I'm preaching through Galatians in Gracelife—the group I pastor at Grace Community Church. Later this morning, I'll be dealing with the passage in chapter 2 where Paul publicly rebuked Peter for consorting with the Judaizers.It's a passage that has some important lessons for Christians today. Many mostly-sound evangelical leaders are currently telling us we need to seek a kind of pragmatic co-belligerency with people who deny the principle of sola fide, in order to win the supposedly all-important moral crusade currently being waged by the religious right. That's similar to the approach Peter seems to have taken with the Judaizers. Paul, on the other hand, clearly regarded every kind of tolerance toward the Judaizers as a sinful act of participation in their evil deeds (cf. also 2 John 7-11).
Anyway, in the process of my study, I came across this quote from J. Gresham Machen's Christianity and Liberalism. It was written more than 80 years ago. Machen could not have foreseen how popular it would become for evangelicals to turn aside from the gospel in favor of political causes. But Machen's words say precisely what most evangelicals in 2005 desperately need to hear and come to grips with:
What a splendid cleaning up of the Gentile cities it would have been if the Judaizers had succeeded in extending to those cities the observance of the Mosaic law... Surely Paul ought to have made common cause with teachers who were so nearly in agreement with him; surely he ought to have applied to them the great principle of Christian unity.
As a matter of fact, however, Paul did nothing of the kind; and only because he (and others) did nothing of the kind does the Christian church exist today. Paul saw very clearly that the difference between the Judaizers and himself was the difference between two entirely distinct types of religion; it was the difference between a religion of merit and a religion of grace. If Christ provides only part of our salvation, leaving us to provide the rest, then we are still hopeless under the load of sin. For no matter how small the gap that must be bridged before salvation can be attained, the awakening conscience sees clearly that our wretched attempt at goodness is insufficient even to bridge that gap. The guilty soul enters again into the hopeless reckoning with God, to determine whether we have really done our part. And thus we groan again under the bondage of the law. Such an attempt to piece out the work of Christ by our own merit, Paul saw clearly, is the very essence of unbelief; Christ will do everything or nothing, and the only hope is to throw ourselves unreservedly on His mercy and trust in Him for all.
Paul certainly was right. The difference which divided him from the Judaizers was no mere theological subtlety, but concerned the very heart and core of the religion of Christ.
29 comments:
Great Quote. I am preparing to teach through Galatians also in my sunday school class. Can I use this, or should I ask God to talk to Machen for me?
Timothy George's commentary in the New American Commentary series is good. Oh, yeah, Luther's commentary. There's a link on my commentary blog.
If you can only get one commentary on Galatians, get Timothy George's commentary.
If you are collecting, don't even dream of getting along without Martin Luther's commentary. It was a sheer joy to read.
Interesting point you are trying to make, aquascum. It seems to me, however, that Machen's involvement with the Sentinels of the Republic was short-lived and ultimately both an embarrassment and a failure. Perhaps I can deal with this more in-depth in a follow-up post.
Still, I'd say that before joining in any kind of common cause with THAT group in particular, Machen would have been wise to contemplate the ramifications of his own words in Christianity and Liberalism a little more carefully.
I also would have to reject your suggestion that advocacy of moral causes in political venues is a "secular" pursuit.
The tolerance that Paul wouldn't tolerate was a tolerance that acted contrary to the Gospel as Peter was doing. He believed that people were justified by faith apart from the law but he was "tolerating" the elitist mentality of the Jewish separatist by associating with them at the exclusion of the Gentiles. I think that perhaps, "tolerance" is not as precise as word as could have been chosen, but its ok nonetheless.
As for commentaries, since time is always limited, I would spend the bulk of my time with Hendriksen and Luther. I spent two of the last three years with Galatians as my primary interest and those two commentaries were, IMHO, the best.
