What Would You Do If Someone Attacked Your Family?

“You blow their heads off. Next question.” At least that’s how most would answer.

But for pacifists, this question poses the ultimate dilemma. Either they are exposed as being inconsistent in their stance against violence, or if they maintain their consistency and refuse to protect their loved ones, they are exposed as unloving or even immoral.

I don’t consider myself a true pacifist. My only aim is to be a faithful disciple of Jesus. But regardless of your stance on pacifism, if you are a Christian you need to think carefully about the implications of your commitment to follow Jesus even in the most extreme scenarios.

The Dilemma For a Christian

Can a disciple of Jesus kill an attacker at the door? Maybe (or maybe not). But before joining in with the masses and yelling “shoot him!” we would be wise to pause consider the implication of our answer – not as a pacifist, but as a Christian.

If a Christian has gotten to the point where “blow his head off!” is seen as the only possible response to the threat of violence, there is a deep problem. How has our love for our enemies gone so far astray that we could envision killing them without even batting an eye or even allowing for the slightest grief to enter our minds? How have we become so blind to the love of God that we would not strive to find another possible way out of the scenario? (cf. Rom. 5.7-10).

Yes, perhaps we would be completely justified in killing the attacker. But first, we need to at least pause long enough and think about how Christians are commanded to treat their enemies, and how these commands might impact our response.

Christians are never to repay evil with evil (Rom. 12.17; cf. 1 Thess. 5.15; 1 Pet. 3.9). Jesus commanded:

“But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.” – Matthew 5.39

Not only are we commanded to love our enemies, we’re specifically commanded to “do good to them” (Lk. 6.27-28).

What’s more, there’s never an exception clause. Jesus never said anything like “love your enemies, unless a loved one is threatened” or “do good to your enemies, but use some common sense too.” He simply commanded us to love them. Period. Don’t resist them. Period. Do good to them. Period.

I suppose Jesus could have assumed that there would be times when His “love your enemy” commands would not apply, and perhaps He just didn’t feel the need to spell out all the exceptions to the rule. But if there are exceptions, they are never explicitly spelled out in Scripture.

On the surface “love your enemy” seems simple enough.  But when it comes to protecting innocent loved ones from death, almost all of us would instinctively feel justified in using violence if we absolutely had to.

So pacifists aren’t the only ones with a dilemma. As Christians, we are required to love our enemies and do good to them, and yet, surely we must protect innocent people when it is in our power to do so.

Don’t Settle for Bad Proof Texts

Christians have sought to resolve this dilemma in various ways. One option is to turn to various Old Testament passages, such as those which authorize the death penalty (Ex. 21.12-14) or command the destruction of enemies (Deut. 20.16-17). Others may turn to various New Testament passages, such as when Jesus used a whip in the temple (Mt. 21.12-17) or when Jesus commanded his disciples to buy a sword (Lk. 22.36), or when Paul wrote that governments “do not bear the sword in vain” (Rom. 13.4) to argue that violence is acceptable to God.

These are good points. None of these objections should be flippantly dismissed. They all deserve to be explored in depth and followed to their logical conclusions. But as we do so, we must be careful not to twist scripture away from its context or stretch scriptures beyond their intended purposes. If we aren’t careful, we can get so focused on finding justification for violence that we can overlook how many of these proof texts are actually contained within contexts which oppose violence.

My point here isn’t to answer every objection, but simply to encourage us to be careful and honest with the text. If you want to explore any of these arguments in more depth, I encourage you to consider these articles I’ve written previously.

Did Jesus Really Mean “Don’t Resist an Evildoer”?

Another approach is to point out that when Jesus said “do not resist an evildoer”, the word for “resist” doesn’t refer to any and all types of resistance, but rather refers specifically to violent resistance. Therefore Jesus wasn’t implying that His disciples should just passively allow evil to take place, but only condemns responding to violence with more violence.

This argument certainly helps. For example, in most real life “attacker at the door” scenarios, there would likely be other non-violent ways to protect a loved one. You could run. You could hide. You could offer to pacify the attacker by complying and giving him money or whatever he wants. You could pray that God would somehow providentially intervene and protect your family (and please, let’s not scoff at prayer as if it would never work. See James 5.16). You might even consider non-lethal resistance, such as tackling the guy to eliminate further threat.

But while this might help soften the dilemma, it doesn’t completely solve it either. Usually the “attacker at the door” question is designed as a hypothetical scenario, where “kill or be killed” are literally the only two options. To argue for another, more peaceful way out is, in a sense, dodging the true intent of the question. We are still left to wrestle with the full weight of the hypothetical worst case scenario.

Who Is My Enemy?

Another option is to convince ourselves that when Jesus wasn’t referring to our enemies. He wasn’t referring to the attacker at the door. He must have been referring to some other kind of enemy – a less serious enemy – one who isn’t threatening the lives of innocent people. Therefore we should feel completely justified in killing the attacker at the door.

The problem is that this approach ultimately reduces Jesus’s enemy-loving commands to “love your enemies when it makes sense to you.”  Yet the whole point of Jesus’s command to love our enemies is to instruct His disciples to be radically different from others.

If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. – Luke 6.32-33

Everyone hates those who threaten them or want to kill their loved ones. The point of the command isn’t just to love our enemies when it makes sense to us. It is to challenge us to love them in those times when it doesn’t make common sense to love them.

What’s more, Jesus taught at a time when the Jews viewed Romans as foreign invaders – enemies who were known to crucify Jews just simply to flex their muscles and remind them who was in charge. They viewed them as enemies precisely because they felt like their loved ones were threatened. Far from being an exception to the rule, the attacker at the door is almost a perfect representation of the kind of enemy Jesus had in mind.

The Lesser of Two Evils

The “lesser of two evils” argument only works in a true worst case scenario, where choosing not to kill the attacker at the door is essentially a choice to do harm to a loved one. For example, we may agree that it is wrong to kill an enemy, but at the same time, it would be wrong to allow an innocent person to suffer when it is in our power to prevent it. We are ultimately left with only two choices: either we do good to our enemy (Lk. 6.27) or we love our neighbor (Mt. 22.39). Like a doctor faced with the choice of either amputating a leg, or allowing the patient to die, the right choice would be the lesser of two evils.

Some will argue against the lesser of two evils argument, pointing out that it puts too much confidence in our own judgments. Instead of choosing the lesser of two evils, we should simply do good to our enemies, and trust that somehow God will use our obedience for good.

Others will point to Biblical examples of faith where people chose the lesser of two evils. For example, the Hebrew midwives were willing to lie in order to protect Hebrew babies (Ex. 1.15-21), and Rahab lied to protect the Israelites spies (Josh. 2.1-21; cf. Heb. 11.31).

Does the “lesser of two evils” argument give us an exception to the rule?  This is a tough one. I can see both sides of the argument. But we should at least recognize how a faithful Christian might feel justified killing an attacker at the door despite their sincere commitment to be faithful to Jesus’s teachings.

But even so, the “lesser of two evils” argument concedes that killing an enemy is, as a general rule, an evil. This argument cannot, and must not be used to dismiss or de-radicalize Jesus’s teachings.

Faithfulness not Effectiveness

However we answer the question about the attacker at the door, we must always remember that our number one goal is not common sense, not safety, not effectiveness, but faithfulness.

What if there is an exception to the rule? What if we can be fully justified in killing an attacker at the door? If so, we must recognize an exception to the rule for what it is – an exception to the rule. We must never use the exception to replace the rule itself.

As we seek to follow Jesus there may be difficult questions and difficult scenarios we have to wrestle with. But these scenarios do not change the overall tone of Jesus’ teachings, nor should they be the primary focus of our thinking when it comes to how we think about our enemies.

So let’s not lose focus. Let’s strive to love our enemies in a way that is radically different from the world around us every single day. And then, if heaven forbid, we are ever faced with an attacker at the door, let’s strive to have the courage and wisdom to love our enemy even then.

