Definition of a Judaizer:
One who teaches “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” (see Acts 15)

The entire epistle of Galatians focuses on Paul’s defense of his ministry in the face of accusations from Judaizers who had infiltrated the early church and was deceiving people into thinking that obedience to the Law was necessary for salvation. We often think that the Judaizers were just a problem in the first-century, but in reality we have a very close form of it among us today. Thanks to the spread of higher-life theology, which teaches that Christians are saved in a “carnal Christian” state and then must break through to a “deeper” or “higher” life to truly be among the Christian elite (a view I believe to be false doctrine at best and quite possibly heretical) — many choose forms of strict law-keeping as a means to that deeper, better Christian life.

Most Judaizer teachers today don’t come right out and directly say that one must follow the Law of Moses for salvation. On the strictest technical definition, then, a true Judaizer may be a rare thing in the church. But I still choose to use this definition because of the prevalence of the higher-life law-keeping in some churches and denominations today. And for many, circumcision does end up coming back as something to do out of obedience. Most don’t say that circumcision is necessary for salvation, but they do say that it is necessary for true obedience; for breaking through to that higher life. Consider Bill Gothard, whose Institute in Basic Life Principles is well-respected in many fundamentalist circles. His organization centers around deducing “basic principles” from various verses or passages in Scripture, many taken out of context, and turning them into rules to live by if someone wants to truly be in the “in crowd” with God.

Paul clearly says that “if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you.” (Galatians 5:2) and the New Testament is clear that physical external circumcision was merely a sign which has passed away in significance due to “circumcision” instead being a matter of the heart. Those of us in the Reformed tradition believe that the sign of baptism now corresponds to the sign of circumcision in the Old Testament. However, Gothard takes a near-opposite position by instead having released booklets and brochures emphasizing the need for circumcision today! He even goes beyond just suggesting medical benefits, which are disputable, but to go so far as to instruct parents in the “benefits of circumcision on the 8th day”, and to hold a circumcision ceremony! Furthermore, he says that “because this is one subject which is so strongly commanded and reinforced in Scripture, there is no question what the decision of Christian parents should be on this matter.”

If this were not enough proof of the matter that Bill Gothard and the Institute in Basic Life Principles treads dangerously close to the camp of the Judaizers, it should also be added that this is not the only element of the Mosaic Law which has been reworked by Gothard and his camp to become “non-optional principles” which Christians must follow. Close adherents of Gothard’s program also tend to abstain from eating “unclean” meats such as pork and hold to other similar dietary restrictions. Gothard has also published “sexual rules” for married couples — based on Leviticus — in his “Advanced Seminar Textbook”. Couples who adhere to these regulations believe that in doing so they will be bringing a blessing upon them and their offspring. Gothard refers these points from the law (which go even beyond the Law with additional rules) as “God’s hidden design” and now that Gothard himself has revealed these things, making them no longer hidden, it is the responsibility of Christians to heed and obey.

Another issue at hand is that Gothard, etc. do not simply say that the whole law must be obeyed — the moral, ceremonial, and civic laws — but rather pick and choose certain laws to impose (and even go beyond). But also in Galatians, addressing this same sort of situation, Paul wrote that “I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.” (Galatians 5:3) Gothard, etc. are not advocating keeping the whole law, but rather have adopted a Pharasaical position, choosing specific laws to keep as well as adding some more (and attaching blessings to them). Scripture does not contain blessings for obeying some of the law; the blessing is for wholeheartedly keeping the Law. We cannot do this, nor are we called to do this, for Christ has done so on our behalf. (See Rom. 10:4) From a Scriptural standpoint, if someone wants to accept circumcision (or parents choose circumcision for their sons for spiritual reasons) they are in effect rejecting the completed work of Christ. Remember again Galatians 5:2-4 — “Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.”

