The Gospel of Grace

In Acts 2, in the earliest days of the Christian church, the church was composed primarily of Jewish Christians. By Acts 8, the gospel had spread to the Samaritans who were ethnically mixed Jews and Christians who also accepted the gospel of grace. In Acts 10, Peter is the first apostle to take the gospel to the Gentiles (it relates the story of Cornelius and the dream of the sheet full of animals lowered from heaven.) 

The gospel spreads more widely to the Gentiles in Acts 13 and 14, with the missionary efforts of Paul and Barnabas. In the last part of Acts 8, we saw the story of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch—an even wider spread of the gospel of grace out to the racially diverse, to a different continent, and even to the gender-undefined in the person of the Ethiopian eunuch. Truly, we’re seeing that the gospel of grace is meant for all, even people we don’t think deserve it. God indeed is the God of all mankind. 

But this rapid and widely spreading evangelism brought diverse groups together. It assembled people of different backgrounds, different spiritual experiences and expectations, and this rapid assimilation of all of these diverse people was of great concern to the early Jewish Christians. Two questions emerged: Do Gentiles have to become Jews before they become Christian? And do Gentiles have to obey the mosaic laws once they become Christian? 

We pick up the story of this controversy in Acts 15. The passage is a long passage, so it is appended below. Here I would like to summarize it. It’s basically a theological debate. The outcome represents the official church verdict on a very important issue. 

Paul and Barnabas are on their first missionary journey and some Jews show up saying that the Gentiles must become circumcised in order to be saved. Paul and Barnabas disagree with them. The Gentiles, they maintain, are saved by faith alone. They do not need to be circumcised to be saved. 

The argument rises to such a level that they departed Jerusalem to get the biggest voices in the early church, the highest authorities, to debate the issue. They included Peter and James. Peter stood up and said he had witnessed Gentiles coming to faith by grace; that they did not need the yoke of law for salvation. Paul and Barnabas then shared what had happened among Gentiles on a journey, confirming Peter’s statement. 

Then James said that the testimony of Peter and Paul and Barnabas fitted with the prophecy of the Old Testament that the Gentiles would be brought into the house of David, and suggested that the Gentiles did not need to become obedient to all the Old Testament laws in order to be included in the church. He described four conditions the Gentiles needed to accept. 

They sent Paul and Barnabas off to the Gentile believers with a letter giving these conditions. There was much rejoicing because it was clear to everyone that the Jews and Gentiles could live in peace together under Christ. 

This was a huge event in the early church; a critical event. It gives us three insights on the gospel of grace but also raises several questions. The insights relate to how the gospel of grace saves us, how the gospel of grace frees us, and how the gospel of grace transforms us. 

How does the gospel of grace save us? It is a gift, we’re told in verse 8. God gives his grace indiscriminately. Everyone gets it, personally; just what they need, and just the right way for them. This is the crux of the discussion and the argument. The key question is: Have you been blessed by the Holy Spirit? Have you been anointed by the Holy Spirit? Are you covered by grace? The argument here, as well as in Acts 10 (the story of Cornelius) is that there is evidence amongst the Gentiles that they have been anointed by the Holy Spirit, “just like we have been,” Peter says, 

Whatever it was that Peter was referring to, whatever it was that memorialized this anointing of the Holy Spirit, its evidence was clear: They had been moved, they had been blessed, they had had an authentic spiritual experience with the Holy Spirit, and it was visible to all. In other words, they had been saved by the gift of grace, just as the early Christians had. This saving grace, Peter reasons, appears to result in policy changes. But the Jewish Christians maintain that conversion by the Holy Spirit in a grace experience should result in behavioral changes. 

Circumcision was the topic of the argument, but we’re really talking about all the Mosaic laws as outlined in the Torah, which was their scripture: Laws of health and hygiene, what you ate and what and when you ate it, the kind of cloth that you could use in your clothing, the pans that you use for cooking, laws of animal husbandry, how and when you plant your crops, and detailed instructions and rituals concerning your worship and your spiritual expressions. Jewish Christians were being asked to accept as fellow Christians people with an utterly different way of life. 

