The fact is, Biblical Christianity does insist upon works.

When you quote Luther about grace alone through faith alone in the finished work of Jesus alone, you are talking about justification. Justification is not the whole Gospel, it is the Gospel’s starting point for us. The eternal Word of God, because of his love, came to earth to humble himself to the point of death, then he conquered death, thereby setting us free from the bonds of sin and death, and then, by grace alone through faith alone, he transfered us from the kingdom of darkness into his kingdom of light. What a marvelous gift!

But is that where it ends? No. We respond. We act. We are exhorted to act throughout the Scripture. We are told to work out our salvation in fear and trembling. We are told that faith without works is dead (in a passage that made Luther squirm). We are told that if we love Jesus, we will keep his commandments. We are told to present our bodies as living sacrifices (how? by actions). We are told to be transformed in the renewing of our mind, which doesn’t happen without our participation. We’re told not to quench the Holy Spirit, which means avoiding action that cause us to ignore the Spirit’s action within us. We are told to discipline ourselves for the purpose of godliness. We are told to repent from our sins and to sin no more. We are told to put on the full armor of God. We are told we will give an answer for all that we do, that we will be judged “as through fire” for our actions. We are told to imitate Christ. We are told to follow Jesus and be his disciples.

We are told in 2 Peter that because “his divine power has given us everything pertaining to life and godliness” that we are to act in that power by “applying all diligence, in your faith, supply moral excellence (virtue), and in your moral excellence, knowledge, and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perserverance, and in your perserverance, godliness, and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love.” This is how we become “partakers in the divine nature,” and “if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful …” But “he who lacks these qualities is blind or short-sighted, having forgotten his purification from his former sins (justification). Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about his calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble; for in this way, the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you.”

This kind of exhortation is everywhere in the New Testament, and it’s obviously not passive. The difference between these biblical exhortations and man-made religion is this: We do not work for our justification; we work from it. Our faith is not “works-driven,” but our works are driven by our faith. We remember our justification and then apply diligence in obedience to our calling. True faith is inseparable from works. This doesn’t challenge the fact that we are saved by grace alone and cannot boast.

We follow Christ and Christ’s ways, and we become like him as we do so. Thank him and his grace, we have the power to do so. This is the Gospel, that we live and act by grace in the Kingdom of Heaven.

You’re right that Christianity is not a religion of “do.” But it’s also not just a religion of “done.” It’s a religion of “doing with God.” This is not a gospel of “God helps those who help themselves.” Rather, it is the Gospel of God’s power and Spirit given to us, working through us and transforming us, not by our works but in our works as they conform to his works. Grace is not just the gift that saves us from sin, it’s the gift that gives us the power to act in accordance with God’s will.

Justification puts us in position for sanctification, a process in which we participate or in which refuse to participate. Those who participate through action become mature, fruitful, and godly. Those who expect God to do it all are sometimes brought to fruitfulness by God’s choice, but most often remain in a useless “fleshly” immaturity, which is where we find too many people in the American Evangelical church of today. One of the major reasons for this state of affairs in the Evangelical churches is precisely the notion that everything in Christianity is passive; because we are saved by grace through faith, that must mean that we pray the prayer, get our sins forgiven and just wait for God to make us godly. Sorry, but it doesn’t often work that way.

As for Larry’s critique of “rejecting worldly desires” as a form of gnosticism, I think he misses the point, and he might misunderstand what gnosticism is, not to mention the fact that he misquotes the original blog post, which spoke of “being aware of this ‘world’” (in quotes) and “to come out of it” (also in quotes). When most Christians talk about the “world,” they are talking about sin and the patterns of sin that dominate in the relationships between human beings, in their societies, systems, institutions and organizations. The Bible tells us that we are “in the world, not of it,” so when most Christians I’ve listened to talk about coming out of the world, they are typically agreeing with this notion. They are not usually talking about divorcing themselves from human relationships, societies, systems, institutions, organizations, etc. They are talking about refusing to participate in the sinful patterns that undergird all of those things. The notion of “rejecting worldly desires” would also typically refer to rejecting the sinful desires within ourselves that often take their cues from phenomena in this sin-laden world.

So, with all this in mind, it is not a “doctrine of demons” that the Christian should “come out of the world.” What Paul refers to as the “doctrines of demons” in 1 Timothy 4 are the doctrines that God’s good creation is somehow evil and to be rejected (which was a tenet of many gnostic sects). Of course, some Christians in history have come to believe this heresy about creation. But, anyone paying attention must acknowledge that “the world” in usual historical Christian usage refers to the sinful ways that dominate our current situation here on earth.

Here is how John the Apostle talks about the world: “Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world. The world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God lives forever.”

Also, while Larry insists firmly that the teaching of “rejecting worldly desires” is a doctrine of demons, my Bible, in Titus, tells me that “… the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age …” So, is Paul telling us to believe a doctrine of demons?

These verses, and many others like them, not only tell us that it is advisable to “come out of the world.” They also instruct us that we are to “do” something with our salvation, not just crow about faith alone while suggesting that sincere Christians are following doctrines of demons as they try to conform themselves to Christ Jesus our Lord and King.

Thanks for your time.

