Cutting the Judaisers some slack… (Galatians 5)

As we come to the end of a series in Galatians in our men’s Bible study, I have a growing sympathy for the false-teachers(!).

The first century Galatian church is wrestling with what marks an individual as a true “seed of Abraham”… the inheritors of God’s promise to Abraham. As Gentiles come into the church, the issue of the day is: “How do you rule people in or out?” “What is the boundary marker for God’s people?”

The debate boils down to “faith in Paul’s gospel alone” vs. “faith + legal observance”. False teachers are “throwing [the church] into confusion” by “perverting the gospel” (1v7) by preaching faith plus legal observance (circumcision,…). Paul teaches that the true heirs of the promise to Abraham are those who trust in Christ as the fulfilment of those promises (Gal 5v26,29).

I came to Galatians seeing the Judaisers unsympathetically - they were out and out bad guys. Until that is, I re-read chapter 5v16-26…

Paul is defending the idea that the freedom that comes through the gospel (and the gospel alone) leads inevitably to holiness (v.13), and not to license. I don’t think its stretching interpretation too far to read in between the lines, and see some of the concerns of the Judaisers in Chapter 5. It’s not hard to imagine the scenario: As they see it “Gentile sinners” (2v15) are coming into the fold. They come from a pagan culture that is probably characterised by the “acts of the sinful nature” listed in chapter 5 verses 19 to 21.

In that context, concerns for the purity of the church community and personal holiness are natural. How are these Gentiles - saved by faith - going to be motivated to “be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy” (Lev 19v2)?

For the Judaisers, the answer is supplementing faith with the Law – Legal observance will provide the appropriate restraints on the Gentiles’ behaviour. Although their concern a right one, their answer stems from a religious bent, and an anaemic gospel.

The answer for Paul is the Holy Spirit that accompanies faith – The fruit of the Spirit is holiness (the Spirit which is given to all those with faith in the gospel; 3v3-5). Having the Spirit is inconsistent with indulging the sinful nature because they are contrary to one another (5v16-17). With wry humour Paul tells us: against the fruit of the Spirit “there is no law”.

The established Biblical pattern is for people to be redeemed by God for freedom exercised in worship (Ex 7v16), and for the LORD himself to make his redeemed people holy (Ex 31v13). That pattern is fulfilled through faith in Paul’s gospel, as Christ sets us free and Holy Spirit makes us holy.

My question is: Are we more like the Judaisers than we care to admit?

Out of a right concern for holiness, do we wrongly create cultural boundary markers for the church? Boundary markers that function as “laws”… For all our words of “faith alone” & “grace alone”, are we in practice reliant on church culture to limit behaviour?... Is functional religiousity is shown where we act on externals? Outward constraints curtail the external expression of our sinful natures – wrong belief concealed behind right behaviour.

Do we have our, unspoken, but silently communicated “laws”? Is it fear of breaking step with a Christian subculture that deters Christians from returning to the patterns of their old lifestyles? Is the young convert pressured not to sleep with his girlfrend for fear of the disapproval of his new Christian peer group? Or is God’s grace in the gospel teaching him to say no to ungodliness and wordly passions? (Titus 2v12).

Are we proclaiming a gospel that “takes the punishment I deserve” (full stop)? Or a gospel that calls people to “the obedience that comes through faith”? (Rom 1v5)… A gospel word through which the Holy Spirit works to transform us into the likeness of Christ?... Paul’s gospel which presents a new identity in Christ and calls believers to live out that identity?

That Paul is so emphatic in condemning those who supplement the Gospel with legal observance makes me more than a little uncomfortable!

Would small States work in a society where social "shame" is not common?

I've been reading Jam's post "Imagining the Future" (read about it here) - which raises the question of what the world might look like if we challenged some of our assumptions and shrank the state.

The imagining looks at shifting responsibility for much outside law enforcement and civil defence away from the state. So responsibility for social provision and shared amenities is passed to local communities. These would operate effectively as co-operatives on areas of common interest (refuse collection, street lighting, street maintenance, hospital care,...). 