What Is the “Church of Christ”?

Whenever someone asks me “Are you a member of the church of Christ?” I almost always hesitate before I answer.  This has nothing to do with me being ashamed of Christ or His church. Quite the opposite! I hesitate because I love the church, and I want to communicate clearly and biblically. I’ve found that the phrase “church of Christ” has come to mean different things to different people. I hesitate because a simple “yes” or “no” answer often leads to confusion or even encourages unbiblical ideas about the church.

As an illustration, consider three different ways the phrase “Church of Christ” is understood.

The Denominational Understanding

For many, the phrase “Church of Christ” is understood to refer to those churches which wear the name “Church of Christ” and associate with one another as a branch of the American Restoration Movement. Together, these “Churches of Christ” represent one branch, or one denomination of the universal body of Christ.

This is perhaps the most common understanding of the phrase in our culture. Whether we like it or not, we live in a denominational world. We have Catholics, Baptists, Methodist, Presbyterians and so on. According to this understanding, the “Church of Christ” fits right in this list of denominations. Among those who think of themselves as belonging to one denomination or another, it is natural for them to assume that when we use the phrase “Church of Christ” we are talking about our denomination.

Even many who attend Churches of Christ (i.e. those congregations with the name “Church of Christ”) use the phrase in this way. “Church of Christ” is viewed as the name of our group. We have “Church of Christ” schools, “Church of Christ” preachers, and “Church of Christ” traditions. If you ever hear someone say “I grew up Church of Christ, but then I switched to _______” , they are using the phrase as a denominational title.

Sometimes you will hear Christian scholars or preachers speak of “our heritage”, “our tribe” or “our little corner of the kingdom”. These are ways of describing the “Church of Christ” as one group among many. This is especially common among those who have been highly exposed to the “sectarian” view of the church (see below). This usage confronts the arrogance and closed mindedness of the sectarian view and challenges it with a much needed dose of humility to recognize that we are not uniquely smarter or more capable of discerning truth than anyone else.

In a religious environment where denominationalism is the default position for almost everyone, many have given up on using the phrase to describe anything other than another denomination.

The Sectarian Understanding

In my opinion, the best definition of sectarianism was given by David Lipscomb in his 1907 article “A Sectarian and a Truth Seeker”.  (It would be worth your time to read this excellent article here).

A sectarian is one who defends everything his party holds or that will help his party, and opposes all that his party does not hold or that will injure the strength and popularity of his party. The partisan takes for granted everything his party holds is right, and everything the other part holds is wrong and to be opposed. Hence the party lines define his faith and teaching. He sees no good in the other party. He sees no wrong in his own party, unless someone in his party should love truth and oppose an error of his party or defend a truth of the other party.

Sectarians understand that biblically speaking, there is only one church, the church of Christ (Eph. 1.22-23; Eph. 4.4). They know and use all the same scriptures about the “church of Christ” as those who use the phrase biblically (see below). Yet despite sounding like those who use the phrase “church of Christ” biblically, their understanding of the church is actually much more closely aligned with the denominational understanding of the church.

Similar to the denominational understanding, sectarians understand the phrase “Church of Christ” to refer to those churches which wear the name “Church of Christ” and associate with one another as a branch of the American Restoration Movement. But rather than thinking of themselves as one denomination of the universal church, they think that their party, the “Church of Christ”, constitutes the entirety of the body of Christ. In their minds, people in other parties cannot possibly be members of the one true church.

This view is not to be confused with the scriptural view. They do share the scriptural concept of “only one church” which was built by and belongs to Christ. But rather than understanding the boundaries of Christ’s church as “those who have been baptized and are faithful to Christ” (Gal. 3.26-27), they identify the church as “those who are faithful to my party”. In other words, they identify the body of Christ as synonymous with the modern day association of churches which wear the name “Church of Christ.”

This view is common among those who have been fed a steady diet of proof texts about the “one church”, but have not studied enough to grasp a distinction between how the phrase “churches of Christ” is used in scripture (Rom. 16.16) and how denominational titles are used in our culture.

A sectarian understanding is often present when:

  • The phrase “Church of Christ” is used as the official name for the church, and as the exclusive phrase used to describe the church
  • Party lines and traditions are more important than scripture (or worse, when adherence to written “statements of faith” are made the test of fellowship rather than adherence to Scripture)
  • Someone who has obeyed the gospel is forced to submit to “rebaptism” if they did not learn the gospel directly from a Church of Christ member
  • Someone refuses to question any traditions, practices, or beliefs of the Church of Christ, even when Scriptural objections are raised

This view is often held by those who recognize the problem of denominationalism, but instead of seeking to destroy denominationalism with unity in Christ, they seek to build up and strengthen their distinct sect.

The Biblical Understanding

I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hades will not overpower it. – Matthew 16.18

Jesus built His church. There is one church (cf .Eph. 1.22-23; Eph. 4.4) which belongs to Christ. This one church is the universal body of Christ which is made up of all those who are saved (Heb. 12.22-24).

Congregations of these believers can rightly be described as “churches of Christ” (Rom. 16.16). However, it should be noted that we could just as rightly refer to the church as the church of God, the body, the kingdom, etc. (1 Cor. 10.32; Eph. 1.22-23; Col. 1.13).

When we use the phrase “church of Christ” in this biblical sense, we are not referring to any sect or denomination you could choose to join.  Biblically speaking, only the Lord can add you to His church, and He does this when you are saved (Acts 2.41, 47). There are no saved people outside His one church (Heb. 12.22-24). Regardless of how many sects or denominations that may come and go throughout the years, there is and always will be only “one body” of Christ (Eph. 4.4).

Ultimately, it is the Lord who knows who is “in” and who is “out” of His church (Heb. 12.23; 2 Tim. 2.19). If we have clothed ourselves with Christ in baptism and give our faithful allegiance to Jesus, we can know that we are numbered among His children (Gal. 3.26-27).

There are still many who strive to use the phrase in the same way it was used in Romans 16.16, to simply refer to a congregation of Christians. There are still those who desire use the phrase to call for nondenominational and nonsectarian Christianity.

The Importance of Speaking Clearly

  • Please remember that not everyone who uses the phrase “church of Christ” to refer to Christ’s one church is a sectarian.

When you hear things like “Christ only established one church, and if you aren’t a part of that church you can’t go to heaven” this is not necessarily sectarianism. It could be, but it depends on what body they have in mind when they speak of the one church. They might simply be upholding a sect, but they could simply be trying to encourage someone to become a Christian. If you aren’t sure what they mean, ask them. Give them a chance to explain themselves more clearly before drawing your conclusion.

  • If you are going to use the phrase “church of Christ” in the biblical sense, make sure you are using the phrase properly.

“Church of Christ” is not the official name of the church. It is not the exclusive (or even the primary) description of the church. When we use it as such, we are encouraging an unbiblical understanding of the church. I am not “Church of Christ”. And I am certainly not a “CofC’er”. I am a Christian.

  • If you are committed to using the phrase “Church of Christ” as a sectarian or denominational title, please don’t give that sect or denomination your loyalty.

It drives me crazy whenever I hear someone refer to the “Church of Christ” as simply “our heritage” or “our tribe” or “our little corner of the kingdom”, and then proceed to express how much they love the Churches of Christ and want to see them succeed. If what we have in mind is a sect or a denomination, why would we give it one ounce of our loyalty? Let the Church of Christ denomination die! Let the Church of Christ sect die! But let Christ’s church live eternally! Let’s give our loyalty to Christ, not to any denomination or sect.

  • If you are going to use the phrase “church of Christ”, please take extra care to make sure your listeners know what you are talking about.

When terms are understood differently by different people it only breeds confusion. If you are going to use the phrase in a denominational or sectarian sense, please make sure others know that you are not using it to refer to the one body of Christ. If you are going to use the phrase to refer to the one universal body of Christ, please make sure others understand that you are not referring to a sect or a denomination.

