Theological Musings on Christian Discipleship
Part 3, Monergism and Synergism
In the last post I described how historical soteriological debates have distorted our theology in ways that undermine Christian discipleship and spiritual formation efforts. One example of this, I pointed out, concerns the relationship between divine and human agency. Specifically, if God alone acts in salvation then human agency is set aside. We become passive, albeit grateful, recipients of grace. This, of course, makes sense, and I have no quibbles with this view. And yet, if this notion of grace is pushed to an extreme I think we have some problems.
Consider, for example, the debate between monergism and synergism.
Etymologically, "monergism" means "to work alone." "Synergism" means "to work together." According to monergism, God alone works in salvation. Human agency and choice are not involved. According to synergism, by contrast, grace and the human will work together.
If you were wondering, monergism versus synergism is one of the points of conflict between Calvinists and Arminians. Monergism sits behind such doctrines as irresistible grace and the perseverance of the saints ("once saved, always saved"). With God alone acting in the monergistic vision, the human will cannot resist grace. Nor can the human will reject grace across the lifespan. God does everything, start to finish.
The point I want to observe here is how a very good theological point to win a soteriological argument--"all is grace"--can leave behind a vision of human agency that is poorly positioned to support Christian discipleship. Spiritual formation requires the involvement of human agency. Not in trying "earn" our salvation, but in our daily submission to God's will. Imperatives aimed at human agency are found throughout Scripture:
Present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. (Romans 12.1-2)
It's hard to read texts like these without assuming some degree of human agency and involvement. Simply stated, where monergism might win the argument about grace in regards to our justification, synergism is the better view (God and human agency working together) in regards to discipleship and sanctification. This synergistic view nicely reconciles the tensions in texts like Philippians 2.12-13:
Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
Human agency ("work out your own salvation") cooperates and partners with God's agency ("for it is God who works in you").
Of course, we never want to lose the message that "all is grace." As the Calvinist will properly point out, our agency exists and is capable of partnering with God because of grace. It's grace all the way down. And yet, can we proclaim that message without picturing human agency as complete passivity and non-involvement? Are we, when it comes to Christian discipleship, regulated to waiting around for the Fruit of the Spirit to magically appear in our lives?
Facing these questions, I think the Christian mystical tradition can help us here.
The deep problem in the monergism versus synergism debate is that we view the situation between divine and human agency as agonistic and competitive. Specifically, monergism posits a zero-sum relationship between divine and human agency. That is, if the human will is involved then God is not involved. Conversely, if God's will is involved then human will is not. When it comes to divine and human agency, it's an either/or situation.
However, the Christian mystical tradition teaches that God is not a cause among other causes. God makes a difference differently. God's relation to the world is not contrastive or competitive. Thus, any view of God and human agency that assumes "more of God means less of us, and more of us means less of God" misconceives God's proper relation to the world. The proof text there is the Incarnation itself, Jesus' hypostatic union with the Father in the flesh. Jesus was both fully God and fully human. The divine/human relationship was both/and, not either/or. In short, the relationship between God and humanity is non-zero sum. You can have both and more of each.
If this is true, as I think it is, then monergism is premised upon an mistaken assumption. God and human agency are not in rivalrous, competitive relationship. All is grace and human agency is actively and energetically engaged. This synergistic, non-zero-sum view is, in my estimation, much better positioned to support spiritual formation efforts.
Excellent! I might add that the issue is theologically deeper still. We tend to think of God as a being outside of but over against the world or universe. But as Paul says in Acts, quoting the pagan poets, God is the one “in whom we live and move, and have our being.” In other words, God is not a being next to us, but being itself, or the one being in whom everything else exists. That of course suggests a kind of panentheism which seems to strike fear in the hearts of evangelicals. But philosophically, and biblically, I don’t think there is any other reasonable way to think of our relationship with God. It also depicts a more biblical eschatology in which it is God’s purpose to bring all of creation into the circle of love which is the Holy Trinity.
One thing that helps me is to remember that synergism does not require God and me to be equal partners. I assume that the boy in John 6 was perfectly free to keep his five loaves to himself; he gave them to Jesus as a free choice. But it would feel ludicrous if the boy went on to claim that he was primarily responsible for feeding 5,000 people, or even deserved half the credit.
So I can go into my day thinking that my decisions do matter, but the results are overwhelmingly in God's hands.