Grace and Truth

Grace 15

The Sermon of Saint John the Baptist
Pieter Bruegel the Elder, c1550

The beginning of Jesus' ministry is generally regarded as His baptism at the hands of John the Baptist. By the time Jesus stepped into his baptism line, John had built a truly massive ministry. (Matthew 3.5) The Lord had commissioned him to preach a message of forward looking repentance to His people, repentance of sin, and a faith in a soon coming Messiah. Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. (Matthew 3.2)

John, of course, did not know that this Messiah, this Christ, would be Jesus. Christ is not Jesus' last name; it is a title that means Anointed One, and is used in Scripture to designate His claim to be Israel's messiah. As John preaches, and masses of people respond, he discovers in his baptism line one day his first cousin once removed, a carpenter from Nazareth named Jesus. The succeeding brief interaction between John and Jesus, and God's actions from Heaven revealed to John that Jesus was the messiah he had been preaching was about to come.

Immediately after His baptism, Jesus heads into the wilderness for a six week season of fasting and prayer. Meanwhile, John begins preaching more specifically, pointing people not just toward a coming messiah, but toward Jesus particularly as that messiah.

John 1:14–17
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

In those four verses there is one phrase used twice. Once it is used to describe our Saviour and the other time it is used to describe what He brings – grace and truth. He is full of grace and truth. Grace and truth come by Him. These two things – grace and truth – so marked the life of our Lord that after only one meeting with Him their presence made a deep impression on John the Baptist. So deep that John could not but tell people about them as he preached Jesus.

What is truth? Truth, loosely defined, is what is true. Truth is real, actual, correct, and factual. It is also dependable because it is unchangeable. This is implied in the phrase "facts are stubborn things." Facts and truth are not interchangeable but they are similar. Truth is unchanging. Truth is true regardless of whether it is popularly accepted or popularly denigrated. Truth is true whether it is in fashion or out of style. Truth is true even when it is represented as being mistaken or false.

What is grace? Grace, loosely defined, is unmerited favor. It is goodness poured out on those who do not deserve it. Its clearest use in Scripture is in relation to salvation but it is found in a remarkable variety of spiritual contexts. For the purposes of this particular post I am going to define it with another scriptural term, loving-kindness. Grace is the kindness done to me by God out of His great love for me. Turned the other way, grace is the kindness done by me toward others out of my genuine love for them – whether in my estimation they deserve it or not.

Understanding this, let me give you two applications. First, grace and truth marked the life of our Lord and they ought to mark ours too. Personally, I ought to hold an allegiance to the unchanging truth, come what may. At the same time, my life ought to be marked by loving-kindness in my treatment of those around me.

This is true of you and me, individually, but it is also true of churches corporately. I am to be like Christ; that is the aim of my Christianity. But one of the three definitions given in Scripture for the church is the body of Christ. My church, Maplewood Bible Baptist Church, is to be the visible/physical extension of Jesus Christ in this corner of Chicago. As such, it too, corporately, ought to be marked by grace and truth. My church should hold an allegiance to the unchanging truth, come what may. And our ministry in this neighborhood ought to be marked by loving-kindness in our treatment of all those within our embrace.

Second, in so saying, I am asserting that both of these should be present.

Some people, some churches, some ministries are all truth. They are hard, unbending, impossible to be swayed. Such people, such ministries become marked by a my-way-or-the-highway kind of mentality. They breed a refusal to listen to any other perspective, no matter how slightly it may differ from their own. In them, loyalty to the truth is the highest compliment, and they are marked by a willingness to lead an all-out charge against anyone thought to be compromising the truth.

I can hear you from here… "Tom, you sound like you are describing the classic fundamentalist. You're a fundamentalist. What's the problem?" I am describing a fundamentalist, and I am one. The problem lies in the fact that all too often that is all we are identified with – truth. We are full of the truth – but that is all. We are loyal to the truth – but that is all. We are willing to fight over the truth – but that is all. We are inclined to drop the hat ourselves so we can fight – but that is all. Our theme phrase is "contend for the faith" with an emphasis upon the contention.

By the same token, there are other people and other ministries that are all grace. They are kind, sweet, loving. Such people and such ministries become marked by an attitude of whatever-you're-doing-is-ok. They refuse to take a stand on anything. In them, niceness is the ultimate virtue, and they are identified by a willingness to overlook practically everything in the name of grace. They are full of grace – but that is all. They are nice, the nicest people to ever grace the planet – but that is all. They are sweet, kind, forgiving, charitable, patient – but that is all. They are always wiling to see something from the other person's perspective – but that is all. Their theme phrase is "judge not" with an emphasis on the not.

I can hear you from here… "Pastor Brennan, you make it sound like these two things are irreconcilable. How then can you expect me to include them both?" They are not irreconcilable. They only seem that way when you choose one of the two to have. But you are not supposed to choose just one of the two to have. You are supposed to have both.
You are supposed to have an unalterable allegiance to the unchanging truth and to hold that truth in a spirit of loving-kindness. You are to refuse to compromise but to do so with a loving, gracious, sweet spirit. You are to cling like a bulldog to what is right but give other people the benefit of the doubt as long as possible. You are to stand up straight and tall while the rest of the world bows down, but you are to do so with a tender spirit, and a heart of love for the brethren.

In other words, you are to be just like Jesus. He went about doing good. His life was marked by compassion. But He had a backbone of steel, and on one anywhere at any time was going to push Him off the hill of truth even if He had to die on it. He was full of grace and truth. And so should we be.

I am unashamedly independent Baptist. I suspect ninety percent or more of my readers are as well. Although our movement has thousands and thousands of churches we are certainly in the minority when it comes to American Christianity. This American Christianity has been pushing leftward at an increasingly rapid clip in my lifetime. I am not talking about the Mormons and the Catholics; I am talking about our brethren in Christ, God's people. I am talking about evangelical Protestantism, non-denominationalism, the large conventions and associations that preach the Gospel but have ministries marked by compromise, pragmatism, and worldliness. And they are not just heading left; they are actively seeking to drag as many independent Baptists with them as they can.