This is not simply a matter of denominational preference or interpretation of Scripture. This is the Gospel at stake in this matter. This is a case of a leader, author, and mentor to many individuals (whether directly or indirectly) who is teaching another gospel, a gospel that is at best “Christ plus circumcision” or “Christ plus the law”, and in reality is no gospel at all. Any “gospel” that requires Christ plus something else has ceased to be gospel at all. This is a case of placing trust in the flesh rather than in God. It is a case of believing in something other than the completed work of Jesus Christ in order to be blessed by God. Friends, this isn’t even Christianity anymore. Even if central truths of the Gospel are adhered to, by re-introducing Old Covenant signs they effectively reject all of the New Covenant — including the finished work of Christ. In fact, I will go so far as to question whether those who seriously advocate righteousness through lawkeeping rather than righteousness in Christ alone, who teach circumcision as a means of earning blessings, who call unclean what God has declared clean (Acts 10:9-15) — whether they are regenerate in the first place. These may very well be “wolves in sheep’s clothing.” The Holy Spirit will not direct someone to directly violate the very words of Scripture and teach another gospel. If not from God, then where else can this be from?

Galatians 2:21 – 3:3: “I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose. O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?”

I urge the reader to realize that this is no small matter. Anyone who would teach circumcision as a requirement for blessing, or encourage parents to choose to subject their sons to the rite of circumcision rather than the New Covenant sign of baptism, is guilty of rejecting the Gospel and replacing it with a false gospel that is no gospel at all.

Galatians 5:6-9 – “…In Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love. You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? This persuasion is not from him who calls you. A little leaven leavens the whole lump.”

One of the pastors in our area (and within my denomination) tells of a diagram with three circles, with an outer circle, middle circle, and inner circle. The inner circle contains the core issues of salvation. The second circle contains denominational differences, etc. — things that are still important, but are up to interpretation and are open to legitimate disagreement. The third circle contains peripheral items in the preference and individual conviction category. Problems arise when people try to move something to a different circle than it belongs — for example, educational decisions such as homeschooling from the third circle to the second circle, or interpretations such as specific mode of baptism to the first circle. In the case of true legalism (not just various lifestyle choices, but an actual return to the Law, such as the circumcision issue) it’s a serious matter of putting something new inside that first circle — the core matters of the faith. These are the types of things that consist of adding to, or taking away from, the Gospel.

Brothers and sisters who read this, if you are in a position where you are being influenced by such modern-day Judaizing, strongly consider whether this influence can be a positive thing in any way. As a little leaven leavens the whole lump, this false gospel of legalism in all likelihood permeates throughout the theology you are being exposed to and influenced by. Remember that the gospel plus anything else ceases to be the gospel at all. If you are in an environment where in addition to the gospel, other things such as circumcision, dietary laws, marital abstinence laws, etc. are being enforced on a level equal to the gospel, where you must comply in order to be regarded as a fellow believer, or where you must comply in order to be regarded as truly obedient, and you are not in a position to be a bright light in a place of spiritual darkness, then flee. There are many matters of denominational differences, lifestyle preferences, worship style preferences, church cultures, etc. that can be overcome for the sake of Christian unity and are not things worth fighting for. But the Gospel is not one of these things. It is so much at the core that if someone seeks to deny the gospel, or add to it (in effect denying its sufficiency) then one cannot stand by and permit it. Can you teach the true gospel and be used to draw people to Christ? If so then you may be placed there for a purpose. If the greater risk is that you will be influenced by the false gospel so that you begin to doubt the true Gospel, then the wise decision would be to flee the false teaching and any place, institution, church, or other group in which that false teaching is being promoted. “A little leaven leavens the whole lump.”

Galatians 1:6-8 – “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.”

articles · evangelical · freedom · fundamentalism · IBLP · legalism · pelagianism

It’s been a while — again — since I’ve blogged. Not a lot of significant events to blog about; life goes on. Will be going on vacation with the family in a few days, from this Thursday to next Tuesday… hopefully I’ll have lots of pictures to upload over the weekend and after returning.

I’m trying to convince myself to loosen up and post more often, even if it means there’s nothing particularly profound to say. Not that I advocate mindless posting, and won’t be using this blog space for that, but at the same time there’s nothing wrong with a more conversational or “status update” sort of post every now and then. So with that in mind I hope to begin a more frequent cycle of posting.