Our aim is to simply be Christians. We want to be faithful, loyal, disciples of Christ. We want to give our allegiance to Him as part of His one church, without encouraging denominationalism or sectarianism. Let’s not use the name of Christ in vain by misusing His name.

Let’s be careful how we talk about the “church of Christ.”

Final Thoughts (Legalism, Part 14 of 14)

This post concludes a 14 part series in which I have reviewed “A Different Kind of Poison: How Legalism Destroys Grace.”


  1. Kevin is a truth seeker. He seeks consistency. He isn’t willing to settle for over-simplified or inconsistent answers. He is a man who has the courage to follow what he believes is right, regardless of the pressures he may feel from those around him. (Part 3)
  2. It should be noted that Kevin never openly preached “salvation by works”. His problems primarily arose from struggling with various questions about Christian fellowship. He came to realize that he could never come up with a complete and Biblically consistent list of fellowship-issues necessary for unity without ultimately disfellowshiping anyone and everyone who disagreed with him. Once he realized that such an approach could never give him confidence in his salvation, Kevin was driven to deeper study about God’s grace. (Part 10)
  3. Kevin has taken some big steps in the right direction by rejecting his “cold/ritualistic” approach towards Christianity, and has replaced it with a “relationship/faith based” approach towards Christ. In this regard, Kevin’s book most certainly points in the right direction. (Part 11)
  4. Despite all the spiritual growth Kevin has experienced, he continues to read the New Testament through a lens that pits faith over against works. This is understandable since this has been one of the most traditional ways to read the New Testament for the last few hundred years. But this approach does not do justice to the first century context in which these Scriptures were written. The legalism addressed by Paul did not deal with the question of whether or not Christians could earn their salvation through their own moral efforts. The legalism addressed by Paul wrestled with the questions of who Christians were allowed to eat with, and how to identify who is in the family of God. Kevin thus associates “works of the law” with any generic acts of obedience, any “law system” or any attempt to save ourselves through our own moral efforts, whereas when Paul spoke of “works of the law”, he was describing the specific works of the law the Jewish Christians were using to separate themselves from Gentiles Christians. (Parts 5 and 6)
  5. This basic, but common misunderstanding impacts multiple aspects of his book, such as how he understands the message of the gospel, how he understands the concept of faith, and how he understands grace. (Parts 7, 8, and 9)
  6. Since Kevin misunderstands the scriptures which set faith over against “works of the law”, he puts himself into a tricky position where me must maintain the necessity of obedience, while categorically separating obedience from faith, and consequently separating obedience from that which identifies us as members of the family of God.
  7. As long as we view “faith” and “obedience” as two separate categories held together in a cause and effect relationship, and yet view both of them as absolutely necessary, Christians will recognize “faith alone” as insufficient. Consequently, they will feel the need to achieve “enough obedience” to be saved. The separation of faith and works actually feeds the cold, ritualistic “checklist” approach to Christianity. (Part 12)
  8. If we want to help move the church away from a cold, ritualistic “checklist” religion, and move into deeper, genuine, loving relationship with God, we could start by reading the New Testament in it’s original context. If we will let go of the habit of reading Paul’s writings as confronting “salvation by works”, and instead listen to how the New Testament writers actually understand the gospel, we will recognize that the death, resurrection and exaltation of Jesus as Lord is the very heartbeat of the gospel. As a result, we will recognize that “faith” is much more than simply “trust and reliance”, but rather describes a live of loyal allegiance to Jesus as Lord. If we break the habit of setting faith over against works of obedience, and recover the centrality of Jesus’ Lordship, we will understand that faith and obedience are not two separate categories, but are rather contained within each other.
  9. When we are mindful of Jesus’ Lordship, and when we commit ourselves to be His disciples, genuine love for God and others will become the defining characteristic of our lives. No longer can we deceive ourselves into thinking that we can be “justified by trust and reliance” apart from love. Instead we must realize that faith demands love. (Part 11)
  10. Kevin’s book thus represents a big step in the right direction, yet it unfortunately reinforces some critical misunderstandings of Scripture.

Take Aways

What do I pray the church will take away from this study of legalism?

  1. An appreciation for the way that two Christians can disagree, and talk about those disagreements without name calling, attacking each other’s character, or intentionally misrepresenting each other’s motives or arguments. In Kevin’s book, he spoke very kindly, even about those who he has disagreed with over the years. I pray that my response to Kevin has shown this same graciousness, and I hope this will be an encouragement to other Christians to talk about their differences in a Christ-like manner.
  2. A deeper appreciation of the gospel; specifically speaking, a recognition that Jesus’ Lordship is the heartbeat of the gospel (Rom. 1.1-4)
  3. A recognition that “faith” is more than “trust and reliance”. Faith demands acts of faithfulness and allegiance to Jesus as Lord. Faith cannot be set over against obedience. We must embrace the concept of the “obedience of faith” (Rom. 1.5; 16.26).
  4. That as we approach difficult and sensitive questions of Christian fellowship, we will remember that Paul wrote extensively addressing these kind of issues. In his mind, Christian fellowship was to be found among all those who are baptized into Christ and are faithfully loyal to Him. (Part 12)

For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants and heirs according to the promise. – Galatians 3.26-29

  1. A deep resolve to embrace genuine obedient “faithfulness” as the standard of unity and to reject the exaltation of creeds (written or unwritten), “statements of faith”, or other beliefs or practices that might serve as sectarian boundary lines. (Part 13)
  2. A deep appreciation for the core message of the gospel: Jesus is the crucified and risen Lord. Yet with a realization that this “core message” doesn’t reduce other issues to “frivolous issues”. Quite the opposite. If Jesus is Lord, it’s not up to us to decide which matters are “essential” and which ones are “nonessential”. Yes, we can show grace to one another when we disagree in good faith. But if Jesus is Lord, and we have given are faithful allegiance to Him, there are no “frivolous issues.”
  3. A recognition that Christians will not agree on every single doctrinal issue. Christianity is in large part a growth process – and none of us will ever reach moral and intellectual perfection in this lifetime. If Peter and Paul had to work through disagreements, we will too. That doesn’t mean that error is “okay” or should be ignored. But we must remember that Romans 14 shows us that when two Christians are faithfully loyal to Christ, they can disagree on matters of doctrine and still maintain fellowship.
  4. A remembrance that “faithfulness” does not mean perfection. We will all sin, but as long as we are walking in the light, we can have confidence that Jesus’ blood will cleanse us of our mistakes (1 John 1.7-8)
  5. A resolve to never endorse error. To say that fellowship is found among all those who are baptized into Christ and are faithfully loyal to Him is not a call for “open fellowship” with anyone and everyone who claims to “believe” in Jesus. As noted, there is a big difference between “trust and reliance” and “faithful allegiance to Jesus as Lord.” If we are going to say that Christian fellowship is founded upon faith in Christ, we must first have a Biblical concept of faith – a faith that gives loyal allegiance to Jesus as Lord.
  6. More than anything, I hope this study will encourage you to love God and others more deeply. This is one thing that I know Kevin and I fully agree on. And this is crucial. If Jesus is Lord, our lives must be characterized by love.

To my readers,

Thank you for taking the time to read and consider these posts. I especially appreciate those of you who have shared words of encouragement or critical feedback as I’ve proceeded through these posts.


If you’ve read this far, I owe you a huge thank you. I’ve never had anybody write a 14 part series to dive into the depths of (and possible misunderstandings in) my own faith. I can’t imagine that’s an easy thing to do. I hope you feel like I’ve treated you fairly. If not, please know that I’ve done my best. I hope that I’ve encouraged you to think deeply and to grow in your own understanding and articulation of your arguments.

You’ve always treated me kindly, even in our disagreements. I’m sure I have misunderstandings too. I just don’t know what they are. Perhaps one day someone will take the time to help me think through them more deeply.

