A church without the Law?

To some, this is just what they've been looking for all their lives - a church where they can belong without worrying about upholding the Ten Commandments. Think about it - to this author, apparently, things like the Ten Commandments are 'religious', but not necessarily Christian. He claims to have spent a decade of his life miserable, because had been trying to keep those commandments. Now he says that the 'Naked Gospel', a Gospel without the commandments, is a radical way of rethinking the church. Here's my favorite quotation from the article:

"The fruit of the spirit replaces the work of the law in the Christian. And the presence of Christ indwelling us is the reason that we can be free from the entire law," he explains. "We don't even need the moral law if we have Jesus Christ, who is moral."

Isn't that radical? Isn't that revolutionary? Isn't that more biblical than the way it's been done before? Actually, no, on all three accounts!

It's not radical because this HAS been done before - for about as long as the church has been in existence. Marcionism is an early Christian heresy known for avoiding certain Apostolic Scriptures (such as all the Gospels except John, Paul's letters, and the Old Testament) because they offended the prevailing moral sensibilities. It was a Gospel apart from the Law, which sounds eerily similar to what the 'Naked Gospel' appears to promote. There have been many other instances, including the controversy over Gospel Reductionism/the Third Function of the Law in our own circles. This is nothing new.

It's also not revolutionary; it's actually more along the lines of subterfuge. In a clever ruse, the author is not actually doing away with moral guidelines and commands, even though that's what he'd like you to think - he's simply replacing them with the Gospel. The fruit of the spirit, which are, to my understanding, gifts from God according to this new life of faith which has been received from him, are used by this author as a new kind of moral standard. Can you see why anyone would rather have to live by, 'love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control,' instead of, 'you shall have no other gods, remember the sabbath by keeping it holy, honor your father and your mother, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not give false testimony against your neighbor, etc.'? To the current way of thinking, those first gifts/traits/qualities are what we ought to strive for, and those last qualities are oppressive and a big turn off. The problem with that kind of thinking, is that the author has set up a distinction where there is none. He has divided the Word of God into two different revelations - one for then, and another for now. What happens in another two thousand years - does the whole book become irrelevant? The fruit of the spirit and the Ten Commandments are not set up against one another in Scripture - they are complimentary, not mutually exclusive. Further than that, though, he's making the claim that one is the Law, and the other is not the Law. His ruse almost works - you hear the various fruit of the spirit and think it's great, because these are ideological terms that are begging to be defined on an individual basis (another topic maybe for another post), but what it really boils down to, is that you still have a moral standard to which you must live; it may be different in content (more vague), but it's still a moral standard.

Is it more biblical than the way it was done before? Is it even biblical period? No and no - while the Ten Commandments and the fruit of the spirit are definitely biblical, this (so called) new understanding of them is not Biblical. Does that mean that I'm preaching yet another Law to you? Does that mean that I hate the Gospel and that I have no use for it? Does that mean that I hold to salvation by the works of the Law? Absolutely not! I'm positing that this author does not understand the Law and the Gospel, nor how to distinguish one from the other. The Law serves three functions.

1. It sets a standard and carries the threat of punishment to all who would act against it in thoughts, words, or deeds.
2. At the same time, when we consider ourselves in light of this standard, we see that we are fallen and that we need a Savior. That we have received a Savior in Jesus Christ and that he is ours through the free gift of faith is purely Gospel!
3. While it shows us our sin, it also instructs us in the way we should go. The redeemed of the Lord love the Lord and desire to do his will. They want to live the Christian life, but our fallen natures do not know what the Christian life even looks like. The Law tells us this that we may go and do likewise. Will we fail? Of course - and that second function is always present to drive us to repentance and faith in the only one who covers up for our failings in keeping the Law.

I believe this author has been sadly mislead in his understanding of what the church is and what it means to be a Christian. In his desire to be a Christian and have everlasting life, he has somewhere along the way become convinced by the false notion that the substance of Christianity is essentially ethical and moral. This is why he solves the problem of his failure to keep the old Law, the Ten Commandments, by replacing it with a new Law, the fruit of the spirit, which he calls the Gospel.

Friends, we do not hold to the Christian moral code for our hope of salvation. We do not cling to the Christian ethic for eternal life. We subscribe to the Christian FAITH. That's right, the substance of Christianity is Christ, and he connects with us through faith given in his Word and Holy Sacraments. What is tragic about the 'Naked Gospel' is that it's no Gospel at all - it does not actually handle the human problem, which is sin. It tries to excuse it through redefinition. Sin is covered only through the forgiveness Christ won by shedding his blood on the cross. That doesn't free us from the requirements of the Ten Commandments, and it also doesn't free us from failing to live up to them in this fallen world. What forgiveness does, however, is free us from the eternal punishment for our failings. Our price is paid because Christ, the Son of God, has been sacrificed to make our lives eternal.

So do not be swept up in 'new' ideas about a Gospel apart from the Law. They may actually be very old ideas, very bad ideas, and very unbiblical ideas. Law and Gospel both have their functions within Scripture and the church, and the Gospel does not contradict the Law. It doesn't even complement the Law. The most correct way to talk about it is that the Gospel consummates the Law - they go together. When you see your inability to keep the Law, ignore the human tendency to look for a new Law to replace it. Ignore the human tendency to try to find a new Law that you can actually uphold. Instead of trying to beat the Law at its own game, which is impossible, look to Christ. He has overcome the Law on our behalf. We must still follow it and live by it, but through Christ we are forgiven and from an eternal perspective, through Christ it is upheld for us!