Everything for them had been finely regulated; now, it appeared to be a free-for-all. For James and the other apostles, it was very clear: Salvation was a gift of God by grace. The law is a heavy yoke that no one, not even the Jewish believers, could keep perfectly. Why, he reasons, should you impose on others something that you can’t do yourself? This is the negative of the golden rule: Don’t ask others to do what you can’t do yourself. Salvation is a miracle of God’s grace. We can’t save ourselves. Only God and his grace can set us right with him. Don’t test God by trying to add your works to God’s grace. That’s an insult to the Holy Spirit. 

Then he goes on to outline four rules to live by: Abstain from food polluted by idols, renounce sexual immorality, forego meat from strangled animals, and refrain from blood. This directive raises several questions. The first is: Why, if the Gentiles have received the Holy Spirit and are saved by grace, is their behavior not changed? Why is their behavior not modified to be able to live by the law? Despite their conversion, they apparently are still unable to live up to the law. Why can’t they overcome?

Second: Does Grace supersede the scriptures? Is Grace more powerful than the written word? Here is the book of Moses, replete with laws to live by, reduced to four rules. By what authority does James override the scriptures, the Torah? Are these laws just policy, or are they moral principles which are timeless and immutable? Does grace override the scriptures? Can grace override the scriptures? Or does grace allow us to reinterpret the scriptures? Is this a reinterpretation of the scriptures? Is this a new understanding or something that we would consider to be new light? Do grace and the Holy Spirit trump the Bible? 

A third question that arises is: Does grace give power to believers to overcome and live by the law? Or does grace simply cover our failure to live by the law? James seemed to be reaching and emphasizing first, and most importantly, that grace is the way to salvation. It is a gift of God. Policy is not the route to salvation. If grace is the root and the route of salvation, and policy is the root and the route to community, the essence of grace is salvation and the essence of religion is community. 

James is making a clear distinction here, it seems, between salvation and religion. The four rules to live by are rules of community, of religion; they are not the rules of salvation. Beginning with the golden rule, or what’s really the negative golden rule, we see that what it does is to unite community. What James asks of the Gentile Christians is to live in such a way as to foster community. 

By practicing Jewish dietary laws, it would be okay for them to eat together—that most intimate of public occasions. By shunning immorality, they were upholding family values. Common ways of eating and common family values allowed the early Christian church to assemble, partake of food, and feel comfortable in a wholesome family environment, all the while practicing the golden rule. They’re not saved by this wholesome environment, but they find it to be enticingly comfortable and easy. Salvation goes with grace. Religion goes with community. 

So how then does the gospel of grace free us? We see this in verses 30 and 31:

So when they were sent away, they went down to Antioch; and after gathering the congregation together, they delivered the letter. When they had read it, they rejoiced because of its encouragement.

The content of the letter brings encouragement and great joy. Grace frees us from saving ourselves. What brings so much joy in the letter is that our salvation is completely dependent upon God and not us. No matter how good you are, you can’t be saved by obeying God. Grace is not the opposite of obedience. Grace is an attribute of God. Obedience is what mankind does. They are as far apart as the heaven is from the earth. So if you are good—even very, very good—you need God’s grace. And if you are bad—even very, very bad—you also can use God’s grace. 

What makes us leap and run and shout with joy, like the paralytic who’s healed by the Gate Beautiful, is that we don’t just need that grace, but that we are given that grace, full and free and as much as we need. The gospel of grace also frees us to live by rules that strengthen the community, not to save us but to enrich our lives. 

Finally, the great convocation in the early church shows us how the gospel of grace transforms us. This council meeting would have could have gone terribly wrong. There was potential here for a disaster. What was facing the church was a possible split between the conservative Jewish church and the liberal Gentile church. But the gospel of grace kept them together. 

