I have recently read Mark Driscoll’s book The Radical Reformission and found it helpful. I think I can summarise his argument in three points, to which I will dedicate three posts.
My first point is that legalism destroys mission.
Driscoll is very clear that some things are wrong. He is very clear that it is wrong to sin under the guise of being culturally relevant. Likewise it is wrong to approve of sin. He speaks forcefully about the dangers of keeping our eyes on the culture and not on the gospel. But there are many actions that the Bible does not condemn as sin (e.g. getting a tattoo, dyeing one’s hair and playing the piano). Deciding whether to do any of those things is a matter for wisdom.
In Judaism, a gezeirah is a law to prevent people from accidentally violating another law. For example, it is forbidden to work on the Sabbath. So there is a gezeirah that prohibits people from even picking up an implement with which one might work on the Sabbath. It is referred to as making a ‘fence around the Torah’: keeping people farther away from breaking the law. Similarly, in Christianity we are apt to create laws for ourselves which prevent us from getting to a place where we might sin. Perhaps the most well known example is in drinking laws. Getting drunk is a sin, according to the Bible, while drinking is not (and is even portrayed as a good thing). But many Christians say that no one should drink at all because of the possible dangers. Justin Taylor is exceedingly helpful in pointing me to the Southern Baptist Convention’s recent resolution expressing their “total opposition to the … consuming of alcoholic beverages.” That is a Christian equivalent of a gezeirah. If you will, it is making a fence around the Bible.
There is great scope for creating these fences around the Bible. There are many things that can be abused. But it would be the utmost foolishness to create these fences for ourselves around God’s gifts simply because they can be abused. For example, as Martin Luther wrote:
We must not…reject [or] condemn anything because it is abused. This would result in utter confusion… [T]here are many people who worship the sun and the stars. Therefore we propose to rush in and pull the sun and stars from the skies. No, we had better let it be. Again, wine and women bring many a man to misery and make a fool of him; so we kill all the women and pour out all the wine. Again, gold and silver cause much evil, so we condemn them.
— Martin Luther, fourth Invocavit sermon from 1522, found in Works [American edition] 51:85
Justin Taylor also mentions a talk by John Piper in which Piper argued against a requirement that members of his church be teetotal. Piper writes:
If any of you still wonders why I go on supporting this amendment, after hearing all the tragic stories about lives ruined through alcohol, the reason is that when I go home at night and close my eyes and let eternity rise in my mind I see ten million more people in hell because of legalism than because of alcoholism. And I think that is a literal understatement.
I do not think Piper is wrong here. The real problem is not with wine, women, stars or any other of God’s good creations. The real problem is us. Luther subsequently referred to the prophet Jeremiah, who wrote
The heart is deceitful above all things,
and desperately sick;
who can understand it?— Jeremiah 17:9 (ESV)
If we take refuge in our fences around God’s creation and our man-made rules, even with the best intentions, then we gradually lose sight of this truth about our own hearts. The more we obey legalistic rules the better we look in everyone’s eyes, including our own. Piper wrote: “Legalism is a more dangerous disease than alcoholism because it doesn’t look like one.”
But I think Driscoll would point us to another invidious consequence of legalism: legalism destroys mission. As Christians in the world, we cannot compromise on what God says is sin. But we can and should be willing to change everything else. We should be willing to speak to someone who isn’t clean; we should be willing to put our hair in dreadlocks; we should be willing to drink beer; we should be willing to be tattooed; we should be willing to speak in imperfect grammar: because all of those things are nothing compared to the importance of preaching the gospel to all men. Paul was proud to boast:
Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.
— 1 Corinthians 9:19-22 (NIV)
The more extensively we build our fences the more difficult it is to be as Paul was. When we have fenced off alcohol and sex so that we cannot enjoy them even in their proper context we have lost something of the grace of the gospel that allowed Paul to hold fast to God’s word and God’s law while rejecting man’s word and man’s law.
The curious conclusion is that the more humble we are, the more realistic about the plight of our own hearts, the less prone we are to legalism. And the less prone we are to legalism, the more effective we can be in letting people know the joyful news which which we have been entrusted.
July 10th, 2006 at 7.05 pm
On Legalism…
Have you ever questioned Paul?
