts by saying “I write these things so that you may not sin, but if you do sin, you have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” The thing that “works for me,” if we are to use that dubious test, is not simply to reject all of Scripture that has the slightest whiff of “the law”, but to see all of it in the light of the gospel.
Great conversation folks.
I agree, Michael.
My question is this: Does the “how’s it working for you” experience data rule out the plain meaning of Paul’s exhortations?
Maybe its my subliminal sinful desire to be active rather than passive in my sanctification, but I feel like I am having to do mental gymnastics every time I read Paul’s imperatives. I feel as if I have to catch his words and filter them through a systematic “2nd-use-only” filter before they hit the ground; Lest I be labeled a Semi-pelagian, “3rd-use-er”, theologian of glory in denial about the felt experience of actual sufferers.
This is a burden for me. Not the burden that Paul’s exhortations put on us, but a burden that says “You cant read Paul’s imperatives at their face value. Paul doesn’t mean what it looks like he means. Or if he did, he was just wrong. How’s it working for you?…”
I think the ‘how’s it working for you?” Ace card stops the conversation as it is an assertion rather than an argument. It presumes that if you are reading the the plain meaning of Paul’s exhortation on its surface, you are looking for a practical guide to sanctification. But, as Michael wrote, you don’t have to read it that way. You don’t have to be Joel Osteen or his theologically liberal counterpart- trying to “live your best life now”- if you believe that Paul wasn’t writing his exhortations in code. I can keep my low anthropology and passive understanding of our part in salvation/ sanctification without being a theological acrobat (U2) with respect to Paul’s exhortations.
My only resolution to this issue is to not try to resolve it. This is what I mean: why not let the tension between the “plain meaning” of the exhortations and the “whole epistle meaning” coexist. We are called as Christians to do certain things, and at the same time forgiven for our failure to do them. This holds in tension Paul’s exhortation and the whole meaning of the letter. Thus, I don’t have to ignore the plain meaning of Paul’s words or, thanks be to God, be bound by their demands in order to somehow “accomplish” my sanctification. Unless I am missing something, the Christian life presents lots of unresolved tension (in the world-not of it, give unto Caesar-give unto God, Already v. not yet.) I need to die to my desire to smooth over Paul’s letters to fit my theology.
This is the only way I can read these passages seriously.
Thanks for these great comments!
Josh- You have fleshed out beautifully what I was trying to say. I think these letters in the NT are obviously meant to be taken as a whole rather than pulled apart in bits and pieces. Your comments also illustrate how even “grace” can morph into “law” when we fear that we are not being “graceful” enough and will be condemned by our “grace” buddies for inadvertantly stumbling into the “third use” camp. Go figure…
I, like Katie (but not nearly as smart:), am not a theologian (also married to one) and wanted to mention something that came to my mind when reading this post. I have two children, both boys. One is a star at school and difficult at home, one is a sweetheart at home and a punk at school. It seems as though they can only be good in one context and their goodness runs out for the rest of the day. This comes to mind due to recent parent teacher conferences where I have been surprised to find that the teachers don’t really know my children.
Thanks for everyone’s comments–Michael, I especially appreciated what you said here:
The real problem is that the Cross and the Gospel are seen as the means to “get you in the door” or, for the old-fashioned, save you from hell, while the new Christian is left with nothing after that, in practical terms, but a new set of rules to obey. But this, in my view at least, was never Paul’s intent. God certainly wants me to love my brother, but because of Christ I am already forgiven for not doing it. Because I am already forgiven, I am free to truly love, rather than trying to love in order to fulfill some requirement or earn God’s favor.
This has been an interesting discussion, as I said before, and great food for thought.
Thank you!