But may it never be that I would boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcison, but a new creation. And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them and upon the Israel of God…

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your Spirit, brethren. Amen. – Galatians 6.14-16, 18

Is The Church Too Legalistic? (Legalism, Part 13 of 14)

If you missed the earlier parts of this series, you can go back and read them here:

What Is Legalism?

The word “legalism” is frequently used to describe the error of those who seek to earn their salvation through good works (part 4). While it is certainly true that we cannot be saved by right doctrine and good works alone, independent from faithful loyalty to Christ and love for God, we should recognize that the “legalism” addressed by Paul in Galatians and Romans is a different kind of legalism (parts 5 and 6).

The “legalism” opposed by Paul was the practice of the Jewish Christians who were adding requirements to the gospel and consequently compromising the sufficiency of the cross. This “legalism” was the charge laid against Gentile Christians that their faithful loyalty to Christ was insufficient, and that they must also be circumcised and keep the “works of the law” to be welcomed into Abraham’s family.

Everything in Paul’s letter to the Galatians leads up to Galatians 5.1:

It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to the yoke of slavery.

Rather than seeking unity in Christ, the Jewish Christians were seeking to define the boundaries of fellowship by their particular sectarian identity markers. But Christ has set us free from the “works of the law”.

The legalism addressed by Paul was the legalism of adding sectarian requirements to scripture, and by implication, claiming that faithful obedience to Christ is insufficient for full Christian fellowship.

Brothers and sisters, Christ has set us free! Do not be subject again to the yoke of slavery!

Is legalism a problem in the church today?

I’m in no position to give an adequate answer to this question. Since the church has no earthly headquarters, I can’t simply call them up and ask them for their official stance on questions of Christian fellowship. So I can’t give an official answer to this question.

We can have an official answer from God about what legalism is and isn’t, or what faith is or isn’t. But there’s no way that I could give an adequate answer to this question in a way that would accurately and fairly represent every Christian and every congregation in the universal body of Christ.

Instead of seeking an official judgment on whether or not the church is too legalistic, I would encourage you to think about the congregation where you attend. Or even more importantly, think about your own views of Christian fellowship. Is your congregation too legalistic? Are you too legalistic?

Do you view faithful obedience to Jesus as Lord as sufficient, or do you add your own additional requirements to make sure that someone fits into your sect? What might those things be? In Paul’s day it was the “works of the law”, such as circumcision, not eating pork, and keeping the Sabbath.  In our own day it might be requiring someone to accept your denomination’s unique set of creeds (written or unwritten). It might be “statements of faith” that we require everyone in our congregation to adhere to, so as to make sure that every Christian conforms to our party’s standards. It might be the exaltation of particular believes and practices that set your group of Christians apart from other groups. It might be additional laws, rules, regulations, experiences, or particular political loyalties.

What’s wrong with creeds, statements of faith, or the exaltation of beliefs and practices we think of as extra important? If our “statements of faith” require anything less than “faithfulness to Christ” would require, they don’t require enough. If our “statements of faith” require more than “faithfulness to Christ” requires, they require too much. If our “statements of faith” require all the exact same things that “faithfulness to Christ” requires, they are redundant and unnecessary.

Do we stick to the gospel? Do we encourage faithful obedience to Christ? Do we uphold the requirements of scripture? Or do we require more? If we are faithful to Christ, even the “smallest issues” will matter, but only because Jesus is Lord, and not because we are trying to uphold the strength of our particular party of believers.

In addressing the legalism in the churches in Galatia, Paul wrote:

 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. – Galatians 3.26-27

Read that scripture slowly. Can you say “amen?” Even when you read that word “all”? Do you really believe what Paul said? Do you really believe we are all sons of God through faith? Do you really believe that all of us who have been baptized have been put into Christ? Or do you feel drawn to defend your particular party of Christians by drawing additional lines of fellowship?

If we really believe the words of Paul, what he says next should come naturally:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man; there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ you are Abraham’s descendants, and heirs according to the promise. – Galatians 3.28-29

Don’t misunderstand me. This isn’t an argument for ecumenical fellowship with anyone and everyone who claims to have “trust and reliance” in Jesus. We must understand what Paul had in mind when he spoke of “faith” (part 8). We must remember that for Paul, being baptized into Christ was essential (Gal. 3.27). But, if we love the Lord with all of our heart, soul, and mind, if we have given our faithful and obedient allegiance to Jesus as Lord in everything we do, and if we have been baptized into Christ, nothing should separate us from one another. If we belong to Christ, we are part of Abraham’s family. Period. We must never hesitate when we read the word “all.”

Do you emphasize loyalty to Christ? Or do you emphasize party loyalty? Do you emphasize the inspired words of Scripture? Or do you emphasize traditions and outward performance?

Do you identify the church by asking “who does everything exactly like I do?” Or do you identify the church be asking, “who has been baptized into Christ and is living with faithful loyalty to Christ?”

Do you judge others when they have different opinions than you do? Do you feel bitter contempt towards Christians when you see others upholding different opinions that you do? Why?  Yes, we must use judgment. Yes, we must be discerning, but it is not our job to be the judge! (Rom. 14.1-13)

Do you feel compelled to go beyond scripture in order to protect scripture? Yes, sometimes it can be wise and helpful to “draw lines” in order to keep us from sinning, especially in those areas where the “line” may not be as clear as we wish. For example, I make it a rule for myself not to go to bars. I don’t watch rated R movies. Drawing lines is good and wise. But are we simply drawing lines? Or are we making additional laws by which we judge others when they draw the line in a different place? Are we content to act as if Scripture is sufficient, and God doesn’t need us to make new laws? (cf.  James 4.11-12)

Do we think that simply obeying the “steps of salvation” is a sufficient substitute for giving our lives wholly to God? Do we think that simply going to the right church is a sufficient substitute for loving God with all of our heart? Do we think that simply “trusting and relying” on “core gospel truths” is a sufficient substitute for faithfulness to Christ?

Is the church too legalistic? God is the judge. This is not my call (or your call) to make. But we would be wise to examine ourselves.

Continue reading here:

Final Thoughts (Legalism, Part 14 of 14)

Back to the Questions (Legalism, Part 12 of 14)

If you missed the earlier parts of this series, you can go back and read them here:

In part 10 I summarized a long list of important and relevant questions raised by Kevin Pendergrass in his book “A Different Kind of Poison: How Legalism Destroys Grace”. Most of his questions revolve around issues of fellowship, how to distinguish “fellowship issues” from issues we can “agree to disagree” about, and how these questions impact our confidence in our salvation. If you haven’t already done so, I recommend reading that post first.

As we consider these questions, we must remember that if our understanding of faith is not shaped and informed by our loyal allegiance to Jesus as Lord, we’re not talking about biblical faith (for more, go back and read parts 5-8). We cannot separate faith from acts of faithfulness. We cannot separate faith and works. We cannot separate faith and love (part 11). We must recognize that while grace is certainly undeserved, it is not unconditional. Grace is conditioned upon our faithful allegiance to Jesus as Lord (part 9, cf. Gal. 3.27-28; Eph. 2.8).

Most of us have worshiped with the following lyrics many times:

Love so amazing so Divine,
Demands my soul, my life, my all.

This song gets it right.

With our minds fixed on Jesus’ Lordship, and the importance of living in faithful allegiance to Him, how then should we approach Kevin’s questions? How can we know if we are being obedient enough? How do we decide when to break fellowship with Christians for not being obedient enough? How do we decide when we should break fellowship, and when it would be okay to just agree to disagree? In summary, how much faithfulness is required to be justified, and thus numbered among the people of God?