Enough already of John McArthur-like anti-political crusade. The obvious response to your political involvement analogy to Paul's stance against the Judaizers is that circumcision has absolutely nothing to do with someone's eternal soul. If Tom Delay were enacting legislation against the consumption of shellfish, the analogy would hold.
Until then, those fanatic evangelicals might be doing some good to fight back the world's porn supply spewing from our backyard or potential terrorists flowing illegally into our state. In pursuit of that goal, I will not compromise my faith, but I might enlist allies in or out of "sola fide." In World War II, should the U.S. have remained outside of the war because we had theological differences with our allies? Win the pending war, argue theology later because if you don't win the war, you won't have the freedom to argue theology...
Let's not forget the cornerstone study of Galatians, Luther's commentary on Galatians, the book that John Bunyan recommended very highly. Reading Luther's commentary on Galatians helped Bunyan at last come to peace after wrestling with assurance of salvation for years.
jeri
As a member of Grace Community Church, I am a grateful beneficiary of exceptional biblical teaching. Since I don't attend Gracelife, it's always a thrill for me when you fill the pulpit for John. Now, I'm thrilled to run into you in the blogosphere. I will add you to my link list and spread the word.
I hope to see more from you on this, especially in response to 'aquascum' and 'brad meyer'.
Brad says, "If Tom Delay were enacting legislation against the consumption of shellfish, the analogy would hold."
I think you have missed the point. I'm not concerned about anyone's involvement with Tom Delay. I don't care if you personally want to campaign for or vote for any political candidate or moral cause you choose.
What disturbs me is that Christian leaders and evangelical ministries are becoming so entangled in ecumenical relationships (mostly stemming from their political involvements) that they deliberately tone down the gospel, leave out the offensive bits, or even adapt their theology to accommodate their partners in some political common cause.
And it is happening. This is one of the major reasons the drafters of ECT explicitly gave for promoting evangelical/Catholic ecumenism. It's also a major impetus behind the current push to recognize Mormonism as an alternative expression of authentic Christianity.
And that is wrong for exactly the same reasons Peter's behavior in Antioch was wrong.
BTW: for future reference: Deliberate personal disparagement of my pastor, my church, my wife, my dog, my children, or the ministry I work for will be deemed outside the parameters of Christian civility and therefore a violation of Rule 2. Say whatever you like about me (as long as you keep your language clean), and I'll let you post it. Take a cheap shot at someone with whom I have a personal relationship of love and respect—whether it be John MacArthur, my dog Wrigley, or anyone in between—and I'll delete it.
Thank you very much for your holding to Christian civility.
Not only that, Phil, but it is a loss of focus.
Paul said that when he went to Corinth he determined not to know anything among them save Jesus Christ and him crucified. Why?
Obviously because the gospel is the most powerful weapon in the Christian arsenal for cleaning up a society.
And cleaning up society is just a side goal anyway. The primary focus of Christian ministry is bringing glory to God *through* the procalimed gospel.
But for those who insist that cleaning up society is the primary goal, they should at least have the sense to use the gospel to do so.
Apparently the gospel is just not powerful enough.
I am very concerned that too many evangelicals are willing to join hands in political causes with groups such as Roman Catholics. It has been my observation that when this takes place, Evangelicals are more reluctant to point out the doctrinal error of those they are cooperating with, fearing they may take offense. The key objective becomes furthering moral and political objectives and the truth of the Gospel takes a back seat to everything else. When the pope passed away this year, I was disheartened when some Evangelical leaders presented the pope and the Catholic Church in a way that gave the appearance that the RCC was just another evangelical church, which it certainly is not. I am becoming increasingly concerned with the rising tide of ecumenism within the ranks of Evangelicalism. It is every Christian’s duty to proclaim the truth of God's Word, not just those involved in ministries formally dedicated to apologetics. I am not opposed to any political involvement, but we need to keep in focus the real task that Christ has charged us with-making disciples. (Matthew 28:19-20)
I believe that putting all our efforts into political action to change culture is not the best use of a believer's time, and that the Gospel is what its all about. As a pastor, I am constantly being pulled by people to pursue the latest cause, and use my energy toward that pursuit. It is clear in my mind, though, that I am called to preach, teach, equip, and shepherd the flock.