We live in an age of compromise, of a weak, spineless Christianity that is seeking to pull us along with it. We absolutely must develop the capacity to resist such a pull – no matter who else goes with them, no matter how isolated we get, no matter how tired we get of taking such a stand. But we just as absolutely must do this with a spirit of grace, cultivating a heart of love for those with whom we disagree.

Beloved, let us be full of grace and truth. Both.

It is the only way to be like Jesus.

Praised, Yet Awful: A Review of Philip Yancey's What's So Amazing About Grace?

Grace 14

In my discussion earlier in this series of Paul's seminal statement, Ye are not under the law, but under grace I mentioned Philip Yancey's influential book, "What's So Amazing About Grace?" I alluded to the fact that it, along with a few other original works and a whole bunch of copycats, have twisted much of American Christianity's concept of grace into something wholly unrecognizable to our forefathers. In so saying, I am not overstating its influence.

For example, it is praised by religious leaders as diverse as Larry Crabb, Brennan Manning (no surprise there), J. I. Packer, Jill Briscoe, Jim Wallis, Gordon MacDonald, Charles Colson, and the Irish rocker Bono. Tony Campolo said, "There are huge amounts of sermon material here." (No surprise there either.) Robert Seiple said, "This is beyond a doubt the very best book I have read from a Christian author in my life." Robert Jeffress said that it "did a valuable service by rescuing the doctrine of grace from the legalists." It was awarded Book of the Year by the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association in 1998, and in 2006 was named as the seventeenth most influential book on Christianity Today's list of works that have shaped evangelicalism the most. Never mind the dizzying array of contradictory theological positions held by those listed in this paragraph, and how ashamed I would be if all of them praised any work of mine, let us simply agree that selling more than 15 million copies of any religious book in ten years, as this book did, qualifies as influential.

If it is so praised why do I assert that it is awful? Let us start with the fact that for a book that purports to bring us back to a scriptural view of grace there is an appalling paucity of Scripture in it. Yancey unabashedly emphasizes this in his own introduction. "I have just read a thirteen-page treatise on grace in the New Catholic Encyclopedia, which has cured me of any desire to dissect grace and display its innards. I do not want the thing to die. For this reason, I will rely more on stories than syllogisms. In sum, I would far rather display grace than explain it."

In choosing this course Yancey does two things. First, he makes his book much more readable and thus popular. Second, and far more importantly, he writes a book almost entirely untethered from the Word of God. Yancey does an emotionally entertaining job of telling us what he wants grace to be, and a spiritually wretched job of telling us what God said grace actually is and does. It takes him forty-two pages to quote the first Bible verse. In the entirety of the book he never takes a verse, let alone a passage, and systematically explores its words, context, and flow of thought to tell us what God says about grace. Needless to say, he does not examine contrasting thoughts either. He examines nothing and reveals less of God's Word on the subject.

Curiously enough, while studiously avoiding the Scriptures, he manages to favorably quote any number of theologically sketchy characters. Roman Catholic theologians such as Romano Guardini and Brennan Manning? Check. Mystics such as John of the Cross and Bernard? Check. Intellectuals such as Mark Twain and Anthony Hecht? Check. Neo-orthodox Europeans such as Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer? Check. To add insult to injury, he purposely chooses to use both Pope John Paul II and Mother Teresa as wonderful examples of grace.

The previous paragraph does not mark Yancey as wicked. It does, however, mark him as severely lacking in discernment and seriously doctrinally deficient. Why conservative Christians let alone independent Baptists would look to such a man to explain and expound the Word of God is a mystery to me.

If his book does not come from Scripture where does it come from? I believe it was birthed out of a reaction to his own conservative/fundamentalist Southern upbringing. He mentions it often in the book and makes no bones that he found his home church experience wretched. In some sense Yancey is right to be appalled. The deacons of his home church patrolled the entrances to ensure no African-Americans made their way in. But in reacting against error Yancey makes the same mistake I have seen numerous acquaintances of mine make – he throws the baby out with the bathwater. At a dead run, he heads from the ditch of a harsh, racist religious upbringing to the ditch of license on the other side of the road. In the process he is highly critical of rules of any kind, and especially those of his youth forbidding rock music, alcohol, short skirts, and long hair. Those are, in his words, "pettiness", signs of a religion with no grace.

Do you begin to see his influence? The problem with Yancey, however, is much worse than that, much worse. It is not just about where Yancey was when he wrote the book, and how your friends use its arguments to overthrow their own long-held beliefs, it is even more about where Yancey's concept of grace leads, about what it produces years down the road. For example, the church here in Chicago where he served as an assistant so long believes nothing, is against nothing but taking a stand. But even more egregiously, Yancey's embrace of "grace" toward homosexuality is revelatory indeed.

In the book, now twenty years old, he unabashedly promotes the homosexual Mel White as a wonderful example of Christian grace and love vs the evil, intolerant Christians who insist on shouting about doctrine. An emphasis on doctrine is "hatred" while Mel, on the other hand, evidences "a graceful spirit." Yancey likens preaching against homosexuality to the preaching against social drinking he heard in his youth, preaching that he clearly views as petty, legalistic, and beneath the spirit of Christ.

Remember, though, it is not just about where Yancey is when he writes this book, though that is bad enough. It is about where his concept of grace is going, and where it is going to take you. On his own website today on a page discussing his views of homosexuality he gives us these little gems. "In my relationship with Mel White, I have to remind myself that it’s not my job to present the absolutely proper, balanced viewpoint of the church." Somehow, after reading his book, I do not think Yancey even balances his checkbook. But I digress. Or there is this: "I intentionally don't take sides on this issue." And this: "I feel no need to represent a balanced viewpoint myself. So I don't take an official position. I simply try to love the gay individuals I know and bring a little grace and mercy to a church that puts this particular sin – if indeed it is that – in a special category." And this: "When it gets to particular matters of policy, like ordaining gay and lesbian minsters, I'm confused, like a lot of people."