Tonight, though, I’m going to still have to get into weighty matters that may end up only being read all the way to the end by one person (me, when proofreading). Nevertheless, I do have something on my mind that’s not really formulated into a precise, logically-organized post, but is still something I want to comment on. I’ve written numerous posts on the topic of freedom, especially in contrast to legalistic fundamentalism; this is a topic I still stand by and think is important to promote. At the same time, I’ve seen a lot of former fundamentalists who experience freedom and then “go too far”, leaving legalism to go smack-dab into licentiousness. This does not by any mean say that the fundamentalists are right and the rules are necessary, but also does not excuse living loose just because one is freed from bondage, as all that has really happened is one has traded bondage to rules for bondage to sin. One isn’t better than the other, and both are wrong.

Yet it seems our natural response to a wrong is to go too far the other way. American evangelical legalism and its rules largely stem from a response to the perceived demise of the culture due to so-called vices such as alcohol, gambling, sexual promiscuity, etc. in the latter part of the 19th century. So the “protective” move was to ban drinking (Prohibition in the early 20th century), discourage playing cards (even with no money on the line just due to the so-called “appearance”), oppose dancing, etc. Of course, history has shown that these new “rules” weren’t all that effective, and for many people adherence to these rules became the measuring stick of who’s living right and who’s living wrong. (Those and probably hundreds of other rules we made for each other so as to be able to rise above the rest by our painstaking law-keeping.)

More recently, as teaching on free grace continues to make a welcome resurgence in churches, people have realized the futility of painstaking law-keeping as a means of earning favor and have also come to appreciate things that are not wrong in themselves if used rightly. They realize that they have been set free from earning favor by keeping laws we’ve made for each other, and are free to live in a manner pleasing to God — but freely because sins are forgiven and God isn’t angry with them!

But there are some who hear that their sins are forgiven and then wrongly assume that it means that they can go do whatever they want and it’s okay because the sins they’re committing are already covered. This is blatantly wrong, but again, returning to painstaking rule-keeping is not the solution but rather wrong as well. It could be said, though, that the one who abuses grace in this way does not truly understand what it means to be set free and thus is still in bondage to sin.

The key is balance. That’s something foreign to us… we dislike rulekeeping, so we then approve sin. We get convicted of sin, and then we go back to rules to try to get right with God (and point out everyone else’s sins too). We show disgust at excessive greed in business, and then assume that socialism (i.e. greed in the form of centralized power grabs) will somehow be the right alternative. (Then eventually we’ll get sick of socialism and decide anarchy is a better option.) We realize that there are good elements of the culture which we can appreciate and redeem — so we don’t have to oppose all music and movies made after a certain year… and then go far beyond appreciating the good in culture to appreciating and loving its dirty underbelly as well, and not trying to influence it because we like it just the way it is. We come to the understanding that beer and wine are not prohibited by Scripture and rather are to be appreciated as good things in moderation… and then end up throwing off restraint and abusing a good thing to the point of getting sick. We rightly oppose false doctrine… and then get so cynical and postmodern we wrongly throw off all doctrine whatsoever. When both extremes are wrong, we need to look for what’s right when surrounded by two wrongs… in other words, balance.

But while a “middle of the road” position is healthy when it’s a right choice in the middle of two wrong extremes, we also have to be aware of cases where the “middle of the road” position is not necessarily right. If there’s something that’s clearly right and something that’s clearly wrong, the middle position ends up being not entirely wrong, but still wrong in that it’s not right. There are some issues where we say we’re playing it safe by taking a “middle of the road” position but in reality are simply compromising on a matter of right and wrong. Reasons for this vary, whether it’s uncertainty, a desire to not offend anyone, bad memories of black-and-white legalistic fundamentalism… but nonetheless, a compromise between right and wrong still remains wrong. Furthermore, it seems that often someone who stands in the “middle of the road” when a moral issue is at stake really ends up either standing for nothing at all, or else lending silent approval to the wrong.

So there’s a time when “middle of the road” moderation is the right choice (when it’s in between two extremes), but there’s also a time when it’s wrong (when it’s a compromise away from a clear right, but unpopular, choice). The solution to knowing isn’t any ten-step no-fail recipe (notice how there’s really no seven-step programs to anything in true Christianity?) but rather something that we must find, guided by Scripture and the Holy Spirit.

