I admit it, the title is a serious temptation: I feel an overwhelming desire to make bad jokes about posteriors (perhaps it’s the result of me spending too much time with my seven-year-old son). But I do want to talk for a moment about the dangers of the killer but. What exactly do I mean? I mean the but that qualifies almost every significant theological statement we ever make. Let me give you some examples:
- Christians believe in the mercy of God, BUT you’ve got to remember that the mercy isn’t a license.
- God is the sovereign Lord of all, BUT of course that doesn’t mean you aren’t responsible.
- Believing in Jesus means true freedom, BUT of course you have to understand exactly what freedom means.
My issue isn’t with any of the above qualifications in particular, but rather with the constant desire to cover all our theological bases. Are we so worried about what people might do with the grace of God that we constantly qualify it? Is there a place for just sticking the mercy of God out there without ‘butting’ it to death? When was the last time you just luxuriated in the unadorned love of Christ without qualifying it in some way? Is your life defined by the killer but?
Let me remind you of the word of God:
For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
Here is the right kind of ‘but’—a but that doesn’t qualify truth out of existence, but a but that displays all of the riches of the glory and goodness of God towards his people. Even we manage to love the people who matter most to us up to a point, but there is no guarantee that we would lay our lives on the line for them. God loved the people who hated him at the cost of his own Son. It’s just a truth to swim in, isn’t it? God knew exactly what we were like. He knew our hearts—our selfishness, our pride, our lust, our backbiting, our greed, our idolatry, our jealousy, our impatience, our anger, our immorality, our hatred, our meanness, our spite, our thoughts—and most of all, he knew that we were his enemies. And, knowing exactly who we were, he chose to send Jesus. He did not wait for us to repent. He didn’t even wait for us to be mildly less ill-disposed. He chose to send Jesus for our sake. Jesus died for us while were still sinners.
What’s the best thing about this passage? It’s that there is no but. Paul isn’t saying “God loves you, but …”; he says simply, “God loves you”. Any but would be an injustice, a misunderstanding and a misrepresentation of God.
It seems to me that God’s love is a ‘but’ killer! Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Actually, the ‘but’ does come, it comes in chapter 6 from verse 1.
That said, I agree with what you are saying, although I would add that sometimes, depending on the people to whom we are preaching, the ‘but’ is all important.
I say this because I sense at the moment a real problem with cheap grace. Peter Jensen gave an address recently in which he warned us not to offer cheap mercy to people when they have no intention of repenting. He has picked up on the same problem I am raising.
Your point, though, if I’ve understood it correctly, is very important. In preaching it is important that we don’t blunt the point of a passage and the wonderful promises of grace- amen to that. We can all be guilty of making a very challenging or deeply encouraging passage bland and benign because of all the qualifications we impose on the passage. Thanks for raising this.
I’d love to make a comment, BUT I’m too busy trying to find other ways in which we clarify the gospel to those we are trying to convince!
Hi Phillip,
Thanks for your point. I agree whole heartedly. I think that there are all sorts of important but’s in the Bible, I just think that we need to be careful not to blunt a particular passage by always introducing the but. We miss out on some of the richness and wonder of God if we do.
I wholeheartedly agree Paul that we do try to cover all our bases but it’s understandable at times because SO many people truths, make them cliches, and run them to their ultimate extreme and I guess extremity means we have to qualify at times. I think it shows that we understand the extremities that our audience can take some truths to and counter them as we go along.
One thing that I hear people say all the time is that God ‘hates the sin but loves the sinner’; although it’s true to one extent (Romans 5:6-8) it’s also true that God hates His enemies, even human ones and God’s people seem to be asked to follow suit to some extent (if I’ve read Psalm 139:21 properly).
Hi Paul! Don’t stress, just wanted to say that it was a great post!
Also…I must confess I struggle with the term ‘cheap grace’. Mainly because grace is free (for us, not Jesus). I call what Phillip is referring to as ‘abused grace’ (which Paul warns against in Romans 6:15). I am not sure how we know who intends to abuse it – I guess only God knows that. We should simply follow Paul’s example and encourage everyone to respond appropriately to the grace that is freely given. Thanks for your thoughts! Dave
Paul, I understand your frustration and I agree that proclamation of truth with endless qualifications does often dull the truth into uncompelling neutrality …(here we go) BUT … I think getting rid of the BUT may be equally dangerous.
I remember hearing (reading?) Don Carson say that, in his opinion, one of the biggest sins in Evangelical preaching today is the sin of reductionism. That is, always giving half the truth as if it were the whole truth. Biblical truth seems to be far more balanced than that. Surely Christian maturity involves coming to terms with the balance of Scripture; holding both the truth and the BUT that qualifies it without losing the awe of either?
Hi All,
Thanks for your comments and thoughts. I guess part of my concern has grown out of the pastoral reality of engaging with people who really struggle to grasp some of the great truths of the Christian faith. I think in particular of those who have suffered significant abuse or who have come from a different world view (e.g. Roman Catholicism). For them, the BUT that we introduce so speaks to everything they know that it completely drowns out everything that came before the BUT. They need to hear the other side argued for without the BUT. (As always, knowing your people leads to the appropriate word at the appropriate time in the appropriate way).
Paul – I wasn’t sure at first where you were going, but I think I get the gist of it – no buts about it! (ahem!)