I believe that believers have responsiilities to some political issues whether we like it or not, because those matters cross over into scripture. We cannot ignore abortion, because abortion is sin.
I believe that comparing the issue of Peter, Paul and the Judaizers to the political activities of some believers of today is a stretch. It's a sort of proof texting...using scripture to make a point that the scripture isn't trying to make. 1 Corinthians seems to work better at making the point that, ultimatly, friendship with the world comes up empty. America is much more like Corinth.
Random monday morning thoughts...
Phil, great thoughts!
The entaglement that you mention is not only completely contrary to 1 Cor 6, as Campi eloquently remarked, it is fundamentally a denial of the responsibilities we have to be ambassadors for Christ (2 Cor 5.20). The appeal that God is making through us is NOT family values, a pornographically free society or a conservative judiciary. The appeal is reconciliation - "Be reconciled to God."
By campaigning for a morally conservative culture, without boldly, unashamedly proclaiming the gospel of grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone we are creating white washed sepulchres - that is, dead people who look good on the outside! Thereby, we give people a flase sense of hope and confidence.
We must seek the transformation that comes as a result of the gospel, nto a result of legislation.
Keep up the good ministry Phil!
You too Campi!
Aquascum, I can appreciate much of what you are saying. I love politics. I have strong political opinions. I have even thought of going into politics before. There is nothing wrong with being politically responsible and active. It is part of our mandate to be salt and light.
But the focus of Christian ministry should be the gospel. The gospel will bring about the societal change these Christian PACs want, but it will do much more than that.
The Church of Jesus Christ was founded to change the world and told how to do that. It is a three-prongd approach. It consists of making disciples, baptizing them, and teaching them kingdom principles.
I think it is a loss of focus on this that Phil is decrying along with the tendency to water-down and compromise the gospel in order to make friends with the moralists and legalists of this world - whether their corporate headquarters be in Rome or Salt Lake.
If the energy, money, and time that good men like James Dobson have put into political action, had put into fervent gospel ministry instead, society would have been and still could be impacted more than what their efforts have gained so far.
Aquaman, I think we just posted past each other.
I like your sense of humor.
;)
Aqua, I think we're talking past each other anyway. I'm agreeing with most of what you are saying.
What's scary is when gospel compromises are made to further political goals.
What's scary is when the focus of changing society becomes something other than the gospel.
Watch-making is a worthwile pursuit. It should be done well and for God's glory. No one should ever compromise gospel principles, however, in order to advance his opportunities to repair more watches.
I think it is the excess and the compromise that we are flummoxed over more than anything else.
Phil, thanks for the posting. When I read your chapter on the American Evangelical approach to politics in Fool’s Gold, I felt an affirmation of a nagging sense of discomfort that I’ve held for the past 15 years.
Recently, I’ve felt that the new Evangelical creed has become an opposition to abortion on demand and an opposition to same sex marriage. There is certainly nothing wrong with having a strong opposition to either of these, and we, as Christians, should oppose both. But they are not the Gospel. When we begin to define ourselves by our opposition to liberal social agendas, then there is really no reason that we should not accept the Roman Catholic Church (and even the Mormons) as true believers.
I was brought up to believe that social liberalism was the worst threat to the spread of the Gospel, but it seems that we have now been blindsided by social conservatism.
I'm doing this in a quote by quote reply :)
Aquascum: "The idea here seems to be that if you repair people's watches all week, you *also* have to preach the gospel while you're doing it, or else you're turning away from the gospel."
Me: Does repairing watches provide the living expenses to spread the gospel within your living vicinity and also provide the funding for others to "go out" and preach the gospel? Are you able to provide the gospel to those whose watches you repair? Or are you repairing watches for personal gain in wealth and to get more for yourself?