In verse 12, we see the root of unity:

All the people kept silent, and they were listening to Barnabas and Paul as they were relating all the signs and wonders that God had done through them among the Gentiles.

The ability to be silent, to listen to others, to be filled with the spirit of silence is to allow the gospel of grace to transform us. Differences, even differences in theology and practice, should not cause disunity if we are led by the gospel of grace, which not only transforms us but transforms our evangelism as well. In verse 33 we see evangelism fueled by grace:

After they had spent time there, they were sent away from the brothers and sisters in peace to those who had sent them out.

So what should we learn from this story? Does grace allow us to reinterpret what the Bible says? Of the things you believe, what is policy versus principle? Is it helpful to discriminate between salvation and religion? Can a faith community be structured on grace alone? Why are we always trying to put a law where God puts grace? Is it fair to relax the rules for new converts, when we’ve been living under them for all these years? And how free can you be under grace? Is there such a thing as too much grace? 

Jay: Don’s preamble today has been one of the most enlightening. It is very interesting how he has contrasted adherence to the law and developing community against grace as a separate component more related to salvation. The community definition James provides through his four principles is not a bad thing. I’ve often thought that the more we define the community, the farther we get away from grace, from what God is really asking us to do. 

There’s no doubt that how James defines it and Don has articulated it, it is really just broad strokes sufficient to keep the peace and unite the community through a common understanding by which members of the community can relate to one another. It does not get into the minutiae of the Mosaic Law, which might otherwise impose radical changes to people’s culture, their upbringing, their way of life, and foment resistance and discord.

Michael: I thought James was the moralist of the of the apostles? Isn’t that what his letter is about? Did he write this letter before he made the decision at that meeting? Or was it afterwards?

Don: Are you suggesting he might have had a change of heart? 

C-J: I think that the separation has to do with the temporal and the eternal. For James, it came down to which of these was more important. The laws were based on cause and effect: “If we don’t eat this kind of meat,.. if we plant during the seasons this way,… The fruit of the labor speaks for itself.” But salvation is truly a gift of grace. We can’t do anything in and of ourselves and hopefully the Holy Spirit in-dwelling causes the desire to embrace the benefits of another tradition because they bear fruit. 

But the essential piece, even today, isn’t about if you’re conservative, moderate, or very liberal in how you practice the religion that you adhere to, but your relationship with the divine. And that rule is to love God with all your heart and to love others as we have been loved. I think it’s really clear that it came down to “If this church is going to grow and be inclusive, there’s only one way, and that’s to put God first.”

Donald: The notion that rules are for the purpose of uniting community is interesting, and probably true. But once rules are stretched, they become divisive. What is the purpose of a rule? Is it like a handshake—I’m in or I’m outside of this group? Even expressing that you’re diverse is recognizing your differences, and recognizing it is really almost saying you’re comfortable with it, even if you are not, really. 

So do we need evidence to say we’re part of the group (or not part of the group)? I think that ties to what Connie said—It’s not an eternal concept. The first few people who are “in” are good with the rules, but the next few are going to push those rules, and the first few people are going to resist that push. So I’m not sure it’s uniting the group. It seems to be doing just the opposite. 

Sharon: From a sociological perspective, I think that we know that mores define the boundaries of a social group and that while social dynamics evolve—they change—they still define who we are. You can travel anywhere in the world and run into an Adventist who has certain behaviors that you don’t have to explain because culturally, all Adventists know what a haystack is. There is kind of comfort in that aspect of belonging, within that social context. 

But I think that is completely independent of the issue of grace, because grace is something that comes down from God to us. Social dynamics and boundaries of the law and mores were human-crafted as a result of an innate nature that God gave us in being socially dynamic and in being socially connected through the concept of community. 

I agree with Jason. It makes it much cleaner for me to keep them as processes of the Lord, but one is of a temporal nature, as C-J said, more sociological; and then we have the divine on the other side that is perfect, our dynamics being imperfect.