Michael, I completely agree with your critique of most evangelicalism understanding the Gospel as a doorway. Yet I wonder whether one can “see the law in light of the Gospel” without seeing the Gospel as a doorway that leads to the law. It’s not that the commands take on a new significance for the believer, but that the believer does not see the command at all. The law of “shall” no longer exists and is replaced by a “want.”
it’s correct to say, as josh did, that “We are called as Christians to do certain things, and at the same time forgiven for our failure to do them. This holds in tension Paul’s exhortation and the whole meaning of the letter.” The reason for such a tension lies in the commonly repeated phrase, “simul iustus et peccator.” We are always both dead and alive, loving and hating, under the law of sin and death, yet free from its demands for what paul calls the “law of the spirit.” It’s not that Paul (or God) is schizophrenic, but it is myself. The ideal of life put forward by Paul always contradicts life as it’s actually lived (hence the “how’s that going for you”). The question becomes, what do I do with the contradiction between what is demanded and my life as it is. Either I try to overcome this gap through willpower or denial, or I give up and cry out to God.
Good discussion
What is the Law? The Law is a system which seeks to motivate a change in behavior by either the threat of punishment or the promise of reward. What is Grace? Grace is a system which seeks to motivate a change in behavior through the gift of “One-way Love”.
Therefore, Paul “exhortations” are based on the presupposition of one being “not under Law but under Grace”
Todd, I did not mean to suggest that we “see the law in the light of the gospel.” What I said was that I hope to read all of scripture in light of the gospel, which is a common theme in Luther, and certainly not my idea. I also did not say that “the commands take on new significance for the believer.” What I did say, or at least tried to say, is that the gospel means that we are motivated by the continuing reality of being loved and forgiven by God to, as you say, “want” to do the things that God, because He does love us, desires that we do. I think that we are in agreement, at least as far as I can see.
This has been an incredible discussion. I just got back in town from a long weekend and read the whole thing!
I love where the discussion has gone, and I deeply appreciate everyone’s insights. Clearly, this is an important issue about which many of us have tough questions and strong opinions.
I would just like to throw one thing out there (assuming people are still reading these comments): There is a clearly a “tension in the text” of the NT epsitles, as Josh so capably described and as one of my professors is fond of saying. I agree with Josh that it seems we cannot resolve this tension without ignoring the plain meaning of some particular passage of scritpure. Thus, we have to live with this tension.
My question is, how do we do ministry while living in this tension? On the practical level, when it comes to preaching, counseling, being a friend, being a husband, being a sibling, blogging, etc– how do we do ministry? I know that most of the M’bird crowd has a hyper-sensitive allergy to the law in anything other than its first and second uses. So the answer from this crowd (to which I deeply sympatheitc) is: give grace, grace, grace, and more grace. Do not exhort, do not give advice, do not promote “activity” in any sense, but simply remind the sufferer of the truth of the Gospel for them. This is ministry.
To me, this approach resolves the tension and is not true to all the examples of teachings of scripture. Why does Paul exhort after he preaches the Gospel? Why do John, Peter, and James say the things they say about good works? While I generally love the “M’bird approach” to ministry, I fear that, at its extreme, it makes a law out of grace (great observation, Michael Cooper). It does not allow us to be led by the spirit of the living God but only by the principle (aka law) of “grace at all times and in all places.”
I would love some feedback on any of this. Clearly, my thoughts above are incomplete. Many thanks to everyone on here who contributes to this discussion!
Colton,
A big Amen.
Wow everybody! Well done! This discussion is wonderful.
Colton, I think your last comment really helps to round out the whole deal. Your question about how it works out in ministry (and you could include everyday life in that because that is always the context of ministry) is truly where the rubber meets the road. Your answer is great too: “give grace, grace, grace”. I completely agree. Most of the time I think we run into difficulty with this, though, because we are naturally ungracious. SO, the way it practically works out is that we do not depend on ourselves to give grace or to be able to love the unlovable, rather like the Holy Spirit, St. Paul, Luther, etc. we always point to Jesus and His cross where grace is found.
Excellent stuff everyone!
Colton,
My view is this: The only context that you “give advice” or “exhort” is when you discern that the person is “not under law but under grace”.
In other words, exhortation and advice spoken to a person who is not broken of self-will and works-based identity, will only produce two things: a.) a self-righteous Pharisee or b.) a despairing sinner.
Therefore, exhortation and advice is only to be given to those who are broken by the demand of the Law. If someone is still thinking that they can be motivated to change by promise of blessing or threat of punishment (which is the definition of law) then exhortation will only serve to prop up their flesh and pride.
