Anfechtung and Vanilla Essence
Over at TeamPyro, Dan ‘Dispo’ Phillips and Frank ‘Sollozzo’ Turk have posted a couple of very good reflections on a recent post over at The Gospel Coalition on the indicative/imperative thing (and by inference sanctification). Their observations provoke two thoughts:
First, this is not really a matter where those involved in practical, day to day preaching and ministry can shrug their shoulders and not take sides. The difference between, say, Kevin DeYoung and Tullian Tchividjian is going to make a very big difference in how one counsels, for example, a young man struggling with internet pornography (whether he is a believer or unbeliever). To use the American phrase, I have no dog in the TGC fight — except that it is an influential organisation which treads on my pastoral patch with unfortunate frequency. A bit of clarity on a doctrine which has pretty immediate practical consequences would go a long way to serving the wider church.
Second, it reminds me of the importance of reception in theology and practice. When Luther broke with Rome, he broke with what he perceived to be a religion of trivialised works and harsh legalism. This shaped his theology. By the late 1520s, however, some of his followers had pretty well ditched any notion of the law having any use whatsoever. The antinomianism this fostered caused him deep distress and to set forth a fresh articulation of his theology which took account of the excesses he witnessed.
Sonship theology no doubt helped a generation brought up under the legalism and austere God of some strands of fundamentalism. Its reception by a generation of over-indulged skinny jeaners whose definition of Anfechtung is that nagging worry that one day the local Starbucks will run out of vanilla essence is quite a different matter.
