Phillip Cary’s Gospel Sanctification: If it’s Both/and, He Doesn’t Say
I just finished Phillip Cary’s “Good News for Anxious Christians.” The book concerns what he calls, throughout the book, “the new evangelical theology.” According to Cary, this new theology creates unnecessary anxiety in and among Christians. He then cites ten “practical” things that the new evangelical theology says we should do that causes the anxiety, and why we really don’t need to do them, and thus eliminating the unnecessary angst. He also noted that this new theology damages Christians psychologically, emotionally, morally, and spiritually.
The book came to my attention when it was suggested to me that it was an apology against Gospel Sanctification. But when I did some research in regard to the author, it became apparent that he is an advocate of GS. This incited the following thought on my part: “Are there two GS camps?” So, when I encountered the following statement in the beginning of the book, I wasn’t surprised:
“Some folks may find it odd when I say Christians need the gospel, but this is something I firmly believe. I don’t think you just accept Christ once in life, and then move on to figure how to make real changes in your life that transform you. It’s hearing the gospel of Christ and receiving him in faith, over and over, that makes the real transformation in our lives. We become new people in Christ by faith alone, not by our good works or efforts or even our attempts to let God work in our lives.”
I posted a short article that focused on the one statement only: https://paulspassingthoughts.wordpress.com/2011/01/07/%E2%80%9Cthats-not-true%E2%80%9D-phillip-carys-gospel-sanctification-statement/
Nevertheless, other statements in the book seemed to be a direct protest against GS elements, though Cary does not specifically name what the “new evangelical theology” (hereafter “TNET”) is. The book was based on feedback he gets from his college students, so he is seeing the ground level effect of TNET firsthand. My strong suspicion is – he is seeing a variety unbiblical soundbites that Christians live by, but no doubt, some of them are spawns of the GS doctrine. So, what’s going on here?
I will summarize chapters in the book that clearly refute the GS doctrine, and chapters that hold the GS line, and then I will state my conclusions. As an aside, let me say that I believe chapter one addresses post-Christian thought (God speaks to us in small, still voices instead of Scripture, and we have to sort it out. Also see chapter 10), and not Gospel Sanctification. First, chapter three is a devastating argument against the GS tenets of Christ obeying for us, “yielding,” and the supposed evil of “trying to obey God by our own efforts.” It was also very confirming to hear from a well noted Christian thinker concerning the impact that this doctrine is having on people in real life. I was in a church that taught the GS doctrine, and Cary’s argumentative question on page 39 echoes the EXACT same question I often asked the leaders of that church: “…how do you know if you’re really letting God do it – or are you still just trying to do it in your own strength?” Cary then noted that the necessity of such a question is a “sign that something’s wrong.” However, before I continue, though they did not want to answer the question to me at the time, the answer is: when Christ is obeying for us, our response will be a “mere natural flow accompanied by overflowing joy” (ie., John Piper’s Christian Hedonism). They knew a truthful answer in accordance with the doctrine would have presented another caveat for debate / consideration.
Cary makes many powerful arguments against this notion in chapter three, including the following:
“At its sickest, the new evangelical theology is an attempt to deny the reality of God’s creation… [when God created the garden and put Adam there to maintain it – it was really Adam doing the work, not God] That’s what really happens when you get really serious about saying, ‘it wasn’t me; it was all God.’ This is a misunderstanding at best, a denial of the doctrine of creation at worst” (page 54).
Also, chapter three concludes with an orthodox statement that clearly propagates synergistic sanctification.
Throughout the book, Cary accuses TNET of implementing “either/or” when “both/and” should be applied. As one needs to note from our preceding consideration, to “obey in our own strength” implies that either your doing it, or God is, so if your at work, God isn’t. Cary states it this way:
“…in fact you’re always the one who’s doing it. The inner acts of your heart are always your own, even when they’re a result of God working in you.”
Cary then applies this to another one of his contentions in chapter five; specifically, the “either/or” application to love and duty (classic John Piper), or the same application to love and motives (classic Francis Chan). It is more than fair to say that Cary’s contention on page 86 could apply directly to John Piper’s Christian Hedonism:
“An especially twisted way of misdirecting our attention is to preach that we should do good things out of love, not duty. It’s perverse, in the first place, because people who genuinely love their neighbors are eager to do their duty – to keep their promises and obligations, for example – since this binds them to their neighbor’s and is therefore one of the most important ways of seeking their neighbor’s good. So people who love are people who do their duty. It’s clearly a both/and, not an either/or. And they’re strongly motivated to do their duty, rather than being motivated by the desire to be such loving people. That desire would twist their motivation back toward themselves – making it a concern for their own self-image, rather than for their neighbor’s good.”