I like the analogy of flat owners who share the freehold. Some will opt out of decisions taken, they'll refuse to pay for the new roof even though they benefit. however, in general most people will go along with the decisions of the group (because otherwise the embarrassment of meeting in the lift would be too much to bear).

While not buying into the imagined picture necessarily it raises some interesting questions. One key question for me is: what (in the small state system) are the driving forces that will lead (self-interest) individuals to behave in "desirable" ways? Why would they ever allocate their resources and relational capital in ways that are preferable to the current state-sponsored arrangements.

The new forces will need to be the "carrot" of (common) self-interest and the "big stick" of shame. The big change that comes with shrinking the state is that the stick changes from legislative enforcement (taxation at source, fines, bailiffs, imprisonment) to the social shame of non-compliance. 

For the new stick to work, it requires that a selfish individual finds bumping into their fellow freeholder in the lift so unbearable without having paid for the new roof that they feel compelled to do so. 

How can shame be effective to motivate compliance?

What constitutes shame for an person depends upon the cultural and community context of the individual (what is shameful in London and Tokyo are very different). To feel ashamed under the gaze of the community I have "wronged" I need to 

- care what they think of me and my actions, and/or 

- agree with their assessment. 

That requires a degree of relational connectedness (for me to care emotionally what other members of the community thinks, or fear the sanction that comes from wronging the community), and/or a degree of cultural/ethical agreement (I share the view of the community that something is right (or wrong) and therefore do (or don't) do it).

Without those, in a whole variety of cases the rewards for co-operation at the level of the individual will tend to be less than the rewards for taking advantage of the community. In other words, no one would rationally co-operate (e.g. Why would you cough up to fix the roof unless you live on the top floor?).

For co-operative social provision to work in a world of selfish individuals, and for it to be stable long term, then the contraction of the State would need to go hand-in-hand with the creation of communities that are sufficiently relationally, functionally and ethically connected for shame to have power as a "big stick" to enforce acknowledged social goods.

So your culture can no longer be transient, pluralist and individualistic. To change that will take more than legislation.

(Note: Robert Axelrod's "Evolution of Co-operation" is interesting in this area. How ought individuals in community to rationally play repeated games of the Prisoner's Dilemna).

Pensions - am I burying my talents in the ground?

“But the man who had received the one talent went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master's money” - Matthew 25v18

I was chatting recently with a couple of guys from the States which set me thinking about Christian Venture Capital (all be it via a slightly circuitous route!).  (You can read Andy Mason's reflections on the same conversation here). Along with many Acts 29ers, these guys place a much higher priority behind "loving the city" than many UK Christians would culturally.  In this case, their church community is active in business.  As churches they are establishing businesses which help fund gospel ministry, and whose activities "seek the peace and prosperity of the city" (Jer 29v7).  There was an article in EN a while back about a window cleaning business in Oxford serving the unemployed/assylum seekers.  But I don't hear much about that sort of thing among British evangelicals.  It doesn't tend to have much of a place or priority in the way we "do church" or make career decisions. 

It set me thinking about what a Christian response is to Pension investment and Christian Venture capital... 

My pension assets (such as they are) are looked after by two well known asset managers. They invest the capital (on my behalf) in the shares of National and International companies.  In 30-40 years time - if Jesus hasn't returned - I'll be asking for that money back to keep my wife and I. In the meantime, my pensions savings provide capital to companies that are "well run" (according to my fundmanagers criteria) and are (at best) "ethical" (as the fundmanager defines it).  Corporately & publicly, the gospel is wholly absent as a driver for their actions.  These companies operate so as to protect and advance the interests of their stakeholders - interests which are not necessarily concerned for the cause of the marginalised, the widow or the orphan.  They do not give money more than is necessary to tick the "social responsibility" box, and never without taking their eye off the after-tax bottom line.  They are in every case explicitly secular pluralists in the way they dispense that money.  They do not seek to "love the city".  It should be obvious that they do not connect with local church ministries, nurture the communities within which they sit, place a high price on "relational" capital... In a nutshell, these companies do not operate while continually applying and reapplying the test: "Does this [decision/action] bring glory to Jesus Christ?". 