C-J: The beauty of the Holy Spirit working—of grace working—is that by rubbing elbows with the “other” we really see the many facets of God in each other… how I do something, how somebody else does something… community collectively works together. It enriches us about the fullness of God and his grace and there’s a beauty in that process that wouldn’t happen if we all walked the same way at the same pace. We would become stagnant and stagnation brings death. 

Donald: Both components—grace and defining how we relate to one another—I think are very important parts of how God is trying to use people. As Don has mentioned, there are two ways to look at a rule, One way is so that I can define whether someone is in my group or out of my group. Another way to look at a rule, though, which I think was articulated by Don, is that it is how we relate to one another. 

We need this rule so that we can have a common understanding of how we’re going to relate to one another. Because if we can’t come to some agreement on some basic principles about how we’re going to relate to one another, then we can’t be a group, we can’t be a community. It’s just it’s an impossibility.

Jay: How you approach that, how you look at that, helps to define how you see grace. If you see the rule as the in or the out, then grace is for some and not for all. But if you see the rule as “We as a group of people decide this is how we want to relate to each other, and grace is for us. If you decide how you all are going to relate to one another, then grace is for you.” 

How we look at this from the sociological viewpoint of the defining of society, the defining of community; how we look at the governing principles as defining membership or as helping to decide and show how we relate to one another.

C-J: I think what you described is “separate but equal.” There’s a big problem with that. I think that God wants us to learn tolerance and temperance through grace. I may not agree with what you do, but I embrace who you are before the divine. And as long as it doesn’t cause harm, who am I to say that your way, or my way is the only or best way, as long as it doesn’t cause harm. 

But without having those two separate rooms—social and grace—we aren’t ever connected, because we are both, and the key to the door between those two spaces is tolerance and grace covers that. I love you not in spite of yourself but because God loves you far more than anything else. And that love abides in both of us, regardless of our tradition, socially.

Michael: But having grace makes you a global citizen, part of a global community where everybody gets grace. It is a community, but maybe what I’m hearing is it’s too abstract of a community, and that’s why you need a little bit more in the way of rules. 

For example, for me to be part of this class community, I have to agree to meet at 11am (my time zone) every Saturday. If I don’t want to, then I’m not part of it. That’s the rule. But what I’m trying to say is that accepting grace makes you part of a global community but maybe that does not have as much effect as a smaller community.

Donald: I always go back to a couple of challenges that I stumble over in my own faith journey, namely: Proselytizing and evangelizing our faith. Jay seems comfortable being an Adventist. So be it. That’s his community. It is then just a matter of who gets to be on which side of the fence. Unfortunately, rules create barriers, some in some out. And then we have a gate which we open only to people who follow our rules. 

Maybe that’s simplistic, but on this side of eternity, if we think in terms of the community as being humanity, we’re good to go. If we look back at the earth and say we are in it together, we don’t act that way. We’re fighting in a big way right now. 

My point is just that in all these years of working for the corporate church, I think I understood what my responsibilities to the church were during those 40 years: It was to really make sure that young people followed what was defined as Adventism, and I’m not sure there’s a lot of wiggle room. When the kids get home, the parents ask: “What did you do when you were there?” 

Michael: I understood that neither Donald nor Jason chose to be Adventists. They were both born into it. That’s the luck  of the draw. Even in the case of someone like Kiran: If somebody else from a different church had evangelized him, I think he would have been completely different and would have abided by a completely different set of rules. It’s random. That’s why it’s not good to judge.

Donald: That’s a very interesting point. When somebody is converted into a faith, they are probably presented with the strict rules. Those of us that have been born into it might bend and adapt the rules a little bit, which is difficult for the new converts who’ve just learned what they thought was a strict rule. 