Aquascum: "We *already* enter into various relationships with unbelievers for a variety of purposes that don't measure up to or accomplish the preaching of the gospel."
Me: If it were Paul, it would, or he would not have gotten himself in that situation. For me, I try for the same purpose, however, I'm still young, lots to learn, and not perfect, and no where near the kind of man that Paul was.
Aquascum: "So what?! Does the fact that I make house payments and car payments to a bunch of unbelievers -- entering into a contractual relationship with them -- somehow undermine the gospel and reveal that I've sold out my Christian profession?"
Me: Does it prevent you from spreading the Gospel, either in your home, job, school, church, family, friends? If so, then yes.
Aquascum: "That common good isn't the gospel, to be sure, but it's something :-)"
Me: If it's not, then it's not for the gospel, you are correct, instead it's for personal gain.
I'll stop here so this doesn't get too long.
Cheers!
Machen for Machen. It seems that in the same book you are quoting, he seems to believe that working with Rome is preferable to working with liberal Christians. I agree with you Phil that we must not too closely tie our theology with any politcal agenda, but machen is not a real help here.
"Far more serious still is the division between the Church of Rome and evangelical Protestantism in all its forms. Yet how great is the common heritage which unites the Roman Catholic Church, with its maintenance of the authority of Holy Scripture and with its acceptance of the great early creeds, to devout Protestants today! We would not indeed obscure the difference which divides us from Rome. The gulf is indeed profound. But profound as it is, it seems almost trifling compared to the abyss which stands between us and many ministers of our own Church. The Church of Rome may represent a perversion of the Christian religion; but naturalistic liberalism is not Christianity at all."
J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1999 [1923]), p. 52.
The whole watch repair and other things are missing the point. Watch repair is not contrary to the gospel. Roman Catholicism is contrary to the gospel. The Judaizers were contrary to the gospel. We don't have to spiritualize everything that we do in order to somehow allow it to be ok. We can glorify God in drinking Organge juice without sharing the gospel to our dog while we're drinking it. Paul's issue with Peter was that his actions were contrary to or inconsistent with the gospel he claimed.
-Jacob
My developing webpresence
Nice to meet you...
Making a factual statement (hyperbolized slightly by my use of the word "crusade" which you used in your original blog) about a man's well-known public stance is not a "cheap shot". Sorry, just can't hear another preacher again speak against political involvement at a time when it is critical for Christians, without replying to it.
Forgive my directness, but I do believe you miss the point. It is not someone's entanglement with politics that is to blame- it is their ambition for power and entanglement with heretical doctrines that oppose sola fide.
Are these "cheap shots"?
- "all-important moral crusade currently being waged by the religious right."
- Paul, on the other hand, clearly regarded every kind of tolerance toward the Judaizers as a sinful act of participation in their evil deeds (cf. also 2 John 7-11) (don't know were this reference is from)- this is obviously over the top- Paul did not tell Peter to kill the Judaizers so he must have had a little "tolerance" for them...
In the infamous words of Sylvester Stallone: "They drew first blood- not me" ha
Seems to me the reason for so much 'splainin on this post is because the premise wasn't that clear to begin with. I don't think anyone here is saying we ought to join up with Catholics, Mormons, etc. for religious purposes. At this point, everyone is talking around one another, off the main point...if there was a main point.
To summarize this in "Average Joe," non-impressive, non-seminary terms:
- If you want to stay completely pure and completely useless to God, isolate yourself from all non-Christians lest you be tainted (hmm... sounds like Catholic priests...)
- If you want to actually accomplish something in this world, work with those whom share your goals but guard the faith.
to ReformedSoccerGuy:
yes! unless you are Christ Himself, you will get "dirty" if you step outside of the church walls- then we return to Him to renew/cleanse us.
I wish it weren't so, but well-educated, well-intentioned people have no grasp of the Church's history in America- that America, historically the epicenter of evangelism to the world, would not exist unless Christians (God) founded and maintained it.