That’s all for tonight. I realize that’s probably longer than anyone wanted to read, but rest assured not every post will be this long. This just seemed like something that needed to get said.
Until next time… jn

culture · evangelical · freedom · fundamentalism · legalism · righteousness

A few months ago I praised Michael Pearl’s article on “Cloistered Homeschool Syndrome” as a step in the right direction by someone who’s otherwise been associated with a very legalistic branch of the homeschooling community. Though he still remains a dispensationalist and a Pelagian, his statements criticizing the failure of the patriarchal movement were very much welcome.

My time this evening is limited so a detailed critique of the flaws in Gothard’s hermeneutic is beyond the scope of this post, but I will highlight a few things in passing. All of the bulleted items are direct quotations from Gothard’s response.

fundamentalism · IBLP · legalism

Regular readers of my websites will know that I don’t consider myself to be any sort of fan of “homeschool guru” Michael Pearl. Nonetheless, I will give credit where credit is deserved, and in this case, Michael Pearl deserves credit for his series on the “Cloistered Homeschool Syndrome” and its “Patriarchal Dysfunctional Families.” In this two-part series, Pearl takes on the patriarchal movement — one of the fundamental elements of many homeschooling groups. When I first heard about this series I was surprised… it seemed to me that he was cutting off his core base. But after reading it, I hope that anyone who has any ties to this movement does read it and take it to heart (and not write him off as having “gone crazy” in a couple articles).

articles · fundamentalism · IBLP · vision forum

legalism

The institution of the family is one of the most basic building blocks of a society. But it is not the most basic level, as a family is a unit comprised of individuals. Yet today there are many who say that the family, not the individual, is the base unit of society. What is the difference?

The main difference is that if we fail to view the family as a sum of unique parts, but instead view it as a single homogenous entity, we fail to recognize the distinct individuals in each family. For example, if the family is overemphasized, the desire to preserve family unity and appearance ends up trumping each individual’s gifts and personal needs.

Therefore, it is important that while there is no need to denigrate the family, there is also inherent danger in exalting it to the point where it becomes the end in itself, a public face that all members of the family must sacrifice to in order to maintain the family image.

Moving from hypothetical generalities to specific instances: there is a fringe organization known as the Vision Forum, a parachurch group located in Texas, which emphasizes the family unit to the point where individualism is almost looked down upon. The organization’s stated purpose is that they are “dedicated to the restoration of Christian family culture.”[i] What does that “Christian family culture” entail?

First, it appears that it entails a patriarchal figure determining a goal for his descendants – and then doing what is necessary to ensure his children and his children’s children meet his goal. As stated in an informational page on the Vision Forum website: “For our children to be mighty in the land, we must embrace a long-term vision of victory, and this will only be achieved if we take steps now to plan and implement multi-generational goals for our families.”[ii] Personally, I find it highly pompous that an individual would try to prescribe goals for his children and grandchildren – and further descendants for the next 200 years![iii] There are some things which are acceptable – even commendable – such as desiring to see one’s children and grandchildren and many generations beyond that serving the Lord. But this goal should not be for one’s own legacy, reputation, or benefit. Instead, the goals advocated include number of children one’s own children and grandchildren will have, skills they are to attain, books they are to write, and even businesses they are to establish.[iv]

Second, as previously alluded to, this system (commonly entitled “patriarchy”)[v] denies the individuality of each member of the family. If each family member is simply a pawn in the hand of the almighty patriarch, whether he be the father, grandfather, great-grandfather, or long-since-passed-on great-great-grandfather, then he has no individual rights, no room to fulfill his own dreams, and ultimately, no freedom to be who God has called him to be. Under the ideals presented by this patriarchal system, a man is not even granted the freedom to set his own goals until he marries. But even the individual he marries is not ultimately a choice he makes, but rather something that his parents have a significant role in setting up.[vi] (Disclaimer: This is not cited directly from a Vision Forum publication, but rather from the writings of someone influenced by Vision Forum. My personal experience from dialogue with those involved with and influenced by VF materials confirms that this is a prevalent VF teaching and thus falls within the scope of this examination.)