I could go on in the same vein but I risk you thinking this blog post is about homosexuality. It is not. It is about where the wrong view of grace leads. It leads to repentance eliminated in favor of tolerance and forgiveness cheapened into permission. In a word, it leads to grace no longer being grace but rather being acceptance. Yancey can deny it all he wants, and your now-contemporary-used-to-be-fundamentalist friends can do the same. Their denials fade to the echoes of a whisper when confronted with their actions. What you believe changes how you live, and what you read changes what you believe.
You might want to think long and hard about that before ingesting what passes for classic discussions of grace in our day. No matter how many copies the guy has sold or how many famous religious leaders recommend it.

How to Get Grace

Grace 13

Thus far in this blog series on grace we have examined what grace is, where it begins, how it ought to impact our treatment of one another, and how it becomes the atmosphere in which we grow. We have also examined some of the important doctrinal questions surrounding grace, namely what it means to no longer be under the law but under grace, and how it relates to a legalistic mindset.

In today's post, I want to discuss how to get grace. Now I realize that concept will immediately strike some of you wrong since, by definition, we cannot merit or earn grace. But just because grace cannot be merited does not mean that there is not a requirement that we must fulfill prior to obtaining grace. Fulfilling that requirement does not earn us grace, but it does make it possible for grace to come to us.

Salvation itself is an illustration of this. How are we saved? By grace is the automatic and correct answer. Yet, though, that grace is freely offered to every human being it is certain that not every human being has received it. How do we human beings obtain the grace of God for salvation? By faith. By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand. (Romans 5.2) Faith is the hand that reaches up to Heaven to obtain the grace of God. Did we earn that grace by offering God faith? Of course not, rather we fulfilled the conditions necessary to obtain it. Faith is a requirement for salvation but that salvation is still entirely by grace. For by grace are ye saved through faith. (Ephesians 2.8)

As the children of God by faith in Jesus Christ we need His grace just as much now as we did while we were yet sinners. (Romans 5.8) We need the grace of God to enable us, to empower us, to help us to obey every command in the Bible: large or small. We must have His grace, not just for eternity, but for today. So how do we get it?

Grace comes free, but it does have one requirement – humility. Surely he scorneth the scorners: but he giveth grace unto the lowly. (Proverbs 3.34)

Some years ago, I did an intensive word study in Proverbs. Such a study might be a good blog series on its own, now that I think about it. In that study, I discovered that a scorner is a person driven by pride to reject instruction. He not only foolishly embraces his own opinion, but actively seeks to turn others around him likewise away from their instructors towards himself. In dealing with such a creature, God, as He often does, gives him a taste of his own medicine. God ignores the scorner's opinion and instruction, actively seeks to undermine the scorner's influence, and heaps upon him proud disdain in the meantime.

Look for a moment at the contrast in this passage from Proverbs. The scorner's number one attribute is pride, yet the opposite of pride is humility. When a man embraces humility, not about a particular issue, but as a way of life, God, as a result, pours out the undeserved blessings of grace upon him. He giveth grace unto the lowly. 'Lowly' in the original language is rooted in the phrases to stoop, to be humbled, to be bowed down. The article 'the' which precedes it implies this is not just an isolated action on the part of a person, but rather a way of thinking and/or living. They do not act lowly on occasion; they actually are classified as 'the lowly.'

For an example of what this looks like in real life I would point you unhesitatingly to Christ. The Old Testament prophet said to Israel, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass. (Zechariah 9.9) Jesus Himself specified this as the correct term to describe Him when He said, Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart. (Matthew 11.29) To quote one of my very first blog posts, "Jesus' entire earthly career is marked by humility. We see it in the events of His birth. We see it in His chosen approach to life, first as a blue- collar laborer and then later as an itinerant, poverty-stricken rabbi. We see it in the events of His death, crucified like a criminal between two thieves and then placed in a borrowed tomb. In fact, God's entire decision to offer redemption by presenting His own Son, in human flesh, to die for us, means He humbled Himself (Philippians 2.8). What did He leave? To what did He come? How did He arrive? How did He live? How was He treated? How did He die? There is humility in the answer to all of these questions. It is wrapped up in the very fabric of who Jesus is."

Likewise, the man so often referred to as the greatest Christian to ever live, the Apostle Paul, lived a life marked by humility. "Wait a minute. Isn't he the guy who boasted that he worked harder than everybody else, and that's why God used him?" Yes, but he also surrounded that assertion by several references to humility. By the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. (I Corinthians 15.10) He credits God for every one of his accomplishments, for the churches started, the men trained in ministry, the Scripture written, the influence of a life which almost single-handedly turned Christianity from being the religion of an isolated tribal sect to one that permeated every corner of the Roman Empire.

If God has used you to raise good children, if He has used you to bless hearts with music, if He has used you to win souls to Himself, if He has used you to teach someone the Scriptures, it is He that is doing the using. It is His grace in you that did it. When my first-generation Polish immigrant neighbor greeted me the other day in his broken English with the phrase, "Hello, my best neighbor" he paid me a compliment. But that compliment does not belong to me; it belongs to Him. It is His grace in me that produces anything good with my life. And the minute I lose that understanding is the minute God stops pouring more grace into my life. The Lord's brother said it this way, He giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble. (James 4.6)

Grace is amazing. It is wonderful in every sense of the word. No matter what additional superlatives I use to describe it they will fall short of its actual value. If grace contains so many matchless blessings then why would I not want as much of it as I can possibly get? I grow in it – so if I get more I can grow more. It enables me – so if I get more I can do more. If that is not enough, He loves to give it and has an inexhaustible store. Annie Flint penned an exquisite description of this when she wrote…

He giveth more grace as our burdens grow greater,
He sendeth more strength as our labors increase;
To added afflictions He addeth His mercy,
To multiplied trials He multiplies peace.

When we have exhausted our store of endurance,
When our strength has failed ere the day is half done,
When we reach the end of our hoarded resources
Our Father’s full giving is only begun.

His love has no limits, His grace has no measure,
His power no boundary known unto men;
For out of His infinite riches in Jesus
He giveth, and giveth, and giveth again.

…but what would stop me from getting more of that grace I so desperately need and so deeply desire? God resisteth the proud.

As I write this at my dining room table my youngest son, Sam, is sitting a few feet from me on the couch. He is busily engaged in his own pursuits. Several times this week he has stopped himself dead in his tracks, looked at me, and said, "Dad, it's been a long time since we wrestled." Of course, a long time for him is last week, but nevertheless, he delights in wrestling with his father. I am not sure why we call it wrestling, though. The truth is I am so much larger than him the contests are over before they begin. If he wants to move me somewhere there is no way he can if I am really resisting him.

You and I often seek to accomplish something, and good somethings at that. But if we are not making any headway it just may be that our pride is causing God to set His own omnipotent power in array against us, to resist even the good things we are seeking to accomplish. That last thing I need is God resisting me. What I really need is God enabling me, empowering me, pushing me forward. In other words, I need grace. What is the requirement? He giveth grace unto the humble.

I picture it like this: God has a great big tub of grace and a huge wooden spoon. There is a line of people waiting for Him to scoop some up and put it on their plate. But getting in that line is kind of like getting into the lines in the kiddie section of the amusement park – you have to be rather low to the ground.

Some ignorantly say, "Ah, that cruel, mean God is making us crawl to Him. Well, I'm better than that. I won't crawl for anybody." I say, "That wonderfully good God is just waiting to lavishly pour out on us His undeserved goodness, but He wants to make sure it isn't wasted so He waits for humility to be evidenced first."

We cannot merit grace. Perish the thought. But grace does have a requirement. Beloved, do you view Him as high and holy and lifted up, and yourself as a man of unclean lips? Then brace yourself. Grace is coming your way by the truck load.

The Destruction of Legalism

Grace 12

Note: by Joe Cassada

Welcome to the fourth and final article in this series within a series. If I may, I’d like to preface this last post with a word of thanks to Tom Brennan for entrusting me with the important task of addressing a complicated issue – one that, within the context of independent fundamental Baptist churches, is an emotional (and even a volatile) topic. Tom has worked hard to build his readership over the years, and I know that a subject as touchy as legalism is one which carries with it the very real possibility of causing significant attrition among his readers.

To Tom’s readers, I say thank you for reading. I imagine that most of you know Tom much better than you know me, so let me invoke your graciousness towards Tom. After this post, this blog will return to Tom’s measure of normal, so hang in there with him. It would be unwise to assume that everything I’ve said is something that Tom would say. 
Legalism is an intricate theological issue that doubles as a heart-sin. As such, it inherently involves nuances and perspectives that will vary from preacher to preacher, and my attempt at doctrinal precision may not match Tom’s own. We’re both mowing the same lawn with the same lawn mower, but it’s possible he will go clockwise around while I prefer a diagonal cut. Keep that in mind.

I’m sure most of you have been accused of being legalists at some point in your life. It’s not fun and many times it is unjust. But the only thing worse than enduring false accusation is tolerating our own willful ignorance of indwelling sin. Let us not be like the church of the Laodiceans who were oblivious to their own failures and deficiencies. If we find even the seminal germ of legalism in our hearts, let’s root it out.

Earlier, I gave a biblical definition of legalism based on a very brief sketch of the issues Paul addressed in Galatians and Sinclair Ferguson’s treatment of the temptation of Eve in the garden (Ferguson, 82-83). I came to the conclusion that, in its most basic meaning, we can describe legalism as “an abuse of law and grace so that God’s favor becomes something that must be earned.” Having discussed legalism’s danger, definition, and detection, let’s now turn to the next task at hand: legalism’s destruction.

How can we defeat this sin? If legalism is an abuse of law and grace, then it is defeated by a proper understanding of law and grace. We should start there.

The law of God is a good thing. Paul says as much in Romans 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. The Bible is replete with positive and even affectionate terms for God’s law:

Psa 40:8 I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.
Psa 119:97 O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day; 165 Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them; 174 I have longed for thy salvation, O LORD; and thy law is my delight.

The defeat of legalism is not accomplished by keeping God’s law in low esteem. We are not freed from legalism by pursuing libertine values and forsaking the commandments of God. The 1689 London Baptist Confession describes the law as something positive and good for believers because “it is of great use to them as well as to others, in that as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their natures, hearts, and lives, so as examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against, sin; together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ and the perfection of his obedience;” (chapter 19, paragraph 6)

Don’t miss this: a proper understanding of the law drives us towards Christ, not away from him. The law wasn’t a mistake; it is perfect. Paul says it is holy and just and good. But neither was it designed to give life. Only through the grace of Christ can we have life, but when we go to the law for life, we fan the flames of destructive legalism.

Neither should we abuse grace. Obedience is still important, and grace doesn’t deny this. Holiness is still something Christians ought to pursue. The verses in the Bible that deal with the Christian’s behavior, including such unpopular topics as how we dress, talk, and even entertain ourselves, actually do mean something. We may disagree as to what they mean, but we have no right to dismiss them.

Thomas Manton (1620–1677) wrote, “It is a great grief to the Spirit of God when you abuse grace. You do as it were put your miscarriages upon him, when you call licentious walking Christian liberty, and neglect of duty gospel freedom, and godly sorrow legalism, and strict walking superstitious niceness; you do as it were father your bastards upon the Spirit, and entitle the monstrous conceptions and births of your own carnal hearts to his incubation and overshadowing; you think God warranteth you in all this, and that is a high wrong to him which he will avenge in due time.” (Manton, 81)

Manton is right. We abuse grace when we blame our sin on Christian liberty. It is a blasphemy which God will not let go unpunished. Beware of falsely thinking that, since grace abounds where sin abounds, then we can continue in sin so that grace may abound. The Apostle Paul’s response to that twisted thinking is “God forbid!”

In my opinion, no greater picture of this relationship between law and grace exists (outside of Holy Scripture) than in what we find in John Bunyan’s “The Pilgrim’s Progress.” In the scene of the Interpreter’s house, Christian is shown a curious sight: a large room caked in dust that had never been swept. A man entered the dirty room and began to sweep, and “the dust began so abundantly to fly about, that Christian had almost therewith been choked. Then said the Interpreter to a damsel that stood by, ‘Bring hither water, and sprinkle the room;’ the which when she had done, it was swept and cleansed with pleasure.”

We echo Christian’s inquisitive response: “What means this?”

The Interpreter answered, “This parlor is the heart of a man that was never sanctified by the sweet grace of the Gospel. The dust is his original sin, and inward corruptions, that have defiled the whole man. He that began to sweep at first, is the law; but she that brought water, and did sprinkle it, is the Gospel.

“Now whereas thou sawest, that so soon as the first began to sweep, the dust did so fly about that the room by him could not be cleansed, but that thou wast almost choked therewith; this is to show thee, that the law, instead of cleansing the heart (by its working) from sin, doth revive, put strength into, and increase it in the soul, even as it doth discover and forbid it; for it doth not give power to subdue. 

“Again, as thou sawest the damsel sprinkle the room with water, upon which it was cleansed with pleasure, this is to show thee, that when the Gospel comes in the sweet and precious influences thereof to the heart, then, I say, even as thou sawest the damsel lay the dust by sprinkling the floor with water, so is sin vanquished and subdued, and the soul made clean, through the faith of it, and consequently fit for the King of glory to inhabit.” (Bunyan, 81-82)

I think if some Christians were to rewrite Bunyan’s allegory, they would cause the maiden to enter, and instead of cleansing the room of filth, she would content herself to wallow in the grime. This isn’t grace. The law cannot make your heart clean, and grace comes not to overlook the dirt, but to remove it. Does grace make obedience irrelevant? No. It makes it possible.

Tom has already written a great deal within this series about the right view of the law and its proper role in the life of the believer, so I will not try the patience of his readers by rewriting what he has already laid out for us in these past several weeks. He has also carefully addressed the nature of grace and the importance of it being rightly understood. So allow me to simply encourage you to apply these truths carefully and to remember: legalism is defeated when we understand these two concepts together: law and grace. The cure for legalism is not more sin, or even a relaxing of rules, it is more grace.

As with any sin, the threat is ever with us while we remain in our earthly tabernacles. And though we know sinless perfection awaits us on the other side of the river, yet we must daily maintain vigilance in the cause against indwelling sin. The promise of full deliverance from sin’s presence should never dissuade us from fighting against sin’s power, for we fight the fight of faith, that is, we lay hold of God’s promises now though we know their entire fulfillment is yet to come. The hand of the faithful soldier is not empty, for the earnest of the promise of future deliverance from sin’s presence becomes a sword with which to battle sin’s power in the present. Don’t lose heart in the battle, for your King has conquered and he has not left you ill-equipped. Love his law, feast on his grace, and pursue his holy example.

________________________________________________

Works Cited
Bunyan, John. The Pilgrim’s Progress. Birmingham: John L. Dagg Publishing Company, 2005. Print.
Ferguson, Sinclair. The Whole Christ. Wheaton: Crossway, 2016. Print.
Manton, Thomas. The Complete Works of Thomas Manton. Still Water Revival Books. PDF.

The Detection of Legalism

Grace 11

Note: This is the third in a four post mini-series on legalism set within the context of this series on grace. These are by Pastor Joe Cassada of the Solid Rock Baptist Church in Maryland Heights, Missouri. You may find the first two parts here and here.
________________________________________________

In the last two posts, I warned that two popular understandings of legalism will ultimately fail to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked in this battle against the “legal spirit.” Those two understandings are the idea that legalism is simply being overly strict, and the second is the idea that legalism is only an effort to save oneself by one’s good works. Last week, I gave a biblical definition of understanding based on a very brief sketch of the issues Paul addressed in Galatians and Sinclair Ferguson’s treatment of the temptation of Eve in the garden (Ferguson, 82-83). I came to the conclusion that in its most distilled definition, we can describe legalism as “an abuse of law and grace so that God’s favor becomes something that must be earned.”

Now we come to the messy job of finding this sin of the heart and rooting it out, and like any battle against the Christian’s remaining sin, it is an ongoing conflict that requires perpetual vigilance and a willingness to be exceedingly thorough in examining our hearts. This is not a call to morose introspection that is followed by a retreat into one’s own sense of helplessness and a pining away for the perceived lack of progress towards holiness. While the Sauls wring their hands in their tents, let the Davids go to the battle in the name of the LORD. King Jesus has smitten his enemies before him, let us ride out with him and utterly destroy the retreating stragglers.

But we must find them. The legal spirit is a master of disguise – a shape-shifting sin who is able to sneak through defensive positions undetected. He hides in the dens and in the rocks of our hearts and minds. How can we find him and flush him out?

Let me share with you what has helped me in the battle against this particular sin. Keep in mind that I am no expert here. I share this with you “Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.” I freely confess that I am a man of like passions and the Canaanites remain in my land, too. But this has helped me, and perhaps it will help you.

The Return of the Prodigal Son
Rembrandt, 1669

It dawned on me that the legal spirit was safely tucked away in my own thinking when I came to understand the Lord’s parable of the prodigal son as it should be understood. Previous to this epiphany (if I may use the word) I had actually admired the eldest son in the story. And my misplaced admiration for the eldest son was bolstered by a number of famous sermons that perpetuated my misunderstanding. One such sermon was titled “Let’s Hear It For the Other Son” which was preached during a popular youth conference at a large Baptist church. (It is not my purpose here to pick bones, so I find no need to mention names. Those who care, know of whom I speak; those who don’t, don’t. After all, the sermon I’m referring to wasn’t an isolated incident of one Baptist preacher’s abuse of scripture, but a representative of many such sermons preached in many different pulpits.)

In the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32), Jesus tells the story of a man who had two sons: the youngest demanded his inheritance and then proceeded to waste it all on sin. Later he “came to himself” and determined to return to his father in repentance. He indeed returned, and the father welcomed him home with gracious mercy. A party was given in honor of the occasion, but the eldest brother refused to attend. The eldest son was indignant and said to his father, “thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends.”

Luke chapter 15 begins with these words: “Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him. And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them. And he spake this parable unto them...” The three parables of lost things (the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost son) were parables spoken to the Pharisees to expose their sin of the indignation against Jesus for his reaching out in mercy to the worst of the worst. The eldest son was emblematic of the scribes and Pharisees who mumbled and murmured that publicans and sinners (the prodigals of the world) were getting saved. The eldest son was a rank legalist.

In the above-mentioned sermon, the preacher said in reference to the oldest that, “I kinda like the guy. I wouldn’t have gone to the party...he’s my kinda guy.” And further into the sermon, the preacher added, “This kinda guy [the eldest brother] is exactly what this Bible conference is all about.” He went on to preach how we need to be throwing parties for the young people who never go into sin – the faithful ones who never rebel, just like the eldest brother.

Such preaching totally misses the point of the Savior’s parable and commits a serious error by making a hero out of a legalist instead of humbling our hearts at the gracious mercy we have received from the Father. Jesus didn’t tell this story to pat the Pharisees on the backs for their works of righteousness, but to expose the corrupting legalism that had so infected their hearts with spiritual arrogance that they assumed they had a right to the Father’s blessings because of their many years of faithful service.

Listen again to the eldest son’s complaint: “Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends.” (Luke 15:29). These are the words of the legalist. “You owe me for what I have done. I have earned your blessing.”

The Return of the Prodigal Son
Guercino, 1619

But what is the father’s response? “...all that I have is thine.” Both the prodigal and the eldest son were offered the father’s blessings, not on the basis of works and performance, but on the very basis of the father’s goodness to his children. The prodigal was not made to earn his spot back to the table by serving as lowly field-hand, nor was the eldest son given all that was his father’s on the basis of his perfect attendance record; rather, both are offered all things because they are simply his children. It is a gracious offering from a father who loves.

At this point, many fly off the rails because they balk at the interpretation of the eldest son representing a Pharisee and the prodigal son representing converted publicans. They want the prodigal to be the backslidden Christian and the eldest to be the faithful Christian. They might say, “How could the prodigal be called a son if he wasn’t saved at the beginning of the story? And how could the eldest represent a Pharisee if the father spoke of the eldest son affectionately whereas the Pharisees were enemies of Christ?” These are good questions, but they are representative of the old adage “missing the forest for the trees.” The parables of Christ generally teach one truth, but when we get bogged down by trying to make all the details of the story find some exact parallel we end up pounding square pegs into round holes. The one truth of the parable of the prodigal son is that God is gracious to sinners. It’s about grace – something the Pharisees needed to learn.
So here’s how you can shine the lamp of grace into the corners of your heart as you search for the leaven of legalism: ask yourself, “Do I admire the eldest son? Do I sympathize with his feelings? Do I feel like I have earned a fatted calf because I have been faithful in my work?”

Does God owe me a fatted calf because I pray for exactly 60 minutes every day and not 23? Does God owe me a party with my friends because I knock on doors an hour every week, rain or shine? Do I feel that asking a hundred times a day “O God! Give me your power!” functions like some progress bar wherein the more I ask the more power I get?
Do you feel that your praying, Bible reading, soul winning, church attendance, fasting, or whatever good works you perform earn something from God? Oh, my brothers and sisters! God owes us nothing. It’s better than that. He has freely given us all things in Christ. This is grace.

Romans 8:31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? 32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?


Does this mean that obedience isn’t required? Can we live any way we want and still expect these blessings offered to us in Christ? No. Obedience is still relevant. We will sort through these issues when we discuss how we can defeat the legal spirit.

Assuming we have detected legalism in our hearts, how can we destroy it? I’ll offer an answer next time.
________________________________________________
Works Cited
Ferguson, Sinclair. The Whole Christ. Wheaton: Crossway, 2016. Print.

The Definition of Legalism

Grace 10

Note: This is the second in a series of posts by Joe Cassada discussing legalism. The first can be found here.

Previously, I mentioned that two popular understandings of legalism fail to take the battle to the enemy: the first is the idea that legalism is simply being overly strict; the second is the idea that legalism is only an effort to save oneself by one’s good works. With the first understanding, it is implied that legalism is defeated by merely relaxing the rules; with the second, legalism is seemingly dismissed by rejecting a false doctrine.

The first understanding is woefully shallow – perhaps even theologically ignorant. The second doesn’t go far enough. I said I would offer my definition of legalism this week, and I will. But the astute reader may have already discerned a definition in my last post where I said, “... at its root, legalism is a grace-abusing condition of the heart...” Before we dive into that, let’s start with a very brief dip into a few verses of Scripture.

Legalism is a challenging word to define biblically because it doesn’t appear in the Bible, so we must take what we widely understand about the word, and search the Scriptures for more information. And the thing about legalism that is widely understood (because it is obvious) is that legalism deals with the law – specifically it deals with the law in relation to the Christian. Is there any passage in the Bible that deals specifically with the law in its relation to the Christian’s life? Yes, there are many, but one book really stands out: Galatians.