My search for more “depth” (to use a simple term) than what evangelicalism offers led me first to John of the Cross and Thomas Merton, et al., then straight back to the church fathers and early monasticism. I’ve hardly exhausted that rich wellspring of Christian insight. I mention this mainly to say that these explorations (over the past several years) are beginning to lead me in the direction of Orthodoxy (as in Eastern Orthodoxy). It seems the Orthodox Church sidesteps and makes irrelevant so many of the controversies of denomination versus denomination, Protestant versus Catholic, and “post” movements versus the establishment. Seems this church also matches so many of the post-evangelical distinctives that you’ve described, except that it hasn’t needed to set itself apart by rejecting what came before it (Roman Catholicism also can make this claim, but it also added much since its split with the Eastern church). Orthodoxy appears to be encrusted in history, but closer inspection reveals a tradition that has remained quite vital for many centuries (despite succumbing to the follies of mankind from time to time, just like any other church).

So I bring it up not to be an apologist for Orthodoxy, but to find out what a post-evangelical outlook might be on a church like this one, that takes very seriously the living traditions of Christianity informed in every age by the Holy Spirit in its midst. Also, I’m wondering whether, instead of plunging into “uncharted territory” and forging new labels that will certainly be outdated in a few centuries (or decades), it might be more appropriate and more in line with the notion of Christian unity for Christians who drift away from traditions that are historically separatist to avoid further separation and to find ways of integration with the Christian traditions of the longest standing. I have heard evangelicals who were dissatisfied with current evangelical conditions (budding “post-evangelicals” perhaps?) talk about returning to ancient sources and streams of thought in Christian history. To me, it seems odd to attempt to connect with those ancient sources by creating or joining new movements without first considering the oldest ones.

It also seems that the desire to call oneself a “post-evangelical” or something similar differs little from the desire to start a new denomination. It’s just a new form of separation and a new kind of division in an already splintered church. After all, it’s just a new name, a new label, with a list of the beliefs that are distinct from the other groups. This is what a denomination is. Obviously, the need exists for a shorthand phrase to describe one’s beliefs to others, and “Christian” may not be sufficient in itself, because it means so many things to so many different people. But even if I were post-evangelical, I have an aversion to describing myself as such, simply because it seems to represent the notion that, hey, if you don’t like what the church you come from is doing, then just start a new church (or “movement”) that better fits your own understanding. It’s possible that this is necessary, but it seems difficult to square it with the idea of participating in the great streams of wisdom that the saints of old offer us.

Please forgive me for the run-on sentences and long-windedness above and any tone in this post that might sound unduly combative. I’m really just trying to see how a post-evangelical might respond to some of the things that are kicking around in my head right now.

I don’t know what you mean by liberalism, so I can’t comment on that. In my county, people who don’t use the KJV are liberals.

— George Fox, 1658

Christianity is not a political movement NOR is it about eschewing “worldly desires” as revised medievalish Roman Catholicism would set forth. In fact ‘Evangelicals’ would agree ENTIRELY with “rejecting worldly desires”. This form of Gnosticism has plagued the church since day one and Paul called it as a doctrine of demons point blank. Christianity is about the Gospel, from start to finish Christ and Him crucified. Loose that and you have nothing but another man made religion. Christianity is NOT a move from vice to virtue, many would agree with this, but if you REALLY want to test yourself then you must certainly know that Christianity is a move from virtue to grace.

As Luther said the standing and falling church is upon one central article justification by grace alone through faith alone in the finished work of Jesus Christ alone – and the “alones” are crucial. If you proffer forth a religion that is works driven, faith formed by love or something similar you have given fallen religion but you have certainly NOT given Christ nor Christianity. Christianity is Christ and Him crucified, His life of holiness for mine of sin and nothing else. Anything else is another Gospel and is NO Gospel, and stands cursed and damned by the Apostle Himself. There are only two religions in the world today no matter what external name one attaches to them, a religion of “do” and a religion of “done”. There are NO other religions.

God may suffer a man to do no good works that the man may at last learn to trust in Christ alone and be saved. This statement is utterly incomprehensible to the false religions of glory.

For Christ alone,

Larry

I just found your site after posting the following rant on my blog http://bloggingcatholic.blogspot.com/2006/09/evangelical-christians-in-america.html#links

Evangelical Christians in America Hijack Christianity

Evangelical Christians are blindly becoming the same damaging influence to Christianity that the radical Islamic sects are to Islam. Evangelical Christians often project a “holier than thou” attitude. This attitude is directly against the teachings of Christ. Evangelical Christians perceive America as righteous beacon of Christianity. Yet, America’s actions on the world stage in response to 9/11, have been anything but Christian. Evangelical Christians the Bush administration as a Christian based government. The Bush administration, my have many good Christians in place, but is not involved in anyway with spreading the Kingdom of God.

Christianity is not a political movement. It is entirely about selfless Love. It requires the courage and faith to love and serve your enemies; even at the risk of death.

Christianity is not the mamby pamby wimpy wanting be a good boy religion. It requires taking a stand for Love. It requires a complete rejection of worldly desires and the complete devotion to helping those that you can; the sick, addicted, abused, oppressed, poor, disadvantaged…Etc. It requires doing this at all cost. Not when your feeling flush with cash. Not when it is convenient for you. This complete focus on serving is the central focus of Christ’s message and must be a priority to any Christian life.

Evangelical Christians have no right to judge others, especially their enemies. Yet, this is a very popular pastime of many a Christian discussion. Loving others without judgment is the only way to convert. It is the Christians duty to love and help those less fortunate; not to convince those less fortunate to profess Christ. By acting in love, the kingdom of God will spread.

Are you ready to die for Christ by loving and serving your enemy? This is true faith, this is Christianity, this is what Christ died for and is the way to the Kingdom of God.

Stop asking how we can take America back for God. Instead, how can we take save Christianity from America.

I would be very interested in your thoughts and I look forward to learning more from your posts. Awesome site.