In response to these questions, I wish to raise another question. Why do we feel like we must develop a set of hard and fast rules by which we can measure sufficient faithfulness and obedience? Such an approach is certain to lead to such endless questions and inconsistencies as Kevin’s book has wonderfully illustrated! And because of our potential for ignorant, unrecognized mistakes, such an approach is certain to lead to a lack of confidence! In fact, the “rule making” approach is precisely what Paul addressed in the books of Galatians and Romans. Jewish Christians (and even Peter himself!) were guilty of requiring the gentile Christians to live up to their own “checklist” of rules, and Paul was ready to call them out for it! (See posts 5-6).

How Separating Faith From Obedience Leads to the “Checklist” Approach

So where does this “checklist” mentality come from? I would suggest that it comes as a result of teaching that faith can be understood as simply “trust and reliance”.

When we think of “faith” as “trust and reliance” yet separate from “works”, we will ultimately end up in one of three categories of thought.

  1.  We are saved by “faith only” (i.e. trust and reliance only) apart from obedience. If faith is viewed as categorically separate from obedience, and since we are “justified by faith apart from works of the law” (understood to mean we are justified by faith apart from obedience), all that is necessary for salvation is trust and reliance in Jesus.
  2. We are saved by “faith plus obedience” as two separate, but equally important steps. Since it is easy to see from scripture that obedience is required, and we will be judged on the basis of things we do and don’t do (cf. Rom 2.5-8; 2 Cor. 5.10; Eph. 5.5; Gal. 5.19-21, 6.8, etc.), “faith only” is recognized as insufficient. Yet if obedience is equally important, this opens up the questions of “how much obedience is required for salvation?”, leading to a “checklist” approach to Christianity. (This is the position Kevin describes himself as having in his younger days).
  3. A hybrid of “faith only” and “faith plus obedience” where we attempt to maintain that obedience is necessary, but is not tied to our justification the way faith is. This position requires long and confusing explanations which attempt to hold “faith” and “obedience” together in a cause and effect relationship, so as to argue that obedience is not necessary for salvation or fellowship, but is still necessary (the position argued for in Kevin’s book).

Yet those who hold the third position, still must come face to face with the fellowship question, where they must align themselves with one of the first two positions. Either, we must fellowship everyone with “trust and reliance” without requiring any obedience, or we must require at least some obedience. If we require obedience, we must be able to articulate “how much” obedience. Ultimately, those in the third category must argue for  either “faith only” fellowship or a “checklist approach” to fellowship, depending on how essential they view obedience.

It is the separation of “faith” and “obedience” that leads to both “faith only” and the “checklist” mentality. Both mistakes result from the same basic misunderstanding of the gospel.

A Better Question to Ask

Rather than asking “how much faithfulness is required?” it would be better to ask “what kind of faithfulness is required?” Faithful obedience to Jesus as Lord requires firm allegiance to Him and actions which correspond with that loyalty. To develop a hard list to quantify and describe how much faithfulness is necessary for me or you is not only impossible, it shows that we fundamentally misunderstand the concept of faith all together.

Faithfulness must never be reduced to a list of do’s and don’ts. The desire to approach questions of Christian fellowship in this way is evidence of one of two problems:

  • A failure to know and to love God and others with all of our heart
  • A “what is the most I can get away with” attitude

Once we understand “Jesus’s Lordship” as the heartbeat of the gospel, and once we understand that loving faithful allegiance to Him as Lord is our response to the gospel, suddenly the need for a hard and fast list of fellowship issues disappears.

Faithfulness depends on doing whatever Lord Jesus commands us to do, and we will be judged based on whether or not we were faithfully loyal to Him. Instead of asking “how many things must I get right”, our attitude becomes “I want to do everything I can possibly do to please my Lord.” If we live with loyalty to Him, with a determination that extends beyond shallow lip service, then we can rest assured that His death on our behalf will be sufficient to cover our sins – all our sins – even our ignorant sins.

That’s what Paul meant when he said we are “justified by faith” (Gal. 2.16). That’s why John could write:

If we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. – 1 John 1.7

And lest you think that “faithfulness” or “walking in the light” means perfection, John makes it very clear that “walking in the light” does not mean sinlessness. In the very next verse he says:

If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. – 1 John 1.8

That also explains why Paul could write to Christians disagreeing on doctrinal issues and say things like:

One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God. – Romans 15.5-6

Paul did not believe that two contradictory opinions were equally valid, and he didn’t endorse the incorrect opinions of those whom he thought were wrong. But he recognized that since both Christians were living in faithful, obedient, loyalty to God, they were to be considered brothers.

Fellowship Issues

Does this mean that there’s no such thing as “fellowship issues”? Certainly not. Scripture gives us several broad and detailed lists of what sort of activities our loyalty to Him forbids. For examples, Galatians 5.19-21 reads:

Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

While we recognize God’s desire to show mercy to all (Rom. 11.32; 1 Tim. 2.4), we can only conclude from such a scripture that those who persist in these types of activities will ultimately be condemned. Even seemingly “small issues”, if we know better, and yet we persist in them, can call into question whether or not we are faithfully loyal to Jesus as Lord (Rom. 14.23).

Faithfulness is not the same thing as perfection. Faithfulness is not the same thing as simply “getting the important issues right”. But faithfulness certainly requires that we live our lives in faithful allegiance to Jesus as Lord.

By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments – 1 John 2.3

Do not love the world nor the things in the world… but the one who does the will of God lives forever. – 1 John 2.15, 17

“We know that we have passed out of death into live, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death.” – 1 John 3.14

Kevin’s book represents a step in the right direction. He has skillfully exposed the foolishness of approaching Christianity as a cold and fast list of things to get right. He is right recognizing that the answer is found in loving God. Yet, if he would go just a little bit further, and recognize how our obedience and love is actually wrapped up within our faithful response to Jesus as Lord, he would be able to cut down the “cold ritualism” of his past at the very root of the misunderstanding.

Continue reading here:

Is The Church Too Legalistic? (Legalism, Part 13 of 14)

The Centrality of Love (Legalism, Part 11 of 14)

If you don’t read any other post in this series, read this one. This one is the most important. In this series, I’ve been reviewing the book “A Different Kind of Poison: How Legalism Destroys Grace” by Kevin Pendergrass. If you’ve been reading along, you know that I have several disagreements with Kevin.

You can go back and read those earlier posts here:

I disagree with Kevin’s definition of legalism (parts 5 and 6). I disagree with Kevin’s emphasis on the gospel (part 7). I disagree with how Kevin separates faith and works into two separate categories (part 8). And beyond this one book I know I disagree with Kevin on several other points of doctrine as well; points of doctrine that I believe are important.

And yet, despite all our disagreements, I believe that Kevin’s book on legalism is ultimately a step in the right direction. This post explains why.

As Kevin describes his younger days, he describes himself as dogmatic, closed-minded, and inconsistent in his approach towards scripture. He was divisive, harsh, and argumentative in his approach towards people (p. 208).

Even though I didn’t want it to be, my Christianity up until this point had been very ritualistic. I thought what I was doing was true Christianity. I got used to going through the motions… I found myself having a checklist mentality. I noticed how ritualistic everything in my Christianity had become. (p. 203-204)

Keep in mind that Kevin does not make this statement as a blanket accusation against the church. In fact, throughout his book he comments on multiple occasions how his cold, ritualistic Christianity, and the divisive, harsh, argumentative attitude it produced, was frequently met with concern from others in the church (yet, without being able to provide him with satisfactory answers to the questions I mentioned in part 10).

But at the same time, I don’t believe Kevin is the only person who has ever struggled with this problem. For those out there who, like Kevin, approach their Christianity as simply a list of things to “get right”, this book represents a big step in the right direction.

As Kevin grew in his faith, he soon came to realize that he was missing something very important.