C-J: I think it’s about divine providence. Whether I’m born as a Muslim or a Hindu or a Buddhist or a Christian, I think God dwells in all those places. The rules may be different, but the Divine is universal in terms of eternal, once this world that we call Earth is no longer conscious in our minds. The rules have value in terms of the fruit—the fruit being peace, love, community. They all follow rules, and to do no harm is core in each of those. 

Do people get off and do their own thing politically? Yes, that’s a different set of rules. But divine providence is not in a box, it’s being and becoming spiritually, one with the Holy Spirit. 

A lot of people would look at me and say, “You are not a Christian.” I follow those rules, but that doesn’t make me a Christian. What makes me a Christian is my faith in the Divine, the Holy Spirit. I’m stuck for the language. But I am not on some other page. I don’t claim to be a different, singular faith. I chose Christianity because I grew up in that faith. And to me, the Holy Spirit, after doing a lot of other sampling, is very visceral. I identify with “holy” in both spellings.

Jay: Rules can be a barrier, and part of me doesn’t have a problem with that because it causes us to be careful. If the rules are about how we’re going to relate to one another, then it’s okay that you don’t want to be part of this. There’s no doubt that Seventh Day Adventists are weird, when seen through the world’s goggles. When I uphold the Adventist rules, it makes me a really weird person—not a bad person. In fact, people who come in contact with me are very curious about my weirdness because they see something different. I hope they see kindness and love. 

But how I spend my Saturdays is a barrier. It’s very, very different than how the world spends its Saturdays. My diet too makes me seem weird. When my colleagues want to go out to dinner with me, they’re very careful about the places they pick. They understand that my community requires that they have to relate to it a certain way. For them to be all in on that, there may be a barrier, because in their upbringing and in their life, there are things that they don’t want to give up. 

I don’t mind that being a barrier, but if the barrier is a barrier of love, you can’t get love if you’re not here. If the barrier is a barrier of grace, grace doesn’t apply to you unless you’re here. That’s a barrier. That’s a problem. That’s the barrier that I think human beings fall into very easily. We have to have some rules by which to live, but grace is for everybody. 

The four little ways that we’re going to relate to one or another are a construct by which I can relate to you and I believe can operationalize the grace that God has given me. I think there’s beauty in that. When the rules become barriers to grace, to love, we offend the Holy Spirit, and we are in a place that we don’t want to find ourselves in.

Donald: Well stated, but what do we do with proselytizing? Is there a gate? And why would I feel that there’s a need for you to change to get through that gate?

Michael: Because religions have it that when I am following these sets of rules I’m a better moral person and—more importantly—that gives me a better edge with God and a better shot at salvation. And that’s divisive.

Jay: Right, that’s building a barrier, when rules lead you to think you’ve got the inside track, that you’re a better person than others. I have zero issue with saying to people (as I think we should): 

“I feel really connected to God. I feel like God really uses me to help others. And being a Seventh Day Adventist is part of that. It’s part of who I am. So let me show you how being a Seventh Day Adventist has been able to put me in a position where I feel my relationship with God is strong, and probably more importantly, my ability to help other people is operationalized. This community provides me with opportunity and resources to help other people. Why wouldn’t I tell people about that? It might not be for you. There are rules, a code of conduct you have to follow to be part of the club.”

I don’t have a problem saying that, unless that code of conduct says “You don’t get grace, I get grace.” If the code of conduct says that, I have a problem. Maybe I shouldn’t be where I’m at.

Donald: Not far from here there is a huge Amish community. People come from all over to Shipshewana to witness and experience the uniqueness of that community. It’s a world of no cars, just horses and buggies, and no zippers, just buttons. There’s a whole code of conduct operating there. They are certainly not interested in you becoming one of them. Taking pictures of them is considered improper, bad behavior, so you cannot capture their weirdness that way.

I stumble over the issue of proselytizing, of evangelism. I’ve traveled the world and been fascinated by  its diversity. As long as we do no harm to one another, we can do whatever we want. That’s the reason I went to Shipshewana. But if I had to live there, I’d probably try to start changing their behaviors, telling them they need to do things my way. That’s been done in this world, as we know.