Exactly. Love seeks the “good” or what’s best for our neighbor, regardless of how we feel about whatever we have to do to accomplish that. Also, as Cary notes, a concern about how we feel when we love makes it about us and introspection concerning our motives, not love. If Piper hears about this line of thought, he will have to take another sabbatical.
Chapters six and seven are a spot-on, biblical view of the relationship between feelings, love, and obedience. However, I will say that although the thoughts are very biblical, it’s peculiar that very few Scripture verses are cited in comparison to the volume of information, and the few verses that are cited do not reference or compliment any of the strong points. It is more than fair to say that this chapter is abundant fodder for a treatise against Christian Hedonism, but I have no idea whether that tenet of GS is what Cary would consider part of TNET. And before I get too far ahead, I might mention that chapter four strongly emphasizes the application of biblical imperatives to life, and the importance of “finding wisdom, and what is good, in the commandments of God” [paraphrase].
With that said, chapters nine and ten are right out of the Gospel Sanctification play-book, complete with a purely redemptive-historical viewpoint of the Scriptures and the dissing of practical application (but chapter seven is the epitome of practical application!). Page 167 seems to bolster the GS tenet of the total depravity of the saints, and also adding the following on page 168:
“On the other hand, if you want to be merciful and give people good news [ie., the gospel], you have to start by teaching them how to be sinners.”
Yikes! Do we really want our preaching to focus on getting Christians to see themselves as “sinners”!? Just about everywhere you poke chapters nine and ten, you get sanctification as justification:
“There’s no escaping the trap [of practical application] unless you believe that Christ came to save sinners and that includes you.”
Let me pause here and clarify something; when evangelicals talk about practical application, they are referring to “hear[ing] these words of mine and putting them into practice” (Matthew 7:24).
Chapter nine is also heavy on the whole GS Bible as gospel narrative motif in which our goal is to “put ourselves in the narrative” rather than to “take something out” for practical application (see this post:
Lastly, though Cary emphasizes synergistic sanctification throughout the book, he also advocates the idea that the Scriptures are “the gospel” and “the gospel is not about what we do, but about what Christ does.” So in regard to the Scriptures and the use thereof, this seems to be the “either/or” approach that he disses elsewhere. There is also a very strong flavor of Michael Horton’s concept of, “trying to represent Christ with good behavior is an attempt to be the gospel rather than presenting the gospel.”
There is simply no doubt: Cary is presenting two distinct, opposing views in the same book with no logical conclusions connecting the two. Is it “both/and,” or “either/or”? He doesn’t say. However, his GS model, unlike the other camp, would NOT include New Covenant Theology, Christian Hedonism, monergistic sanctification as the only true gospel (he just thinks it’s serious error), and Heart Theology (Cary believes change is effected by outside influences as well as inside influences). But, like the other camp, it would include the total depravity of the saints, and a redemptive-historical hermeneutic (all Scripture is about the gospel only). Other elements are inconclusive because of the contradictory concepts presented in the book (for instance, is the end-game of his model antinomianism? And, are saints totally depraved and spiritually dead, or just totally depraved?). Again, several elements are inconclusive because of the discontinuity between ideas in the book.
I will conclude by taking a stab at this. I think Cary is orthodox in most of his views concerning sanctification and offers brilliant insight into the subject as well. In fact, I will be using a lot of his material from this book at a men’s fellowship this month. But, is this a case in which Cary is enamored by the Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutic and is just cramming it in to his perspective come heck or high water? It reminds me of watching football with Susan. She just can’t understand those runs where the running back goes crashing into the line for zero gain: “Why do they do that?! Run around them! That’s stupid! Well, Phillip Cary is far from being stupid, of course, but there is simply no connection of thought between his contradictory positions, which is strange. It seems like it would be easy enough to articulate a model that would be “both/and” like love and duty are both/and.
It would be an erroneous model, but he could have at least done that.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment