Evangelism-driven legalism

I've been thinking a bit recently about a subtle form of legalism which I think seems to be common in many evangelical churches.

The argument runs a bit like this:

• Unbelievers will have the gospel commended to them by Christian behaviour, and so will want to ask questions of Christians.
• Therefore make an effort to impress non-believers by your behaviour - this might take various forms: be outgoing, be generous at work, arrive early at church to chat to newcomers... and so on.

It's certainly true that lifestyle commends the gospel. But I feel uneasy when I hear this sort of teaching. Here's why:

1. It seems to forget or sideline the place of grace. Titus 2, for instance, speaks of how different groups can commend the gospel through the way that they live - older men, older women, younger men and slaves. But the whole chapter is bound up with a theology of grace: Titus 2:11-14. The gospel of Christ (and the redemption in full from sin that he has achieved) gives a Christian a whole new perspective and teaches them to say no to ungodliness. The chapter is bound up with Jesus and his grace, not merely with exhortation.
2. For this reason, the implication of the above exhortation without grace is that Christians should try hard to be something that they are not really e.g. friendly, outgoing, generous. These actions are stripped away from the salvation we have received in Christ.
3. This effectively relegates godliness to a place where it is not much more than a piece of bait that can be dangled before non-believers to win conversations.
4. It also is likely to promote self-righteousness and/or despair amongst believers as they seek to strive towards these outward forms of behaviour. This behaviour is not coming from believers' hearts, and it ignores the empowering of the Holy Spirit.
5. This emphasis means that believers consider that if they show non-believers their sin, they've blown it forever.

There is a missing stage to the above teaching...

• Jesus' gospel of grace has freed you and empowers you to live a life of love.
• Unbelievers will have the gospel commended to them by Christian behaviour, and so will want to ask questions of Christians.
• Therefore, be what you are called to be - loving Christ above all, and therefore radically seeking to meet the needs of others, trusting that all your needs will be supplied by Jesus. Be confident in the transforming power of Jesus to commend itself, even in someone as sinful and broken as you.

Dave makes a helpful addition to this post.

Neither legalism nor laziness: working out responsibility in Christian leadership

It's very difficult to manage responsibility effectively in Christian leadership. Often it seems that Christian leaders are burdened, tired and even joyless. CU leadership is no different. Here are three case studies:

Chloe is frustrating her small group co-leader, Harry. She was apparently at first very enthusiastic about leading the group. However, as time has gone on, Chloe’s productivity has declined. She appears less committed to leading studies, constantly asking Harry to stand in for her, and she’s reluctant to take on any extra responsibilities.

Joshua is very passionate about evangelism and Bible study and was delighted when he was asked to be a CU leader. He’s not very bothered about his course and regularly skips lectures to be involved in CU activities. Nor does he work very hard at his essays – after all, he reasons, God is more bothered by eternal fruit than by activities that don’t have eternal importance. Joshua is a talented sportsman but chooses to sacrifice his place in the university team for the sake of being able to encourage his Christian brothers and sisters.

Ollie has a reputation amongst most of the CU for being something of a hero who has a real desire to serve others. He seems to always be the first to volunteer for anything. As evangelism secretary, Ollie has pioneered a number of new initiatives which have gone well. However, underneath the surface, things are not well. Ollie feels exhausted and finds himself constantly telling others how busy and tired he is. He’s not prayed on his own in weeks, and has slipped behind with university work. Nor is Ollie eating or sleeping well. If he was honest with himself (which he normally isn’t) Ollie measures his worth through his accomplishments in CU.

Ultimately, all of these students need to believe and trust the promises of the gospel and in the character of God in their situations:

• CU leaders can look lazy for a number of reasons - Chloe may actually be lazy (in which case she needs to discern those things that really are God-given responsibilities), although often seemingly lazy people feel over-burdened by concerns that are not truly responsibilities (therefore leading to perfectionism and procrastination). If the latter were true, Chloe needs to know that God's strength is made perfect in weakness, and let the Spirit do what only he can.
• Joshua tends towards super-spirituality, with a low view of what it means for Jesus to be his Creator - and therefore has a compartmentalised view of worship. He may look spiritual, but in fact he is with-holding certain parts of his life as areas dedicated to the Lord.
  
• Ollie is a legalist. He is probably using his CU accomplishments as a way of making and keeping himself acceptable to God (and other Christians). He needs to rediscover the truths of God's grace: that Jesus is our perfect righteousness and that we need no other. He needs to stop trying to be what he is not, admit what he is - and then realise that he does not need to prove himself to either God or others.
  

The penny-dropping moment

One of the CU Guests up this week, and a friend of mine, Rachel Earnshaw, writes about the penny-dropping moment experience she had on mission at Lancaster this week.

She writes about a late-night conversation with a Muslim:

But the amazing thing I went away from this conversation with, as well as an encouragement for both me and the guy I was with that we could explain the Gospel (which when you aren't constantly coming into contact with people who ask such blatent questions, doubt can creep in...) was this overwhelming thankfulness and joy that what I said was true and it applied for me! I am such a classic rule setter, and the type that beats myself up every time I fall into the same sinful things I struggle with time and time again... and yet just as I told the guy we spoke to, I am saved from that! I was practically dancing as I walked back, both out of excitement that God could use someone as unwilling and uncooperative and broken and bumbly as me, and also that this amazing message, that seems too good to be true sometimes when you say it out loud, IS true and IS applied to me!

Read the post in full here.

A better covenant (Hebrews 8)

I arrived at Hebrews 8 today in supervision time with the Relay Workers. It's another chapter that shows the folly of legalism when compared with the utter supremacy of Jesus' sacrifice and all that it guarantees.

Covenants are legal agreements between two parties, and covenants between God and humans feature significantly in Scripture. Some of the covenants that God makes with humans are unilateral - in other words, they can't be broken by humans. This includes the covenant that God makes with Abram where he promises to give a land and descendants to him.

Other covenants have an element of performance built into them. The most significant of these is the covenant that God makes with the nation of Israel at Sinai. Although the heart of this covenant is faith, covenant blessings and covenant curses are given to Israel dependent on the extent to which they humbly submit to the LORD as their God (see Deuteronomy 28 and 30).

The sad story of the Old Testament is that Israel - themselves, remember, a mirror of humanity - failed to keep the covenant. Indeed, they ended up in exile because of this. And so Jeremiah (31:31-34) foresaw a new covenant - like the Sinai covenant, one that brought the possibility of blessing - but that was unilateral. Indeed, the very things that caused Israel to abandon their blessings - their lack of desire to keep the law, and the way that this showed itself in sin - are those things that are addressed in the new covenant: the law will be internalised, and sin will be forgotten forever.

The writer to the Hebrews was writing to a group of Jewish Christians who felt under pressure to abandon Christianity, keep making the Levitical sacrifices and return to Judaism. Perhaps they considered it necessary to keep making these sacrifices so that they would experience covenantal blessings. But Hebrews 8 shows that vast supremacy of the new covenant: what people hoped for through performance in the old covenant, Jesus has guaranteed through his sacrifice, resurrection and the giving of the Spirit. Christ's sacrifice for us and righteousness imputed to us guarantees our blessing forever (and so led Paul to write Ephesians 1:3).

As we reflected on Hebrews 8 earlier, we spoke of how the human heart causes us to want to write another covenant with God (where our blessing is based on legalism and performance). How ridiculous when Christ has guaranteed our blessings forever! How much better to glory in what has already been won and given to us!

Our priest forever (Hebrews 7)

The Hebrew Christians were under extreme pressure to recant their faith in Jesus Christ. Christianity was, at this time, viewed by at least some within orthodox Judaism as a sect. Faith in Jesus seemed to ride roughshod over the Old Testament, didn't it? After all, what of the Levitical priesthood and sacrifices?

Hebrews 7 is the beginning of an answer to this objection.

1. There is a model of priesthood in the Old Testament other than the Levitical model
The writer's first part of an answer points his readers to Genesis 14 and the enigmatic passage about the priest-king Melchizedek. After a military victory, Abram tithes and gives away 10% of his plunder to Melchizedek. Unlike many other OT characters, nothing is said about Melchizedek's origins or what happened afterward. But the fact that even the great patriarch Abram tithed to a priest 'external' to Israel shows that priesthood can operate outside of the Levitical system. Significantly, this priesthood pre-dates the institution of the Levitical model.

2. A priest-king in the order of Melchizedek was prophesied after the institution of the Levitical model
The writer then points his readers to Psalm 110. This was written by David, when the Levitical priesthood had already been established for several hundred years. David prophesies an all-conquering king (who seems to be divine), who himself will be a priest in the order of Melchizedek.

3. God has sworn under oath that this new king will be a priest forever
In the third stage of his argument, the writer points to the language of oath in Psalm 110: 'The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind...'. In other words, the priesthood of the Messianic king will last forever. Presumably this means that his priesthood will be utterly effective.

Jesus, of course, applied Psalm 110 to himself (Mark 12:35-37). And so, although he was not from the tribe of Levi, he was a priest: the promised priest in the order of Melchizedek. Unlike the Levitical priests, he has risen, never again to die. And, therefore, he is able to save completely those who trust him: he sacrificed for sins (past, present and future) once for all when he offered himself.

In 21st Century Britain, we might not feel tempted to return to the Levitical sacrifices. However, we can sometimes wonder (explicitly or implicitly) whether Jesus really is enough. Such questioning can lead to ugly legalism. Hebrews 7 confidently announces the complete sufficiency of Jesus' priesthood and sacrifice. His resurrection declares it. The oath of God promises it (it's not as if God will announce at judgement that he's changed the rules of how we can get right with him). I can rest complete assured in Jesus, my priest forever who won't let me down.

What is the place of the OT Law for Christians today? (2)

This is the second in the series of what I expect to be occasional posts in considering the role of the OT Law for believers today. In part 1, I started to look at the giving of the Law in the place of redemptive history and the context of Genesis and Exodus. In this post, I briefly overview the books of Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. As is no doubt evident, these thoughts are in progress and I'd welcome comments. I'd also commend popping over to Dave Kirkman's 48 Files, where he is drawing together and analyising a large amount of helpful scholarship.

Leviticus and Numbers: the covenant expounded

In the previous post, I sought to demonstrate that the legal sections of the book of Exodus make sense when they are placed in context of the larger narrative. The same is also true for Leviticus, which also includes a section of Law before the action continues in the narrative in the book of Numbers. Again, I think context is crucial: as Leviticus is issued, Israel is camped at the foot of Mount Sinai. The context of the narrative Exodus and Numbers, which top and tail Leviticus, shows that here the people are being formed into God’s people. As one writer has put it, the book of Exodus is concerned with getting the people of Israel out of Egypt, and the book of Leviticus is concerned with getting Egypt out of Israel. God sets at work to make his people unique. And so in the book of Leviticus, we see God concerned with Israel’s ‘vertical’ and ‘horizontal’ relationships – namely, their relationships with God and with each other.

Accordingly, the first set of Levitical laws prescribes how Israel should relate to God, who is now dwelling amongst his people in the tabernacle. Particularly, the commands here concern sacrificial offerings from the people (1:1-6:7), then instructions for the priesthood (6:8-9:24). A narrative describing the fate of Aaron’s sons, who thought they could relate to God on their own terms (10:1-7) then follows, plus further instruction for the priests (10:8-20). Chapters 11-15 deal with ritual cleanliness – with a view to avoiding what happened to Aaron’s sons. All of these laws are concerned that the people of Israel have a proper sense for what it means for God to be present amongst them. It is about getting their ‘vertical’ relationship in its correct perspective, and builds up towards the Day of Atonement set of rituals in Chapter 16. The Day of Atonement was to be a solemn day of forgiveness that ritually cleansed the people of their sin and purified the tabernacle as a place of worship. Chapters 17-25 inaugurate a new section of Law. The whole section is governed by the refrain from God, ‘Be holy, for I am holy’. In response to God, the people of Israel are to love their neighbours as themselves (19:18). ‘Horizontal’ relationships with others are different because of their relationship with God.

The covenantal aspect of the Law in Leviticus, based on what God has already done, is a vitally important feature. But now, God reveals more of his covenant. He promises on his part to bless Israel, in response that they maintain a holy awe and obedience towards him. This can be read about in Leviticus 26:3-12 (cf Exodus 23:22). On the flipside, disobedience and rejection of God’s covenant will now bring curse on his people (see Leviticus 26:14-45). This provides a formal conclusion to the covenant structure that began in Exodus 20.

The book of Numbers also includes some additional laws in chapters 5-6, 15, 18-19 and 28-30. Most of these are further clarification of the laws in the Levitical Code (Leviticus 1-16). Including the Ten Commandments, a total of 613 instructions are given to the people of Israel in the Pentateuch.

Deuteronomy: the fundamental values of the Law

The setting of the book of Deuteronomy is forty years after Exodus. With the first generation all having died out, Israel have reached the border of the Promised Land, Canaan, and are camped on the banks of the River Jordan, just across from Jericho. Now before Israel crosses over the river to take the land, and before his death, Moses undertakes a major renewal of the covenant between the people and God.

In the first three chapters, Moses recaps ‘the story so far’ – what has taken place between Israelite slavery in Egyptian to that point, emphasising the LORD’s faithfulness to Israel in spite of their failures. Fresh commitment to the covenant is demanded. However, Deuteronomy is particularly helpful because more attention is given to the motivation and incentive of keeping the Law on Israel’s part. For this reason, Deuteronomy has historically been (and remains) central within the Jewish faith (see also Matthew 4:1-11).

The primary commitment of the Law is given, following the restating of the Ten Commandments, in Deuteronomy 6:1-9:

These are the commands, decrees and laws the LORD your God directed me to teach you to observe in the land that you are crossing the Jordan to possess, so that you, your children and their children after them may fear the LORD your God as long as you live by keeping all his decrees and commands that I give you, and so that you may enjoy long life. Hear, O Israel, and be careful to obey so that it may go well with you and that you may increase greatly in a land flowing with milk and honey, just as the LORD, the God of your fathers, promised you.

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.

These verses show what drives the theological agenda of Deuteronomy – as Gordon Fee puts it, ‘an uncompromising monotheism coupled with an equally deep concern for Israel’s uncompromising loyalty to Yahweh, their God’. This is particular seen in verses 4-5. Known as the ‘Shema’ (Hebrew for ‘hear’), these verses describe God’s uniqueness and became the distinguishing mark of Judaism. The primary commandment of all is that Israel should love Yahweh their God totally. It is these verses that Jesus quoted when questioned regarding the ‘greatest commandment’ (Matthew 22:37). Deuteronomy 6 develops this theme, with a particular emphasis on Yahweh being the only true God, on his redeeming action to make Israel his people, and on his gracious gift of the land of Canaan.

Verses 5-6 show the synonymy of love for God with obedience to his commandments. In other words, and reiterating what we have already seen, Jewish obedience to the Law was never designed to be legalistic, or the basis of salvation, but rather a proof of a relationship with God, coming from the heart and will of the redeemed. The call for the covenant people is to ‘love God’ in response to what he has done for them, where ‘loving God’ encompassed will, careful intention, emotion and regular discipline from childhood. As Chris Wright writes, ‘without this, the rest of the Law is just miscellaneous instructions with no unifying principle. It is for this reason Jesus called this the first great commandment of the Law, from which all of the rest follows (Matthew 23:37-40).’ Or as Douglas Stuart says, ‘everything is predicated on Yahweh’s love and faithfulness and his actions that flow out of that love and faithfulness.’ This is the key idea that flows throughout the rest of the book of Deuteronomy and its key themes: how Israel are to act in the land of Canaan, that the places of Canaanite idolatrous worship should be destroyed, and the requirement that worship should take place at the tabernacle (and not the places where worship of idols previously took place).

More soon (eventually!)

Who are you to do this?

I'm in the process of studying through John's Gospel with the Impact Group leaders at the University of Central Lancashire CU. Last time, we looked at Jesus' cleansing of the temple from John 2:13-25 - and it felt like Jesus walked right off of the page as we did so.

I guess the thing that really struck me was the Jewish leaders' reaction to what Jesus had just done. Old Testament Scripture evidently condemns the sort of actions that the priests were taking - 1 Samuel opens with God's judgement on Eli, whose crime was very similar to that off the priests that Jesus judged - and there's a whole series of prophecies from God throughout the OT the need for a cleansed temple.

Yet when Jesus comes and does something that is obviously so correct - restoring the temple to the purpose for which it is designed, the Jewish leaders' reaction is one of anger, not repentance. They demand to know on whose authority Jesus acts. Effectively they are saying, 'Who are you to do this?' Of course, in doing so, Jesus showed what was at the heart of their religion: not a humble walk with God, but an outward show of 'holiness'.

As we discussed this passage in Preston, we realised that man-made religion says the very same thing to Jesus. Legalistic Christianity and man-made religions alike deny the claim made by Jesus that we need a completely new heart, a complete change - and that outward actions alone are not enough. When we fall into thinking that our outward actions are enough for God, we too say to Jesus' death on the cross, 'Who are you to do this?'