Dangerous Grace

We marvel at the depth, the height, and the breadth of God’s amazing grace. By this expression of his nature God has brought salvation to us, through Jesus, when we were helpless to save ourselves, so that whatever we do for God is never reciprocated as like for like. There is no spiritual or moral equivalency between God’s act and mankind’s response.

Having said that, grace has demands on us. Receiving God’s grace, we are to be transformed in our behavior. Grace isn’t a free pass to lawlessness, to a careless means of living in which we appeal to the grace of God as our get-out-of-jail-free card. It matters how we live; it matters how we respond to his grace. It is a lazy, therefore dangerous, faith that sees grace as a one-way street. Our habit of separating things as important as God’s grace from human response is not the intention of scripture. (1 Barclay, J. Paul and the Gift. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017.) God’s initiating activity/word is effective in us by a lived-out obedience. We are lost without God’s gracious initiative, but God having acted by grace calls us to response. Grace, in effect, demands response.

There are two examples in the New Testament that highlight this. Neither are talked about much as they are troubling to us. Maybe they are troubling because of a weakened view of God’s holiness. We, in seeing God in Jesus, may feel God is sufficiently domesticated. But we forget that Jesus is far from safe – good, but not safe.2

Our first example in found early in the history of the church in Jerusalem – Acts 5.1-11. This is the unfortunate story of Ananias and Sapphira, both dying at Peter’s feet for lying to and testing the Spirit of the Lord. The story really starts in Acts 4 where Barnabas sold some land and gave the money to the care of the apostles – it was noted. The money was distributed to those in the church who were in need. Seeing this, Ananias and Sapphira sold a piece of property (possibly not the whole – as Barnabas did), and wanting recognition for their act of faith and generosity brought only a part of it to Peter and the apostles. I can’t think of any other reason they held back the rest. Their sin was that they were duplicitous, not that they only gave a percentage. Peter said very clearly that the proceeds were at their disposal – nobody told them they had to give the full price, nor was it expected. Their lie was their demise, the want to be recognized proved fatal.

This seems a harsh judgment, but it is to be remembered these were extraordinary days in the life of the nascent church, where something of worldwide significance was being formed and framed. And it does have precedence in the Old Testament, where people died when the law was given. Our normal come back with this is – ‘the law brought death, but God’s grace brings life.’ But this misinterprets grace and robs it of its gravity and holiness. Ananias and Sapphira knew what they were doing, went ahead with it, and in so doing brought judgment to themselves. The activity and closeness of the Spirit forbade a casual approach to God. That, and mockery of the faith and sacrifice of others (aka Barnabas). God’s presence, his grace and love, are not for casual consumption.

The other instance is found in 1 Corinthians 11.30 where Paul enlightened the church about why some of them were weak and ill, and some had died. The reason they were weak, sick and dying, was because the church was deeply divided (as was Roman society) between the haves and the have nots – the poor and the well off. Paul told them they were eating and drink condemnation/judgment to themselves when the Lords Supper was being celebrated when it was with such obvious divisions between them - the very divisions that Jesus had done away with in the cross. Their behaviour was voiding the

cross of its saving efficacy by re-erecting the walls that divided. This was a serious matter, as they found out to their own harm.

We can’t make the gospel less than what the gospel is by appealing to a form of grace, that is nothing more than a form of tolerance – God’s benevolence stretched out of shape. It is much more dangerous than we tend to comprehend. Grace is certainly not tolerant of sin, of anything than harms God’s church, that treats lightly God’s saving act in Christ.

For these, and other reasons, I suggest grace is not only amazing, but also dangerous.