Follow-up to Brief Thoughts on Recent Controversies in the "Grace Movement"
Follow-up to Brief Thoughts on Recent Controversies in the “Grace Movement”
As a result of subsequent correspondence with the brethren, I am including this follow-up article to address concerns that were raised by my original article on this subject.
It was communicated to me that certain of the brethren in question felt misrepresented by my article. I take this very seriously. I tried very hard not to do this, as I would not want this done to me, but I obviously did not do all that I could in this regard. If it was not clear before, I want the following to be clearly understood:
The GSB brethren believe in the edification process of the believer (sanctification)
The GSB brethren believe in the doctrine of reward at the Judgment Seat of Christ.
If I in any way gave the impression in my article that these brethren do not believe in these doctrines, then I sincerely apologize with all that is within me. The questions I raised did not serve to question their belief in these doctrines, but rather to show the unfairness and inconsistencies of the alarm they were raising about other brethren and the understanding of the passages in question. I thought this point was clearly made, but if not, let it be so here.
I also fully realize that conferences, by their very nature, are not comprehensive, let alone exhaustive. I indicated that I appreciated this by making reference to the limitations of the venue. Criticizing a speaker simply because something wasn’t said or discussed at a particular venue would be greatly unfair. That said, at the very end of the article I made a point of commending another message delivered at this same conference. This was not meant to in any way disparage the other speakers, but rather as a commendation to GSB and as a personal encouragement in light of some issues I have with the overall tenor of GSB regarding what gets presented as “legalism”. I thought this point was clearly made, but if not, let it be so here:
My concern is with what was said at the conference, not what wasn’t said.
The GSB brethren believe and teach any number of essential and non-essential things that were not, and couldn’t possibly be discussed in a conference venue.
I further made the point that while they confess, affirm and teach the above doctrines, I believe there are further inconsistencies in how these issues are often related to the sanctification of the believer. That is, there is much concerning the role of the believer that I perceive they present as being legalism and inconsistent with the “grace life”. In my view, the conference was a manifestation of this larger tension. This is my judgment, and this I stand by, but it should be clearly understood that they would take issue with this and feel it is an unfair characterization. I can only respectfully differ concerning this point and let every man’s ministry stand as its own testimony.
Again, the issue was not the basic underlying doctrines (which I stated everyone agrees on). It was for this very reason I feel it is inappropriate to be marking certain brethren doctrinally as they apparently did at the conference. This went beyond interpretive and expositional differences. It labeled brethren who differ on certain passages as dangerous and utilized arguments that are both unfair and inconsistent with many other things that the GSB brethren themselves believe and teach. If the GSB brethren did not confess the basic underlying doctrines in question, I would not have bothered commenting on the matter as we would not be in active fellowship. The issue was what was being said about fellow brethren they differ with, and certain aspects of the arguments that were being used to that end. The conference was not simply expositionally “passionate” as has existed within the grace movement for quite some time. No, it was theologically “hostile” to those that differed with GSB on these passages, with warnings about infiltration of the grace movement. You can’t have it both ways. If that is how they honestly feel then fine, I can respect that, although I feel it is unfair and unnecessarily divisive. If they feel it was a mistake to present it in that manner and wish to communicate that, then I can respect that as well. What occurred at the conference, however, and the lines that were being drawn in the sand for those that differed with them, were clear to all. I don’t doubt they may not have realized how far those lines would ultimately extend, but here we are.
Moving Forward
Having stated the above, and in light of certain feedback, I feel it is important to reiterate some key things concerning what are the issues going forward in light of the perceived theological “hostility” that was expressed at the conference. It appears there may still be confusion on the part of certain brethren as to why I felt it necessary to publicly speak on this issue. If that was not clear before, let me hopefully make it so here. This is particularly addressed to all my GSB brethren who are dear and precious to me in the Lord.
I definitely don’t want there to be any confusion or feelings of being misrepresented. I tried to be as careful and clear as I possibly could in the article. I made it plain that all the brethren both confess and teach variations of these things in their ministries, which is why I am not hostile to these differences in our understanding of certain passages, and believe certain brethren are being treated unfairly simply because they differ on the passages in question. What was presented at the conference went beyond “passion” and differences in exposition. It presented those who differ in a certain light. I choose the word “hostile” very carefully. I don’t feel it is negative, or a word to be eschewed. I am hostile to any number of theological positions, and unabashedly so. The problem is if GSB is making these interpretive differences in question one of those issues.
I realize there may be some personal things going on behind the scenes we are not aware of, but there are larger implications in the way things were being presented and attacked at the conference. The personal issues should not be dragged into these conferences. The perception was/is that those who differ with you on these passages are being called out, marked and isolated as teaching things that are causing the “foundations” to be “under fire”.