Reinhard: We feel very comfortable with what we believe and relate well with one another within our own community. I think people outside look upon us as basically good people who just do some strange things on their Sabbath—we won’t talk business, for example, which is fine with the people with whom I do business. They respect my belief concerning business on the Sabbath. 

God placed us in our family, our community, our church—in our comfort zone. We worship God, we believe in the truth. Some people may have a talent for missionary work, but it may not be for everybody. A big issue in the early Christian church was circumcision, because Jews made up the majority of followers of Jesus, so naturally they continued to follow Jewish ceremonial law. The Apostle Paul emphasized that grace was not an external, ceremonial, issue—it would determine our very salvation and is given to everybody. He emphasized that the grace of God is not the law, though, obviously, the moral law will be upheld automatically when we have faith and the grace of God. 

In modern times, grace is still the key. The feeling of faith, of the grace of God, is the number one thing we need to hold on to. The bottom line is salvation, for which we need to keep a relationship with God, We practice and believe what we think is best and right for us, and as long as that is in line with the Bible, I don’t have a problem with it. 

David: It seems to me that what we’ve been discussing is the sacred versus the profane. The sacred is grace, which is in every human being. The profane differs by culture, of which religion is a component. Problems arise when the profane tries to mess with—to define, to pin down, to straitjacket—the sacred through religious evangelism, and when the evangelized convert conflates the sacred in them with the identity of the evangelizer.

If someone is “born again,” has “seen the light” through an Adventist or Catholic (or whatever) missionary, it was because of the grace, the sacred, already within them, and had really very little (in my opinion) to do with the profane cultural/religious identity of the missionary. It may be that the profane can help focus the individual on the sacred within, but the profane can and often does divert attention away from the sacred. Should religions explicate to people that sacredness is not really anything to do with religion? 

Don: We’ll talk about the evangelism of grace next week in the context of our discussion today. 

* * *

Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” And after Paul and Barnabas had a heated argument and debate with them, the brothers determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue. Therefore, after being sent on their way by the church, they were passing through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and they were bringing great joy to all the brothers and sisters. When they arrived in Jerusalem, they were received by the church, the apostles, and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them. But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to keep the Law of Moses.”

The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. Since this is the case, why are you putting God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our forefathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.”

All the people kept silent, and they were listening to Barnabas and Paul as they were relating all the signs and wonders that God had done through them among the Gentiles.

After they stopped speaking, James responded, saying, “Brothers, listen to me. Simeon has described how God first concerned Himself about taking a people for His name from among the Gentiles. The words of the Prophets agree with this, just as it is written:

‘After these things I will return,
And I will rebuild the fallen tabernacle of David,
And I will rebuild its ruins,
And I will restore it,
So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
And all the Gentiles who are called by My name,’
Says the Lord, who makes these things known from long ago.

Therefore, it is my judgment that we do not cause trouble for those from the Gentiles who are turning to God, but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols, from acts of sexual immorality, from what has been strangled, and from blood. For from ancient generations Moses has those who preach him in every city, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”

Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas: Judas who was called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers, and they sent this letter with them:

“The apostles and the brothers who are elders, to the brothers and sisters in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia who are from the Gentiles: Greetings.

Since we have heard that some of our number to whom we gave no instruction have confused you by their teaching, upsetting your souls, it seemed good to us, having become of one mind, to select men to send to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, we have sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will also report the same things by word of mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from acts of sexual immorality; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell.”

So when they were sent away, they went down to Antioch; and after gathering the congregation together, they delivered the letter. When they had read it, they rejoiced because of its encouragement. Judas and Silas, also being prophets themselves, encouraged and strengthened the brothers and sisters with a lengthy message. After they had spent time there, they were sent away from the brothers and sisters in peace to those who had sent them out. But Paul and Barnabas stayed in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also. (Acts 15:1-35)