The major problem in legalism has always been with people knowing about God, but never knowing Him deeply and intimately… I never knew Jesus, but I just knew He was “the guy” for whom I worked in order to “gain” heaven. I now realize that Christianity is all about relationship with Christ…. Until you view Christianity through the framework of a relationship with Jesus, you will never experience Christian living the way Jesus intended. (p. 205-206)

Our approach to Christianity will drastically change when we realize it is about a relationship and not a ritualistic system. It will become transformative instead of merely informative… Relationship is about caring for one another. It is about trying to please the other. It is about sacrificing for the other. No, it is not because of fear or obligation, but because of love and desire. In relationship, we find God and delight in His will (Ps. 119;47; 1 Jn. 5.3; 1 Cor. 10.31). It is in ritual where we lose God and forget what Christianity is all about. (p. 214-215).

Kevin is exactly right. It all comes down to loving God and loving others. Kevin is again, quick to emphasize that this doesn’t reduce the need for obedience. If anything, it should increase our desire to please Him whom we love (p. 209). Loving God and loving others isn’t just kind of important. It is central to what Christianity is all about. This theme runs throughout the whole Bible.

It would be easy to denounce Kevin because we think he is wrong on several important things, and then proceed to attack him and dismiss anything and everything he may teach. But writing a book to encourage a deeper relationship with God is not wrong. This isn’t a soft or wimpy approach, diminishing the importance of the gospel; this is the gospel. If God loves us, if Jesus is Lord, and we are His disciples, our life must be characterized by genuine love both for God and for others.

You have heard that it was said, “‘You shall love your neighbor’ and hate your enemy.” But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father  who is in heaven. – Matthew 5.43-45 (see also Lk. 6.27-28; 31)

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” – Matthew 22.37-40 (See also Mk. 12.29-31; Lk. 10.25-28)

A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. – John 13.34-35

Do you want me to keep the list going? Just click a few of these hyperlinks and keep reading!

And for a slightly different, but related list, describing how that love should impact our behavior towards one another, read:

I’m going to step out on a limb and claim that our relationship with God and our relationship with others is supposed to be governed, not by a cold checklist mentality, but rather by genuine love.

This isn’t liberalism. This isn’t conservatism. This isn’t simply a “warm, fuzzy, soft” version of Christianity. This isn’t just a marketing plan to make the church sound more appealing to the world around us.

This is what it means to recognize that Jesus is the crucified and risen Lord, and that we have given our faithful allegiance to Him.

This isn’t at the expense of truth. This isn’t at the expense of obedience. If anything, it drives us to a deeper desire for truth and obedience. Yet we must recognize that without genuine love for God and love for one another, all our doctrinal precision, our obedience, our speaking, our giving, and our serving, is for nothing (1 Corinthians 13).

Cold ritualism will not be destroyed by simply giving microphones to the most talented singers in our worship service, serving better coffee, having more talented preachers, or investing in better graphics for our marketing material. Dogmatic attitudes will not be destroyed by avoiding doctrinal disagreements, avoiding the hard questions, or by keeping things shallow. Divisive attitudes will not be destroyed by simply focusing of doctrinal perfection. Sectarianism will not be destroyed by turning “love” into a sectarian weapon used to bash other congregations for not being loving enough.

“Legalism” (by any definition) will only be destroyed by being people who genuinely love God with all of our hearts, love others, even those whom we disagree with, and who make that love evident in our lives. The “checklist mentality” will only be destroyed when we give our lives in faithful allegiance to Jesus.

Just as faith and works cannot be separated, neither can love and faith be separated. Faithfulness demands love.

Continue reading here:

Back to the Questions (Legalism, Part 12 of 14)

Important Questions Raised (Legalism, Part 10 of 14)

Over the last several posts in this series (Parts 5-9) I’ve discussed the biggest disagreements I have with the book “A Different Kind of Poison: How Legalism Destroys Grace.” Starting with this post, we’re going to shift gears to some of the more positive aspects of Kevin’s book.

If you would like to go back and read the earlier parts in this series, you can find those links here:

Despite my disagreements with Kevin, I believe this book ultimately points in the right direction. When it comes to reading books we disagree with, I’ve often thought of the saying “chew up the meat and spit out the bones”. I’ve had some bones to pick with Kevin’s book. But now we’ve spit out the bones. And thankfully, we’re still left with lots of really good meat to chew on.

Throughout the first part of the book (Chapters 5-33) Kevin tells his personal story. Throughout this story, Kevin describes several experiences that raised questions in his mind. Chances are, you will find yourself relating to Kevin’s story. I believe the questions raised by Kevin are important questions; questions which many others have wrestled with. Unfortunately, when we ignore these questions, or assign them superficial or inconsistent answers, this can sometimes lead to Christians growing discouraged. Ignoring these questions can even lead to Christians losing their faith altogether.

I don’t plan on adding much comment in this post. I simply want to draw attention to the questions raised by Kevin. (I’ve taken the liberty to rephrase these questions into my own words so that this post will read more smoothly).

Important Questions Raised by Kevin Pendergrass in “A Different Kind of Poison”:

  • When I die, how can I know I will go to heaven? (p. 23)
  • When two Christians disagree on a matter, and since two contradictory positions cannot both be true, does this mean one of them is a “false teacher” teaching a “false doctrine”? Or can Christians disagree and still live in unity? (p. 43)
  • Should we simply fellowship anyone regardless of their disagreements? Do some issues matter more than others? (p. 44)
  • How do we decide what issues Christians must agree upon to have unity? What issues can Christians agree to disagree on while still having unity? (p. 101)
  • Are we being consistent in how we answer these questions? Or do we arbitrarily exalt some issues as more important than others simply because some issues have become more important for our particular sect? (p. 102-103)
  • Is our method of unity taught in Scripture? (p. 103)
  • What is the biblical gauge between a matter of opinion and a matter of doctrine/fellowship? (p. 103)
  • Can we make a develop a list of “fellowship issues” which is based upon scripture and logically consistent? (p. 103)
  • If every single Christians were to develop a list of what they understand to be fellowship issues, should every single Christian be expected to end up with the exact same list? (p. 104)
  • Can we fellowship a Christian who’s list of fellowship issues is different from ours? What if it only differs on one little point? (p. 104)
  • If someone’s list of doctrinal/fellowship issues is drastically different from ours, and we break fellowship with them, would we be consistent to maintain fellowship with someone who’s list only differs from ours on one little point? (p. 104)
  • If we maintain fellowship with someone who’s list is only different from ours on one little point, are we being consistent when we break fellowship with someone because their list is greatly different from ours? (p. 104)
  • Do we think of ourselves as infallible in our study? (p. 126-127)
  • If we are fallible, might we be ignorantly wrong on an issue? (If we were ignorantly wrong, we wouldn’t know it! That’s the definition of being “ignorantly wrong”) (p. 127)
  • If it is possible that we could be ignorantly wrong about what issues are doctrinal/fellowship issues, and if we could be ignorantly wrong on one of those issues, how can we know we are saved? Where is our hope? (p. 127)
  • How can we maintain a humility which admits that we could be wrong while at the same time remaining confident in our salvation? How can we be confident in our salvation while maintaining a humility that says we might be wrong? (p. 125)
  • What if you or I are a false teacher and we don’t even know it? What if we have come to a wrong conclusion on a matter about which we remain unaware? (p. 125)
  • What if a matter I thought was a small matter is actually a big matter? What if I am breaking fellowship over what I think is a big matter, when God views it as a small matter? (p. 125)
  • Why did God kill Nadab and Abihu, yet spare their brothers? Why did God destroy Uzzah for touching the ark, but allowed David the opportunity to repent? Why did God kill Ananias and Sapphira for their sin, but allowed Peter to live through his? (p. 187)
  • How does God judge our obedience and disobedience? (p. 188)

What if this? What if that? What about this? What about that?

And what’s more, we cannot simply dismiss these questions as being silly or unimportant. Our eternal salvation might be at stake!