The patriarchal system, however, leaves even less freedom for women than it does for men. Within the system presented as an ideal – no, not just an ideal, but a mandate – a married woman has no other place than at home, cleaning, cooking, sewing, and producing babies. Single women are said to “have more flexibility in applying the principle that women were created for a domestic calling,”[vii] but even so are made to feel like anything but being a homemaker is not only less than ideal, but actually sinful.

For unmarried men and women, Vision Forum explicitly states that they remain under their father’s jurisdiction until the point of being released.[viii] This concept of release is extrabiblical but has been well-established as a law within families and churches that subscribe to the patriarchal doctrines.

This causes unnecessary heartache for parents and their adult offspring alike. The framework is set such that adult children are likely to feel guilty for even desiring something for themselves apart from the “vision” set by their parents. Thus, it is not uncommon for someone past the age of 20, perhaps even past the age of 30, to live under their parents’ roof, be entirely dependent on their parents, and have no goals apart from what their parents set. Should they have an individual desire, in all likelihood it will be seen as rebellion and be treated as wrong. As stated above, even marriage is something which tends to be overseen by the parents. This ultimately fulfills the previously stated goal of the subsequent generations following the vision set by the patriarch, or in simpler terms, one’s ability to have grandchildren made pretty close to his own image. This level of control is unhealthy, both for the “patriarch” (due to him becoming a “priest figure” or even a “god figure”) as well as the offspring, who have the equivalent of a human guru or priest guiding their way instead of having these decisions be the product of their relationship with Christ. And ultimately, it becomes a form of idolatry, because something other than Jesus Christ becomes the primary focus. The focus may be doing whatever it takes to get a “Christian America”, looking good in society, being well-spoken of, ideals of “militant fecundity”[ix], etc. (for the patriarch), or looking to a human rather than to God for direction (for the offspring). Either way, something or someone has entered a role that should belong to God alone, and this is idolatry.

If the reader is one who sees himself as a “patriarch,” I urge you to re-evaluate your goals. I would venture to say that anything more than desiring that your children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and so on be strong followers of Christ is more than necessary. Many things may be your vision, feeding your ego – and may not be God’s will for those individuals, who are individuals before God just as you are, with equal rights and equal access to God. The only thing that you can, and should, desire is that they be strong Christians, trusting in Christ alone (not you, not anyone else, but Christ alone). And if the reader is an offspring or someone who is under the authority of a “patriarch” – consider whether you are in a position where your relationship with Christ can be your own or if another is putting himself in a position to be as your “high priest,” a mediator between God and you. “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.”[x] If this is the case, you must prayerfully evaluate whether you can persuade the individual to let you be free in Christ, or whether leaving is the healthier option. And finally, as Paul exhorted Timothy, “Let no one despise you for your youth, but set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity.”[xi]

[ii] Retrieved from http://www.visionforum.com/booksandmedia/productdetail.aspx?productid=43872 on 4/25/08.

[iii] http://www.visionforum.com/hottopics/blogs/dwp/2008/03/3482.aspx

[iv] http://www.mikesoutherland.com/blog/2006/12/thatll-never-work-lets-just-see-about.html

[v] http://www.visionforumministries.org/home/about/biblical_patriarchy.aspx

[vi] http://www.mikesoutherland.com/blog/2006/12/thatll-never-work-lets-just-see-about.html, paragraph 11

[vii] http://www.visionforumministries.org/home/about/biblical_patriarchy.aspx, items #13-15

[viii] http://www.visionforumministries.org/home/about/biblical_patriarchy.aspx, item #22

[ix] http://www.visionforum.com/hottopics/blogs/dwp/2007/05/2614.aspx

[x] I Timothy 2:5,6. The Holy Bible, English Standard Version

Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers.

[xi] I Timothy 4:12. The Holy Bible, English Standard Version

Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers.

freedom · fundamentalism · grace · IBLP · legalism · reconstructionism · vision forum