And (as things stand) I'm investing my money in these companies for the next 30+ years...  That is how my pension "talents" are being put to work.  Partly because I am unthinking, partly because there are scant alternatives.  Either way, if Jesus returns before my 65th Birthday (and possibly even if he doesn't), the conversation could be slightly tricky! 

So, how might you go about making pension arrangements differently?   

Prudence demands you'd need a portfolio of businesses spanning a range of sectors and localities.  (Just as my fundmanager hasn't put all his eggs in one basket, I don't want to be relying on the 30 year performance of a single local window cleaning business to keep me in my dotage!).  Plus, in order to make it available to Jo Christian to invest in, it would need to comply with all of the regulation/oversight that investment funds do.   

In and of itself, the second of those shouldn't be hard.  You'd just need to assemble a group of Biblically thought through, prayerful men and women who combined a few defined skills: 

- some Venture Capitalists (with experience at kicking the tyres of business plans, valuaing and investing in businesses,...).   

- some Asset Managers (who understand that world, and could advise on what to do with capital that was awaiting an investment opportunity) 

- some lawyers/accountants/Financial Advisors (to ensure regulatory compliance, and that the whole thing was above reproach 

- some (more) Financial Advisors (to look after distribution*). 

- some pastor-theologians (to preserve the vision/focus, and connections with local Christian communities)

Together they could establish and operate a Christian venture capital fund!  I'm guessing central London churches are awash with such people.  

A totally different kind of investment...

How awesome would it be to receive a quarterly investment report that provided both a report of the financial bottom line (valuations, income/ cashflow statements,...) and also a report on the spiritual and social goods being facilitated.  Imagine a piece of paper dropping on the doormat that included "The sandwich business you are invested in is making X on turnover of Y, with encouraging new initiative Z still in development.  The shop is being used to host an English as a foreign language course for the Kurdish immigrants who work there and the surrounding community.  Not only that, but that has led into a simple English evangelistic course being run for employees and customers after hours... Please partner with us in praying that initiative Z will to help grow the business in the coming months, and for spiritul fruitto come  from the evangelistic course. " Now - for me - that beats a few pie charts!

Why aren't we doing it already?

However, the operative constraint would be businesses to invest in.   To build a portfolio of suitable investments, you'd need a portfolio of entrepreneurial individuals with a vision for business that connects with the city and with the church.** Where are those individuals? Are our churches looking to envision, connect, equip, support and celebrate them?

So were this to be tried (and I'm up for giving it a go!), I suspect you'd end up with a portfolio heavily biased towards real estate investments (new church offices, buildings for church plants, christian training establishments,...). Why? Because we are "entrepreneurial" in the way we do word ministry.  So while it would facilitate those enterprises (which might be reason enough to set one up tomorrow!), simply raising capital wouldn't better enable us to "love the city" in the Jeremiah 29 sense.  Real estate alone won't create Christian contexts within which the disenfranchised could work, experience community and be empowered... The young woman with learning difficulties still wouldn't find an offer of productive work in an atmosphere where a person's value is separate from their gifted-ness...   

Sadly, a Christian Venture Capital fund would probably find it much easier to raise capital than it would to identify suitable projects to invest in.   Corporately, Christian community is not furthering businesses of this kind, not because we lack the capital, but because we lack the vision.   Still, some capital would be a start...  Any volunteers?

*There is already an organisation of Christian financial advisors http://www.christianfinancialadvisers.org.uk who (to judge by the website) look to combine scriptural and professional advice on saving and investments.  How great would it be if they had investments to present that used those talents?.

**(There are organisations that do this kind of thing.  I was hearing last night about www.spearcourse.org which looks to equip young people for employement, and then potentially plug folks into businesses run by Christians. Why aren’t there more?)