Ultimately, the heart of all these questions can be summed up Kevin’s question on page 127:

Did God leave us with this kind of hopeless “hope”? Had God given me a belief system that was that shaky? Let me remind you, I knew that the Bible says I can know I am saved and be confident, but that didn’t make any sense with my understanding of Christianity as the time. I was left wondering if I was going to always have this constant fear of my salvation. (p. 127)

With these questions in mind, I wish to raise a new question. If we understand “faith” as “faithfulness and loyalty to Jesus as Lord”, how does that impact the way we answer these questions? That will be the topic of discussion for an upcoming post in this series.

But for now, I simply want to applaud Kevin for giving such clear articulation to questions that have troubled many Christians for many years.

Continue to the next part here:

The Centrality of Love (Legalism, Part 11 of 14)


Does Faithfulness Destroy Grace? (Legalism, Part 9 of 14)

This post is part of a 14 part book-review series in which I discuss “legalism” as it is presented in Kevin Pendergrass’s book: “A Different Kind of Poison: How Legalism Destroys Grace”.

Here’s the earlier parts of the series:

The subtitle of Kevin’s book is “How Legalism Destroys Grace”. As I mentioned in the first part of this series, I’ve grown weary of “legalism” being thrown out there as an accusation against churches which emphasize obedience, strive to worship biblically, or seek to preach the whole counsel of God. But as I mentioned in part 3, I was happy to see that Kevin does not make this accusation.

My most significant criticism of Kevin’s book is that “legalism” as it is defined by Kevin is not the same kind of legalism that is addressed by Paul. Kevin defines legalism as “the doctrine that salvation is gained through good works” (p. 7). The legalism we read about in Galatians and Romans had to do with the things Jewish Christians were using to distinguish themselves from Gentile Christians, such as keeping the Sabbath, circumcision, and not eating pork. The “legalism” addressed by Paul was the doctrine that Gentiles must become Jews and adopt the Law of Moses in order to be justified.

“Legalism” should thus be understood as the mistake Christians make when they exalt sectarian practices, beliefs, or creeds, which compromise the sufficiency of God’s grace given through Christ.

With this in mind, we can recognize that legalism does in fact destroy grace. Legalism is the charge made against other Christians that, even though they have obeyed the gospel, and even though they give faithful, obedient, allegiance to Jesus as Lord, that God’s grace is insufficient to cover their sins. Legalism destroys grace.

In part 8 I argued that “faith” should not understood as “trust and reliance” separate from works. Faith is better understood as our response to Jesus as Lord by giving our full allegiance to Him. Faith cannot be separated from faithfulness. Faith and works are not two separate categories, but rather they overlap and nest within each other. This explains why scripture frequently speaks about how we will be judged based upon actions we take or don’t take (2 Cor. 5.10; Gal. 5.19-21; 6.8; Eph. 5.5; Rev. 20.12-15).

But what about grace? If we understand faith to involve concrete actions of loyalty to Jesus as Lord, does this destroy grace? Does requiring that we “do something” for salvation destroy grace?

The Bible is clear: God is the actor in our salvation. We cannot and we do not save ourselves.

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. – Ephesians 2.8

For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. – Romans 5.6

But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior – Titus 3.4-7

The question is not whether or not we are saved by grace. The question is whether God’s grace is conditional or unconditional. Or to ask the question another way, is there anything that we must do in order to receive God’s grace?

If I understand Kevin correctly, it seems to me that He and I are in agreement on this point.

While God’s grace is freely available to anyone, not everyone is going to be saved because we must accept God’s free gift of grace. We must access God’s grace. Just like any gift, it must be accepted.

The crucial question at this point then becomes, “How do we access God’s grace?” (p. 164).

I have no disagreement with Kevin that we must do something to access God’s grace. He and I both understand that doing something to receive God’s free gift does not in and of itself destroy the concept of grace. We both seem to be in agreement that while God’s grace is certainly undeserved, it is not unconditional.

Kevin then goes on to cite several verses that teach that God’s grace is accessed through faith (Rom. 3.28; 4.5; 5.1; 9.31-32; 11.6; Gal. 2.16; Phil. 3.9). Again, he and I are alike in our understanding of this point. We both understand that choosing to have faith does not destroy grace.

The difference between us is found in our understanding of what the choice to have faith involves. Kevin argues that we access God’s grace through trust and reliance apart from works. My understanding is that Biblical faith contains acts of loyalty (see part 8).

When we reduce faith to “trust and reliance”, not only does it complicate our understanding of James 2.14-16, but it runs in the face of Jesus’ demand for discipleship.

Then Jesus said to His disciples, ‘If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. – Matthew 16.24-26

When Jesus commands us to take up our cross and follow Him, this does not imply that we “earn” our own salvation or save ourselves by our own moral efforts. Jesus’ demand for discipleship destroys the misunderstanding that says that grace isn’t really grace if it requires that we have to do something in order to obtain it.

Legalism destroys grace, but faithful obedience is not legalism. Faithfulness does not destroy grace; faithfulness destroys misunderstood grace.

Continue reading here:
Important Questions Raised (Legalism, Part 10 of 14)

A Different Kind of Response To the Gospel (Legalism, Part 8 of 14)

This post is part of a 14 part series in which I discuss legalism in discussion with Kevin Pendergrass’s book: “A Different Kind of Poison: How Legalism Destroys Grace”.

Here’s the earlier parts of the series:

We can’t understand the response to the gospel unless we understand what the gospel is. If the gospel is simply the message that Jesus died for our sins so that we could go to heaven, and you are someone who is wrapped up in achieving moral and doctrinal perfection, the response to the gospel is to have faith that Jesus will save us despite our failures. That is, we respond to the gospel with faith as opposed to our own moral sufficiency or self-reliance.

According to this understanding “faith means to have trust and reliance” (p. 166), but “biblical  faith is not physical works” (p. 165).  According to this understanding of the gospel, faith must be understood as something which is held “apart from our works”.

Without denying that salvation is by grace, without denying that salvation from sin is very important and closely tied to the message of the gospel (Rom. 1.16-17), and without denying that “trust and reliance” is a big part of faith, the problem comes when we think of our response to the gospel as faith as opposed to works.

In order to understand what “faith” means, we must go back to the Bible. When our understanding of the gospel is tied to the recognition of Jesus’ Lordship, faith is then understood to mean faithfulness, loyalty, and allegiance. This doesn’t erase the importance of “trust and reliance”, but it swallows it up into a much larger sense.

This is why the word for “faith” can be translated as “faithfulness” (Mt. 23.23; Gal. 5.22). Notice especially the way the word is used in Romans 3.3-4

What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it? May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written, ‘That You may be justified in Your words, And prevail when You are judged.

Here, in speaking of the “faithfulness” of God, Paul is clearly not referring to God’s own trust and reliance toward us. Rather He is saying that God Himself has been faithful and loyal to what He has promised.

What’s more, Paul frequently uses the phrase “the obedience of faith” (Rom 1.3, 5; 16.25-26). If we understand Jesus’ enthronement of Lord as the climax of the gospel, our response to the gospel is to give our loyalty and allegiance to Him.

If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes to righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses to salvation. – Romans 10.9-10

Faith then should be understood as loyalty to Jesus as Lord; a confession which brings about righteousness and salvation. Faith is believing in the resurrection, and trusting and relying in King Jesus enough to bring about the obedience of faith.

When we understand that faithful obedience is wrapped up into faith, this helps explain why Paul himself can say that our deeds will be the basis of our judgment.

But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, ‘Who will render to each person according to his deeds’; to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; but to those who are selfishly ambitious  and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. – Romans 2.5-8

Concrete actions are the basis of judgment; doing or not doing certain things. Other scriptures could be cited to this same end (2 Cor. 5.10; Eph. 5.5; Gal. 5.19-21; 6.8; cf. Rev. 20.12-15). When Paul says in one breath that we are judged according to our deeds, and in another breath he says that we are justified through faith (Rom. 3.28; 4.5; 5.1; Gal. 2.16; Phil. 3.9), he isn’t speaking out of both sides of his mouth, because Paul understood that  faith in Jesus as Lord is the commitment to give Him faithful allegiance as Lord.