Brethren are being presented as dangerous if they teach certain things in connection with the joint-heir passage and completeness passages. This was argued at the conference in such a way that raised the concerns I detail in my observations. I have differed with Richard (and presumably other GSB brethren) for quite some time concerning there being more involved in the joint-heir passage. However, this has never been made a litmus test, until it apparently was made such at this conference. The same would go for the completeness passages. I have no desire to divide over these issues. The distinct impression that many of us had from the conference was that GSB seemingly does. I realize you brethren may have personal issues with certain other brethren for whatever reasons, but in what was said at the conference you were taking aim at many other brethren who currently identify with you. The conference was not personal. It was doctrinal. My observations and response to it are not personal, they are doctrinal. I was being told that certain differences with GSB are “foundations under fire”. I don’t feel that I, along with many other brethren who heard the messages, misunderstood what was clearly being conveyed at the conference concerning dangerous influences infiltrating the grace movement. However, I am more than happy to forgive such misunderstandings if that was the case. That is why I called for clarity on just how far this theological hostility extended regarding the expositional issues in question.
Brethren are being presented as if they are undermining the believer’s position in Christ and the grace life if they differ in their understanding of certain passages. That puts those of us who differ with you brethren in an awkward position. As I said, I actually agree with you in certain key interpretive differences you have with some of the brethren in question, but I still felt you went unfairly beyond these expositional differences in your critiques, to the point of implicating issues which are routinely taught by us in connection with sanctification, edification and rewards. If you don’t believe they are what is in view in a given passage in question that is fine, but those of us who believe they are (despite any number of other interpretive differences we might have among us) are not dangerous.
You may not have realized it, but you were clearly marking me, and many others, when you presented those who differ with you on particular passages in a certain light. I have no desire to water this down. I do not fault you, or any other brethren, for differing with me in your understanding of those passages. What we need to know is where GSB stands in light of those differences. It appeared that they were marking and isolating those who differed with them. If that is so, I respect you, but I stand on the other side of that line. If that was not what was occurring, I welcome our continued fellowship, as I will certainly not be the one to cut it off over these expositional differences. As I plainly stated in the article, you clearly confess and teach the key underlining doctrines. Mine was/is a call for unity and peace in light of what has been perceived by many as a call for division by GSB against certain teachings in “the movement”. If that was not GSB’s intention, then I, and I suspect many others, welcome this clarification being made clear.
With this second article, I have done all that I can to assuage any feelings you may have of being misrepresented, as that was certainly not my intention. I really thought I made it plain in the article that you believe in rewards, judgment seat of Christ, etc., but hopefully this second article has made it abundantly clear that you believe and teach the doctrines in question. While I am happy to acknowledge that you take issue with my assessment and believe it is unfair, I cannot modify certain language concerning sanctification and what I see as a larger GSB hostility that seems to classify much of the believer’s role as legalism, as those are my honest observations and assessments, and have been for some time. I never felt it necessary to personally address as I did not feel it would be particularly productive. We are basically likeminded and other brethren are free to teach what they like. There may be what I honestly perceive to be some double talk in certain areas of sanctification, but the integrity of the core issues and doctrines have always been maintained by GSB. I am content to maintain my independence with respect to my teaching and others are free to do with it what they like. However, given our ministry associations, what was done at this conference has forced my hand in this regard. I believe there are sanctification inconsistencies with what is routinely presented by some GSB brethren in connection with the “grace life” and what is considered as legalism. It is what it is, and I understand the legitimate concerns about legalism that often drive how this issue is presented by many GSB brethren. However, this underlying legalism tension came to a head at the conference where it was made the centerpiece of a platform used to attack brethren who differ on certain passages believing they involve edification, rewards and “attaining” to various things in the believer’s sanctified life. Concerning this, I could not remain silent with regard to fellow brethren who, despite any number of differences I may or may not have with them, found themselves unnecessarily and undeservedly “under fire”.
Again brethren, I am truly sorry that you felt misrepresented by what I wrote and have attempted to remedy this with my follow-up article. I hope you know that any personal hurt I may have caused you in this regard is wholly unintentional. I trust you know that I have nothing but love and respect for you both personally as friends and for your valuable ministry as fellow-labourers in the body. I was saddened by the divisive and confrontational tone of the conference knowing what it would necessitate on the part of many likeminded brethren and what would likely follow. As much as I might like to, I cannot ignore the doctrinal gauntlet that was apparently thrown down by GSB as to who is in or out of their circle of trust. That said, I remain kindly affectioned toward you in deep brotherly love and this conference will never change that. I hope and pray our closeness will not be diminished by this. My heart, and arms, remain wide open to you. There is no animosity on my part, only a desire to move forward in unity and peace. This is where I stand, and will continue to stand.
Seated in heavenly places with Him,
David Winston Busch