With all the pessimism I've read here about how useless Christian political involvement is (i.e. taken for granted by politicians), it's no wonder we're in the position we're in. As long as Christians continue to find a convenient "out" for their sole responsibility to maintain what we've inherited (the most inherently Christian nation in the history of the world, although faltering as people forget this). Somehow, Christians believe the Great Commission supercedes the most fundamental Commandment to love your neighbor. If you love your neighbor, you'll do your part (and then some) in the legislative process to ensure his children won't be snatched out of their home, indoctrinated at school, molested... Don't tell me you're a passionate Christian if you're not concerned enough about the decay in society to oppose it through action. If your neighbor's house is on fire, but you're too busy "spreading the gospel" to save him, I reserve the right to question your heart. Somehow, Christian leaders today think that Christ said to go and make "converts" of all the nations:
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen.
Can't really be surprised however that Christian leaders, most of whom have in the last 30 years traded their right/responsibility to speak in the political process for tax-exempt contributions by changing their tax status with the feds to 501(c)(3), now say that political speech is not their role...
dave,
thanks for asking.
the main reason for original response to Pyro was because of his probable political shot at the "religious right"- very possibly he's using religious argument to veil a political criticism. Generally, people in concert with a certain cause politically, would not use terms like "the supposedly all-important moral crusade currently being waged by the religious right." It's his blog...
The point of my citing Mat 28:20 is that we are not called just to convert people but to teach them to observe all things He has commanded. If we say that we are passionate about saving people from hell, but not about saving them from present suffering on Earth, I say we are liars. And the way that we do that in America is to uphold God's Law.
Even if I were to accept the false premise that the NT is silent on political activism (America would not even exist giving us the freedom to discuss this if Christian leaders had not said enough and went to war physically with our oppressor), the entire OT is about the spirituality/politics of Israel. Slavery would still exist in America if Christian Abolitionists had not said enough is enough. Hitler would have taken over the world unless Christian America decided to die for the cause of defeating him.
The story of the Good Samaritan, the command to love God and your neighbor... the way we show that we love God is by loving our neighbor. The NT is replete with the theme that faith without works is dead.
As I alluded to earlier, pre-1950 Christian leaders realized the fallacy of the separation of Church and State as it is understood today. Today's leaders have made a dangerous deal, trading their right/responsibility to speak to their nation spiritually/politically for money- 501(c)(3) filing status precluding them from political speech.
One more thing and I promise I'll be off the thread and/or site...
After listening to Pyro's message over the internet and agreeing with most of it, i think I've honed in on my difference. Pyro is basically warning us of legalism in the Church and society at a time when all hell has broken loose in it- especially in the San Fernando Valley- when the law of our land is streteched and twisted to its limit. it's simply 180 degrees out of phase with reality. If this were the 1950's and people were completely restrained because of strict taboos and Ricky and Lucy are sleeping in separate beds on TV... But we're lucky if people wear clothes today in public....if there was a time for the Law to bring about the awareness of sin, it's now! the only reason i can think of for this (other than an oversight) on his part is a discomfort with the direction of the nation politically...???
I think that to insinuate that Phil's motive in this is that he does not like political/social conservatism is a cheap shot.
Political activism is not the primary goal of the Church in this world. We are not trying to reform earthly kingdoms, we are working for the heavenly kingdom.
As citizens we are to be civically responsible. Vote. Speak out. Run for office. Wonderful.
But as Churches we are to be gospel-oriented. To imply that being gospel-oriented is tantamount to ignoring the second command is patently absurd. There is no more powerful force for change in any society than the gospel. When the abortion crowd repents on its knees before Christ, it will no longer be an abortion crowd. The gospel takes on individuals and transforms their world-view. Political activism does not.
As an individual I am politically active. As a pastor I speak out on moral issues. As a church, we focus on the gospel - it is the best thing for us to do on both a principal and pragmatic level.
Post a Comment