Paul says we are not under the law, but the Bible says God\’s
commandments are forever and ever (Psalm 111)
I seriously believe Paul was a false apostle as:
1. He wasn’t ordained an apostle by Christ (Mat 10)
2. He didn’t qualify to be an apostle (Acts 1:16-26)
3. Paul’s doctrine is proven false:
…
I have much, much more on my website going into faith works and law too. If you want to see more, just go to my site: http://www.returntorighteousness.blogspot.com
[Ed.: The deleted portion of the comment is reproduced in full at http://www.returntorighteousness.blogspot.com/
July 10th, 2006 at 8.23 pm
Well, I wrote a nice comment, but when I failed to include my email address it notified me, but erased the entire comment when I hit back.
The basic jist was that I agree with your quote that, “we can and should be willing to change everything else. We should be willing to speak to someone who isn’t clean; we should be willing to put our hair in dreadlocks; we should be willing to drink beer; we should be willing to be tattooed; we should be willing to speak in imperfect grammar: because all of those things are nothing compared to the importance of preaching the gospel to all men.”
But couldn’t someone who was more fundamental, yet had a passion to reach their culture, and never budged from what they viewed as Biblical principles of propriety and modesty in drinking, speech, and appearance still be missionally effective? Do we have to be as culturally liberal as Driscoll to be effective? What are your thoughts?
Nice blog, and great insight, check out mine if you like. I’ve written on similiar topics, also having recently read Driscoll’s book.
Blessings,
Rick
July 10th, 2006 at 9.07 pm
Rick, thanks for your comment, and thank you for pointing me to your blog as well.
I think you raise a very important point. It is the gospel, after all, that is most important, and God is amply able to use it despite the deficiencies of all of us who speak about it to others!
Furthermore, we certainly shouldn\’t act inconsistently with what we believe to be Biblical principles. Directly analogous is the case of meat sacrificed to idols in 1 Corinthians 8. As Paul says, \”We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world\”. There is no debate on the matter, no controversy. It isn\’t a case of grey areas. Paul goes on: \”But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled.\”
But I\’m curious about what being culturally liberal means. It might mean that one naturally listens to heavy metal and has tattoos and blue hair. Or it might mean that one doesn\’t see those things as sins. The important thing is to make sure that our perception of sin is the Bible\’s teaching on sin.
Sometimes I wish there were a commandment from God that we dress tastefully, use proper grammar and appreciate good music. In my opinion there are definitely some forms of music, some sentences and some styles that are better than others, and it would make it so much easier for me if I didn\’t have to compromise my aesthetics. But I certainly should be willing to abandon better clothing, better grammar and better music for inferior if by so doing I can promote the gospel.
Thankfully there are many different cultures living side by side today. Beside the heavy metal culture there is an opera culture; beside modern art there is traditional; beside beer there is wine. So in the end, by God\’s grace, it may not be only the \’culturally liberal\’ who are missionally effective.
Do let me know your thoughts.
Regards,
Daniel
July 10th, 2006 at 10.51 pm
Thank you for these helpful observations. This is something I’ve been pondering lately. It’s so easy to equate “the holy” and “the comfortable,” to build fences around the Bible so as not to have to think.
I was intrigued by your statement that the more realistic we are about the plight of our own hearts, the less inclined we will be toward legalism. Couldn’t a deep understanding of one’s own sinfulness also lead to the very sort of fence-building you describe? If a Christian really believed that he was capable of any type of sin, mightn’t he tend to create more rules to keep himself from being tempted? What keeps humility from gradually drifting toward legalism and pride?
July 11th, 2006 at 3.59 am
Daniel,
I brought the original question up because I tend to find myself on the end that would seek to be more culturally liberal with the hopes that I may be able to engage my immediate culture with the gospel more effectively if I could, as Tim Keller desbribes, be radically like them, but radically unlike them. But, I could also identify with and respect those whom I know who would tend to be more radically unlike the culture, but at the same time have a desire to communicate the Gospel.
The point I believe that Driscoll tends to make is that in an urban metropolis like Seattle which is comprised of sooo many non-Christians, those who tend to be unlike the culture would not have had as radical of an impact on the city for the sake of the Gospel. So, although we both agree that one may not be culturally liberal and be a faithful witness, the majority of the unchurched population that rejects Christianity would also tend to reject the fundamentalist dressed in a suit and tie that comes to their door on a weekend soul winning visit. Therefore, they should at least have the humility to attempt to be “all things to all people…”
But, I feel this is asking too much from some. They will hold too dearly to what they feel to be Biblical truth, but in reality are personal convictions. They feel that to compromise would be leading the church down a slippery slope to liberalism. But the cultural mileu of the 1920′s is not today…if the millions of unchurched people are to hear the gospel, something radical must be done, and I feel that Driscoll is on the right path, although I think he could do it without cussing from the pulpit!
Rick