In his epistle to the Galatians, Paul doesn’t hold back in his strong condemnation of the abuse of grace by Judaizer heresy. In his opening remarks, he jumps right into the fight with a jab-right-cross: I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ. Pow! Paul is defending grace with the zeal of a man defending his own mother. Paul knew what grace was, for he had experienced God’s amazing grace in a blindingly brilliant fashion (pun intended). It was grace that birthed him into the family of God. It was grace that turned him from blood-thirsty persecutor to bold Gospel preacher. This Gospel of grace that Paul received was not through some Johnny-come-lately from Jerusalem, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. (Gal. 1:12)

The Galatians, though, had turned from the Gospel of grace to another gospel – which isn’t a gospel at all. (Gal. 1:7) So learn this: when grace is diminished, the Gospel is twisted and ruined - “perverted” is the word Paul used. A gospel devoid of grace is no longer gospel – whatever it is, it isn’t good news.

The Dispute at Antioch
by Judepe de Ribera
c 1640

Paul wanted his Galatian friends to know that he was no stranger to dust-ups with Judaizers and their sympathizers. Paul even shared the story of how he had withstood Peter to the face when that esteemed rock crumbled underneath the pressure of legalistic sensibilities (Gal. 2:11, 12). If the Apostle to the Gentiles wasn’t afraid to get in the face with the Apostle to the Circumcision, you can bet your next allowance that he wasn’t gonna back down to the Judaizing bullies who were kicking sand at the Galatian Christians.

Listen: when Peter (et al) refused to eat with the Gentile Christians because of the name-dropping Judaizers, Paul said they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel. (Gal. 2:14) That’s huge. For a saved man to insinuate through his actions anything that is contrary to Gospel grace is to, therefore, walk not uprightly according to the truth. Saved people, even the ones who preach the Gospel, can act legalistically. Peter did, and so do we (more than we would care to admit).

Peter’s refusal to eat with the Gentiles insinuated that the grace of God wasn’t good enough to make them good enough. And that’s bad. Legalism can be full-orbed works salvation (a false gospel) and also an attitude that grace alone isn’t enough to sanctify a believer to an acceptable level or cleanliness – there remained in Peter’s view of the Gentiles a “favor that had to be earned” (if ever it could be). Legalism, then, is an abuse of law and grace so that God’s favor becomes something that must be earned.

Ah. Now we see legalism in its ugly nakedness. The Judaizers were nothing new. Their brand of poison was milked from a Serpent’s fangs long ago, for this attitude that “God’s favor must be earned” is as old as the first sin. Sinclair Ferguson, in his wonderfully helpful book “The Whole Christ” describes the scene in the Garden of Eden where the Serpent asks Eve, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? and thereby intimates that God had not been good and gracious in literally giving our first parents every single tree in the Garden but one. The Serpent switched the focus away from God’s provision and onto God’s prohibition. God’s law was no longer loving and gracious but cruel and mean. “Now, like a pouting child of the most generous father, she acted as though she wanted to say to God, ‘You never give me anything. You insist on me earning everything I am ever going to have.’...God thus became to her ‘He-whose-favor-has-to-be-earned’” (82). Ferguson goes on to note that, “Legalism is simply separating the law of God from the person of God...[Eve] was deceived into ‘hearing’ law only as a negative deprivation and not as the wisdom of a heavenly Father” (83).

Legalism, then, is both the abuse of grace and the perversion of the law. It twists people’s minds into seeing God as “He-whose-favor-has-to-be-earned.” Contrary to popular opinion, legalism and antinomianism go hand-in-hand, for when one abuses grace, they inevitably divorce the law of God from the person of God, and vice versa.
Haven’t you ever been amazed when some of the most straight-laced people are found to harbor some of the most scandalous sins? It’s because legalism and antinomianism are weeds that spring up from the same ground.

Perhaps you think my thoughts on this matter and those of Ferguson’s are new-fangled innovations injected in an age-old controversy. Some might say I muddy the waters, and I understand why they would think that: legalism was much less confusing when it was simply salvation by works. But now that I see that it is also a spirit (the “legal spirit” the Old Timers spoke of) that is not merely a false doctrine to be mentally rejected but a deed of the body that needs mortification.

I hope, if my handling of those few verses in Galatians, and Ferguson’s treatment of the Garden scene are unsatisfactory, that you would give heed to a preacher who predates #OldPaths. Thomas Boston (1676-1732) warned that
“Legalism is one of the dangerous engines the gates of hell are directing this day against the church built upon a Rock: this is an attempt against the grace of Christ, bringing in a scheme of religion that has no relation to Jesus Christ and his Spirit, and putting virtue or a virtuous life in the room of Christ's righteousness, for acceptance with God, and the exerting of our natural powers in the room of the influences of his Spirit, by which means the corruption of nature, and the necessity of regeneration, are buried in deep silence, and living by faith, attending the Spirit's influence, and communion with God, are branded as enthusiasm: Thus a refined heathenism is palmed on us for Christianity" (106).

Boston added, “In a sinking state of the church, the law and gospel are confounded, and the law justles out the gospel, the dark shades of morality take place of gospel light: which plague is this day begun in the church, and well far advanced. Men think they see the fitness of legal preaching for sanctification but how the gospel should be such a mean, they cannot understand" (106).

“Legal preaching for sanctification” - sound familiar?

So far we have seen the danger of legalism and the definition of legalism; next time we will discuss the detection of legalism, and we will ask, “Lord, is it I?”

_______________________________________________
Works Cited
Boston, Thomas, James Hog, et al. Gospel Truth Accurately Stated and Illustrated. Canonsburgh: Andrew Munro, 1827. PDF.
Ferguson, Sinclair. The Whole Christ. Wheaton: Crossway, 2016. Print.

The Danger of Legalism

Grace 9

Note: In planning this blog series on grace I felt I wanted to cover the subject of legalism in some depth. I have asked my good friend, Pastor Joe Cassada, of the Solid Rock Baptist Church in Maryland Heights, Missouri, to address this topic for us. This is the first of several posts covering the topic.

Legalism is a word that has received quite a bit of attention – usually because it used as a blunt force instrument. For example, Christians of the fundamentalist stripe have frequently been accused of beating people over the heads with the Bible, but if such a pugilistic spirit does find expression in our ranks, I think it is sometimes because we are simply trading blows with those that beat us over the head with the charge that we are being legalists or pharisees. In fact, it would seem the favorite punching bag of the young Christian social media phenoms is the previous generation’s legalism. Sometimes the punches land squarely on the nose, and other times they are wild swings whiffing through the air.