Kevin certainly recognizes the necessity of obedience.  But what happens when we deemphasize Jesus’s lordship and say things like “we are saved by faith apart from apart from works” (p. 165) and “our works are not the same thing as our faith and our faith is not the same thing as our works” (p. 166)? Why does Kevin have to say things like “Faith and works do have a close relationship… however, faith and works are separate”? Why does he have to say explain “we are justified by grace through Jesus Christ… apart from any works”?

Kevin goes to great lengths to emphasize that faith and works must be held in a cause and effect relationship. “A true faith will always produce works”. “Behavior is the result of belief.” “A true faith must precede any biblical actions such as repentance, confession, baptism, giving, worshiping, helping others, etc.” (p. 168).

Yet Paul can say things like “for we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad” (2 Cor. 5.10) without pausing to add any words to explain that these deeds must be viewed as the result of faith.

Why does Kevin feel it is so important to hold faith and works at arm’s length from each other? Why the fumbling around? Why must we go to such great lengths to show that we can hold onto the necessity of obedience, while still separating obedience from salvation? Why avoid the obvious? Why not just accept that the idea of faith envelops and embraces the necessity of loyal obedience to the Lord?

The answer to these questions is found back to what I wrote about in parts 5, 6, and 7. Kevin has fundamentally misunderstood what Paul was talking about when he says “a man is not justified by works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 2.19).

This is my biggest concern with Kevin’s book on legalism.

At this point, some may start to feel uneasy. For some, to suggest that “works” is nested within the concept of “faith” sounds like a tricky, back door to legalism. This is especially true if we’ve spent a good portion of our life thinking that “faith” and “works” must be held at arm’s length. This uneasy feeling is likely to be amplified for those who have been hurt by the arrogance and rudeness of Christians who have used “rightness” and “doctrinal truth” as an excuse to be rude and unloving towards those who might disagree with them.

I want to be clear: there is no excuse for Christians to be rude, arrogant, or hateful in the name of “obedience”. I plan on developing this important point later in this series.

But first, I want to go back to the concept of grace. If faith involves works, what does that mean for grace? Is emphasizing the necessity of works simply a backdoor to legalism? Does faithfulness destroy grace? This will be the focus of the next post in the series.

Does Faithfulness Destroy Grace? (Legalism, Part 9 of 14)

A Different Kind of Emphasis on the Gospel (Legalism, Part 7 of 14)

This post is part of a 14 part series in which I discuss legalism in discussion with Kevin Pendergrass’s book: “A Different Kind of Poison: How Legalism Destroys Grace”

Here’s the earlier parts of the series:

In the previous two posts I’ve attempted to show how “legalism” as Kevin Pendergrass defines it is different from the “legalism” that Paul addressed in Galatians and Romans.

According to Kevin, legalism is “the doctrine that salvation is gained through good works” (p. 7). In other words, “trying to be saved through our own works”.

Although such an approach would certainly be a “faulty way to view Christianity”, the legalism discussed by Paul is something different. Rather than addressing the works-based righteousness of Kevin’s version of legalism, Paul addresses the way Jewish Christians were adding additional practices and beliefs to the gospel, and consequently were undermining the sufficiency of Christ as Savior.

This basic, but critical misunderstanding distorts several other discussions in Kevin’s book. One example of this can be seen in Kevin’s understanding of the gospel.

According to Kevin, our basic problem is summed up on page 141:

I finally realized the great sin dilemma with which I was faced. The Bible teaches that we have all sinned and we all fall short of the glory of God (Rom 3.23). As discussed in chapter 30, sin is missing the mark (1 Jn. 3.14). It is violating God’s standard of living found in His word, the Bible (Rom. 4.15; 10.17).

Here’s the problem with sin: The wages of sin is death (Rom. 6.23). When we sin, not only do we incur a death penalty, but that sin separates us from God (Isa. 59.1-2). God says that my righteousness is nothing but filthy rags (Isa. 64.6).

That means even on my best day, I don’t even begin to come close to meeting God’s standard. I can attempt to deny my own sinfulness but he Bible says if we say we have no sin, then we are only deceiving ourselves (1 Jn. 1.8). We cannot find righteousness through our own works (Rom. 3.10).

With “sin” as the problem, what, according to Kevin, is the “good news”, the “gospel”?

Paul says that the good news is that Jesus came to this earth, He died for our sins, He was buried, and He was resurrected (1 Cor. 15.1-4). This is truly the gospel. This is the good news!

While our wages of sin is death, Jesus paid that penalty for us and has offered us the gift of eternal life (Rom. 6.23). Jesus became our substitute and there is not substitute for the substitute. The cross is where God’s holiness and God’s love found true harmony. (p. 148).

First of all, it should be noted that Kevin is right in everything he says here. So without denying this very important aspect of the gospel, it should be noted that Kevin leaves out something very important; the enthronement of Jesus as Lord.

First, notice what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15.1-4

Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.

When Paul says that Jesus died for our sins “according to the Scriptures” he isn’t proof texting. He doesn’t have in mind one or two or a dozen random isolated passages about death for unforgiven sinners. He’s identifying the entire Old Testament story of Israel as having reached its climax in the resurrection of Jesus. Our understanding of the gospel must be firmly rooted in and understood in terms of the Scriptures.

According to the Scriptures, the “good news” is not a simply generalized message that God will forgive sinners; it is specifically tied to the problem faced by the nation of Israel in exile as a result of their sins. The “good news” would be the announcement that “God reigns” and as a result, sins would be forgiven and exile would come to an end (Is. 40.9; 52.7; 60.6; 61.1). When God reigns, Babylon’s reign over God’s people comes to an end.

This is why, when you keep reading 1 Corinthians 15, the resurrection not only means we can be forgiven of our sins (1 Cor. 1.16-17), but it also means that Jesus now reigns (1 Cor. 15.24-28). In Paul’s mind, “forgiveness of sins” was always tied closely together with Jesus’s Messiahship, His reign, His authority, and His lordship.

Yes, Jesus’ death and resurrection most certainly brings forgiveness for sins, and this is important. But we must not overlook that Jesus’s resurrection is moment when Jesus is declared to be the Messiah of Israel and the Lord of the whole world.

Notice how Paul identifies the gospel in Romans 1.1-4:

Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, who was declared to be the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord.

First and foremost, Paul says that the gospel is “concerning His son”, who is the promised descendant of David, who because of the resurrection from the dead has been “declared to be the Son of God with power.” In other words, the gospel, at it’s very core, is the message that “Jesus Christ is Lord.” This is, like Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15, how the death and resurrection of Jesus is to be understood “according to the scriptures”.

If Romans 1.1-4 gives a summary of the content of the gospel (i.e. what the gospel is “concerning”), Romans 1.16-17 gives a summary of the effect of the gospel.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “But the righteous man shall live by faith.”

Kevin is exactly right to think of the gospel in terms of our forgiveness from sin, but first and foremost the gospel is about the enthronement of Jesus as Lord. The power for salvation from sin flows out of the crucial point that Jesus has been declared to be the Son of God with power. Jesus Christ is Lord and King. Any understanding of the gospel that fails to be built upon the Lordship of Christ is incomplete.

This may seem like splitting hairs, but it’s not, as the next couple of posts should make clear. Our response to the gospel depends in large part to what we understand the message of the gospel to be. Paul emphasizes Jesus’ Lordship as the very heart of the gospel. While I have no doubt that Kevin believes this to be true, his description of the gospel omits, and thus deemphasizes the enthronement of Jesus. I believe this different emphasis on the gospel explains the next problem in the book; Kevin’s different understanding of faith.

Continue reading here:

A Different Kind of Response To the Gospel (Legalism, Part 8 of 14)