However, once a person has had or is having a Romans 7 experience, then they should be told to walk in the spirit, crucify the flesh, etc.. etc…
Hope that helps clarify.
Check out the “Smalcald Articles” by Martin Luther for further explanation.
Dave Louis
Over the last few years, I have come to think that whenever I get to a place where I am asking myself questions like, “Should I give grace to this person in this situation, or law?” or, “Should I be honest even though it will hurt the person, or stay quiet and risk repressing something which will come out later anyway?” then the situation is already past any help that such thinking could give it.
These kinds of internal questions come up again and again and again in my marriage, to give the most obvious example (and I know Bonnie asks herself the same questions!). I have found that basically it does not matter which I decide to do, or give in to doing, in terms of what ends up happening.
I don’t think that the Law/Gospel paradigm, or whatever you want to call it, has much to do with these sorts of questions, at least not as they actually consciously occur in my mind, despite the fact that they do occur, at least to me, all the time.
As soon as I am asking myself whether to apply “law” or “grace” in x situation, I think I am nearly always in the territory of manipulation, and that that particular battle is already lost. E.g. “Should I tell Bonnie that I was hurt because I didn’t feel fully listened to earlier, or do I just let it go out of ‘grace’?” I am convinced that this question is basically always a manipulative one, at least for me. It is really, “How can I get my way as much as possible without having to deal with Bonnie being angry with me?”
I think when real “grace” is really applied, in the true divine sense, it is something that just happens. The genuinely loving things we do just happen, spontaneously or else incidentally, and they usually feel very easy, if we are aware of them at all.
Grace has very little to do with trying consciously to figure how to act in a given situation. Grace has to do instead with freedom, and acceptance, and love. I am increasingly convinced that these are things that happen to you, not things you do.
Simeon,
I would agree with everything you just said IF and ONLY IF I didn’t believe that a Christian had a wicked nature remaining within them.
When you say that things should just automatically happen in the Christian experience, does that in fact ever happen to you and is that not downplaying the remaining sin within?
I would say that the Christian life is a constant battle between living under law or living under grace. This battle must be engaged in and thought through in every situation.
Saying that we should give up applying law and grace for the sake of just letting it happen sounds like a another way of collapsing back into living under the law. So we shouldn’t even try to apply grace or law to a situation because we might be selfish? That doesn’t sounds like freedom to me.
Dave Louis
Simeon, I believe is on target here.
Grace, in my experience, is rarely “applied” to a situation. It just happens. But, Dave, I don’t think, and I doubt Simeon is suggesting, that it happens all of the time.
I think we’re all aware of the “total depravity” which most of the time is evident in what we do and how we act.
I think Simeon’s observation that instances of grace are “spontaneously or else incidentally (given), and they usually feel very easy, if we are aware of them at all”, is compatible with a very dark view of human nature.
That being said, there are plenty of times where we are not gracious.
But, when we are, it is by the power of the Spirit, and, as Simeon stated, probably has not so much to do with calculated response.
Burton,
I guess we’ll have to disagree on this. The idea that we shouldn’t try to apply grace or law to a situation because we may be ourselves “doing something” sounds like the purest form of antinomianism I have seen on this blog.
God works THROUGH MEANS. Luther had to deal with this in his time, with people who took the grace teaching so far that they imagined that they need not do anything at all, even live by grace!!!!
Simeon, I would love to hear your response.
Dave Louis
Burton, I agree.
Dave, I think you are misunderstanding Simeon. I will not try to answer for him, but I would posit that Christian ministry is not about control or manipulation or the application of formulas.
I believe that grace is the spontaneous ego-less manifestation of love that I, for one, have experienced many times.
God, not us, is the source of grace.
The moment I decide to dispense grace, because of a theological principle, I am (by definition) acting from a law, I become the god of my little world and the result is always less than freely loving. In fact, it quickly becomes a burden.I have experienced the burden of living “under the law” of determining whether to dispense law or grace.
It is nothing like freedom.
I believe that both life and scripture support me.
I cant do “living by grace”. That happens as the result of hearing the gospel and being the passive reflection of the good news.
just my 2 cents y’all.