When traipsing through social media, it doesn’t take long before one comes across some fresh-faced video maven who is waxing eloquent about how “it’s about a relationship, not a religion.” His sweet words and sincere looks are convincing, and it’s easy to finish watching his four to seven minute sound-bite-sermon thinking that Jesus loves me so much he doesn’t really care what I do or how I live. Because “legalism is bad, and most Christians are judgmental prudes. But Jesus is totally cool. Maybe I should I get a tattoo just to prove to everyone that I am totally not a legalist” - or so the thinking goes.

Little effort is needed to find some zealous (and vocal) opponent of legalism who confesses to have “really struggled with it” in the past, and who now is apparently delivered of its powers. The evidence they offer for their deliverance is that they dress down for Sunday morning church, rap the snare drum for worship, and prater on pretentiously about their favorite microbrewery. They didn’t used to do those things, but now they do because they’re not legalists anymore.

Of course, the suits-and-ties crowd cringe and bristle at stuff like that. They swear they aren’t legalists because “legalism is works salvation and we obviously don’t believe in that. And to prove we don’t believe in that let me remind you that we go soul winning every week for at least one hour. Every week. For one hour. At least. Exactly as the Bible says. Because if we didn’t, we would be backslidden. But then, if we were backsliding, we would be sure to hit the altar after the sermon to get right...of course we will do that anyways because if we don’t hit the altar, then that means we’re backslidden. Just like the Bible says. But, we’re not legalists. The Catholics are, but we aren’t. We don’t do empty rituals.”

By now you’ve picked up on the sarcasm, so let me just be frank: legalism is misunderstood and misdefined, and because of this it goes undetected and untreated. Like a cancer, it grows and corrupts individuals, families, and entire churches and denominations. It’s sneaky, deceptive, and a master of disguise. It’s the proverbial beam in our eye.

Permit me to continue the personification: legalism is a disgusting little monster that doesn’t care about your biases, creeds, or church’s statement of faith. Legalism is the slithering imp that is able to worm his way into your heart regardless of your profession of salvation by faith alone. He doesn’t care that you hate legalism in other people either, because he is all the happier to make a warm home in your own dark carnality (and antinomianism is one of his favorite roommates).

That’s the really terrifying thing about legalism: it doesn’t follow our stereotypes; it follows us. The starched-collar-preacher and the skinny-jeans-worship leader can both be guilty of it – and to the same degree. And while they throw stones at each other marked “liberal” and “pharisee,” the Devil laughs. If there is one area in the Christian life that we should stop pointing fingers and hurling insults without first seriously looking to our Savior and humbly asking “Lord, is it I?” this is that one area. The purpose of this piece is not to lampoon the caricatures of the culture spectrum, but to remind us all, whether young or old, whether #oldpaths or #newIFB; that this fight against legalism is every man’s fight, and your respective corners of the cultural boxing ring do not necessarily place you closer or further away from legalism’s insidious influence. Because wherever you go, you take him with you, son of Adam.

Legalism is a dangerous and hellish sin because it can grow like a weed even in soil that is on fire for God. Legalism is a sin that is capable of surviving massive doses of revivalism, righteous indignation, and well-intentioned reform. Legalism is not afraid of the fiery pulpit, the open Bible, or the bent knee.

Legalism will go with you to church and sit right next to you for worship. But he will also tag along to the bar and high-five some of his other friends that are frequently there. And legalism will hold your hand while you read your Bible and pat your back when you say your prayers. He won’t mind if you light up a stogie and proclaim your Christian liberty to all your Instagram followers. He’s down with that too, as the kids say. He’s just at home with the hipster in the tattoo parlor as he is the stuffed-shirt traditionalist in the sanctuary.

Herein is the terrifying danger of legalism: it loves sin and morality both. He fears neither conservative values nor progressive ideas. He is the ultimate chameleon.

Legalism loves how we’ve turned his sin into a generational issue, as if it wasn’t a matter of every individual’s heart. It’s the older folks who are the legalists, right? Legalism loves how the younger evangelicals carry on like craft beer is some kind of vaccination against it – or how so many think that encamping along the extreme edge of the gray areas is a sure-fire way to escape the touch of legalism. It isn’t. “How can I be a legalist when I embrace all the seedy elements of the subculture that my parents rejected? Jesus ate with sinners and hated the religious right, and so do I.”

Oh, foolish Christian! You play right into the enemy’s hands!

Legalism loves how the older folks tend to think that since they profess salvation by faith alone, then they are quite safe from any charge of legalism. They aren’t, because legalism isn’t segregated along denominational boundaries and doctrinal definitions alone. Legalism breeds just as well under conditions that are officially sola fide.

Wake up! Your Webster’s Dictionary definition of legalism doesn’t go far enough. You’re bringing a knife to a gun fight.

There are two popular definitions of legalism that are leading people right into the trap: one is the idea that legalism is being too strict. I think an honest assessment would show that though most deny such a technical definition of legalism, it is nevertheless the most practical application of it. According  to this is common paradigm, the legalist is simply the guy who is stricter than me.

The other definition that tends to hinder our victory over legalism is the understanding that legalism is only in believing that salvation can be attained through obedience to the Mosaic law. And while this is technically a true part of the theological understanding of legalism, it should not be our entire understanding of legalism. So, on the one hand, legalism is treated as merely old-fashioned strictness that is out of style and needs to catch up with the times, and on the other hand it is viewed only as bad doctrine that is easily rejected. But at its root, legalism is a grace-abusing condition of the heart that robs the Christian of true joy and communion with God.

Knowing your enemy is fundamental for victory on the battlefield, and having a biblical definition of legalism is essential to defeating it in your own heart. Since such an important term deserves careful attention, we will let the Bible (not the dictionary or our own prejudices) define legalism for us. This we will work through next time.