Josh, Burton, Simeon,
As I have been reflecting on this idea, I think I have indeed overreacted a bit.
I think I am understanding what you guys are saying. There is a temptation to turn Grace into yet another formula by which we secretly gratify our selfish ego needs. I can agree with that danger.
Would you guys say that even though this danger is real and constant, we should nevertheless try to apply Grace to our everyday life?
I really like what Josh said, and I think it helps in understanding the “exhortation” portions of Romans and Galatians:
“I cant do ‘living by grace’. That happens as the result of hearing the gospel and being the passive reflection of the good news.”
This is why Romans does not BEGIN at Romans 12:1-2: “I appeal to you therefore, brothers, BY THE MERCIES OF GOD, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, BUT BE TRANSFORMED BY THE RENEWAL OF YOUR MIND, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.”
This “exhortation” or “advice” or “instruction”, if you will, from Paul rests entirely on the gospel message of passively received love from God that he has laid out in the previous 11 chapters. This “instruction” is to be read and understood as totally dependent on that received love. So, while “presenting my body as a living sacrifice” does, on the surface, appear to require “action” and “effort”, that “effort” is not my own, but God’s grace and mercy working in me, most genuinely at a subconscious level, to produce that “effort” as the fruit of God’s gracious love. The issues of causation and personal “choice” are exactly the same in this area as they are on the “predestination” front,in terms of our coming to God because He has caused us to come to Him.
It certainly takes “effort” to get up at 3 A.M. and change a really messy dirty diaper, but when it is done as a natural “fruit” of love, “the burden is light.” This is why the constant preaching of the gospel of God’s love to us in Christ is so crucial, and particularly crucial for those who already are believers! And that comes from one who sits in the pew.
I think that this blogversation is exposing some helpful areas of needed clarification and further discussion; its nice to be a part of trying to work this all out with you guys!
It seems like the terms “2nd use” and “3rd use” have come to denote either the “hyper grace” people on one hand or “semi-Pelagian” on the other–with the implicit arguments that the former is too subjective and the latter is out of touch with sufferers–and it is easy to see how this has developed; however, I think that this distinction is indicative of a deeper disagreement over how the Law (in all of its 31 uses) operates.
Over the past few years, I’ve come to realize in my own life that one of the dangers of speaking about “uses” of the Law is that they can so quickly be codified as systems by which we can manipulate and control our lives and others.
In this respect, it doesn’t really matter whether you are for a “3rd” use or not, because statements (of which I am certainly guilty) like “You’re just being the Law,” or “So and so gave them Law, ” or, my favorite, “That’s just a 1st use issue,” often makes the distinction between the Law and Gospel seem like a gnostic LRon Hubbard’esque system. . .
In my opinion, both of these “camps”–at times–are operating under the theological misconception that we “apply” either Grace or Law respectively.
Yes, it is true that we can manifest either of these two realities at any given moment–sometimes even simultaneously–but, paraphrasing Simeon, any conscious attempt to control by a combination of Law/Gospel is not love, its self-serving calculation.
Anyway, there is more to be said, but in light of a shared human existence lived under the holy, righteous and ever accusing voice of the Law, I don’t have a problem nor would I be opposed to defining ministry as anything more than “simply remind(ing) the sufferer of the truth of the Gospel for them.”
Yes, we hope people get better: stop paying for sex, memorize the Bible, grow wings, etc. . but when it comes to specific ways based on vague (yet nevertheless completely true) principles/exhortations in the NT, we are extremely skeptical of our own advice and wisdom, not because we’re lazy, but because its rooted in a belief that the Law will continue to kill, the Gospel will continue to bring life, and we can rest in the God who has the power to make all things new.
Much love,
jady
This is why the constant preaching of the gospel of God’s love to us in Christ is so crucial, and particularly crucial for those who already are believers! And that comes from one who sits in the pew.
so say we all. . . 🙂
Vielen Dank Herr JDK!
Jady said at least two things in his post that I just love:
1. “blogversation”
2. “stop paying for sex, memorize the Bible, grow wings, etc.”
Hilarious. Also, the other parts were good.
Eagerly anticipating Pt. 2, Bonnie 🙂