Antinomnomnomianism
So the other day, Alli and I got a chance to listen to a splendidly heretical guest sermon by Drew Farley, author of the recent book God Without Religion
Now, in fairness, we knew going in that this was going to be at least somewhat heretical; the only real question was how much.
He didn't disappoint.
The topics of the sermon were, perhaps unsurprisingly, religion and how terrible it is. In context, this seemed to be specifically Christian religion, because the framing of his objections wouldn't really have been relevant to, say, Scientology. Most of the sermon consisted of a list of things that (he said) religion claims that you need for salvation, including:
-Particular gifts of the spirit
-Celebration of Jewish holidays
-Obedience to tradition
For reference, Farley's sermon was delivered in a church that's either nominally Baptist or until-recently nominally Baptist. Baptists have some tendency to be slaves to tradition - as in the historic bans on dancing, drinking, and dating girls who do - but gifts of the spirit? Many of the gifts of the spirit make us deeply suspicious. And I'm fairly sure we haven't celebrated the Feast of Tabernacles the last few years.
So that much was... odd, and seemed to be aimed at forms of religion that no one present actually practiced, but it wasn't strictly heretical. Sure, you don't need additional gifts. Check.
Then he added "obedience to the law." Aaaaand that's where things got fun.
Now, a very important part of Christianity is that we, as Christians are "no longer under law, but under grace." And to his credit, Farley correctly argued that much, using passages such as Colossians 2: "having cancelled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; [Christ] has taken it away... Therefore do not let anyone condemn you because of what you eat or drink... Why, as though you still belonged to this world, do you submit to its rules... These rules... are based on merely human commands."
Free of the bonds of tradition! Free of eternal condemnation! And to be judged by no human rule set.
Then he explained that one of those rules "based on merely human commands" was the Ten Commandments. "Only, we don't pay attention to the Sabbath anymore. So maybe it's just the nine commandments. No. No. There are no rules."
He left the follow-up conclusion "So murder is a-okay!" unspoken, but it's kind of unavoidable. There's a distinction between, "Our salvation is no longer dependent on rules" - which is true - and "It no longer matters whether we follow the rules," which, uh, isn't. "All those places where Paul says, Put on this, take off that," he said, "Put on, take off - it's like What Not To Wear. Paul is telling you what looks good on you - what's most fashionable."
No doubt Paul did believe that adultery was unfashionable. What makes this fascinating was the way the sermon entirely ignored the contents of the very next chapter: "Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. Because of these, the wrath of God is coming." Apparently, God takes fashion pretty seriously.
No mention of, say, Christ's commands to his followers.
A mention of, "Should we sin more, that grace may increase?" By no means!
The instructions to confront a brother who sins, and if need be put him from the church? Nah.
The need to buffet our bodies, to make them obedient? "The Bible says that he who began a good work in you will be faithful to complete it. So just... sit back, and let Jesus complete it."
The promises of rewards in Christ, or the declaration that the fires will consume some lives' work and refine others? "We think we're going to get these... these 'crowns.' You think your head is going to be weighed down with crowns, and you'll be so much better. *Pft*"
What, I think, it missed - it crucially missed - per my understanding of Christianity, was the following: Yes, we as Christians believe that Christ took the punishment for our sins - past, present, future. We are forgiven, and nothing can take us from that forgiveness.
But that means that Christ is punished for all our sins - those committed before our repentance, and those after. (Hence "where sin increased, grace increased all the more" - when we sinned under grace, grace extended to cover it as well.) And though our sin cannot be reckoned against us, it is still sin - and still reckoned against Christ on the cross.
And he calls it fashion?
I would have thought antinomianism - that is, anti-law heresy - was pretty well dealt with - but it seems like the classic heresies are having an upswing again. And I can kind of get it: people run into legalism somewhere along the way, and they write the whole idea of law off as a bad deal, armored with just a little seed of actual truth. And then they go back through and reinterpret everything in the light of this new revelation: this says ignore manmade laws? Must mean Scripture. That says 'Do this, do that?' Must be written to non-Christians.
The best example of this sort of forced-agenda reading came from Genesis. "The tree in the garden - the fruit was religion. And Adam and Eve wanted to know what to do. They ate the fruit because they wanted to do what was right. And what they got was religion."
Interesting stuff.
Now, in fairness, we knew going in that this was going to be at least somewhat heretical; the only real question was how much.
He didn't disappoint.
The topics of the sermon were, perhaps unsurprisingly, religion and how terrible it is. In context, this seemed to be specifically Christian religion, because the framing of his objections wouldn't really have been relevant to, say, Scientology. Most of the sermon consisted of a list of things that (he said) religion claims that you need for salvation, including:
-Particular gifts of the spirit
-Celebration of Jewish holidays
-Obedience to tradition
For reference, Farley's sermon was delivered in a church that's either nominally Baptist or until-recently nominally Baptist. Baptists have some tendency to be slaves to tradition - as in the historic bans on dancing, drinking, and dating girls who do - but gifts of the spirit? Many of the gifts of the spirit make us deeply suspicious. And I'm fairly sure we haven't celebrated the Feast of Tabernacles the last few years.
So that much was... odd, and seemed to be aimed at forms of religion that no one present actually practiced, but it wasn't strictly heretical. Sure, you don't need additional gifts. Check.
Then he added "obedience to the law." Aaaaand that's where things got fun.
Now, a very important part of Christianity is that we, as Christians are "no longer under law, but under grace." And to his credit, Farley correctly argued that much, using passages such as Colossians 2: "having cancelled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; [Christ] has taken it away... Therefore do not let anyone condemn you because of what you eat or drink... Why, as though you still belonged to this world, do you submit to its rules... These rules... are based on merely human commands."
Free of the bonds of tradition! Free of eternal condemnation! And to be judged by no human rule set.
Then he explained that one of those rules "based on merely human commands" was the Ten Commandments. "Only, we don't pay attention to the Sabbath anymore. So maybe it's just the nine commandments. No. No. There are no rules."
He left the follow-up conclusion "So murder is a-okay!" unspoken, but it's kind of unavoidable. There's a distinction between, "Our salvation is no longer dependent on rules" - which is true - and "It no longer matters whether we follow the rules," which, uh, isn't. "All those places where Paul says, Put on this, take off that," he said, "Put on, take off - it's like What Not To Wear. Paul is telling you what looks good on you - what's most fashionable."
No doubt Paul did believe that adultery was unfashionable. What makes this fascinating was the way the sermon entirely ignored the contents of the very next chapter: "Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. Because of these, the wrath of God is coming." Apparently, God takes fashion pretty seriously.
No mention of, say, Christ's commands to his followers.
A mention of, "Should we sin more, that grace may increase?" By no means!
The instructions to confront a brother who sins, and if need be put him from the church? Nah.
The need to buffet our bodies, to make them obedient? "The Bible says that he who began a good work in you will be faithful to complete it. So just... sit back, and let Jesus complete it."
The promises of rewards in Christ, or the declaration that the fires will consume some lives' work and refine others? "We think we're going to get these... these 'crowns.' You think your head is going to be weighed down with crowns, and you'll be so much better. *Pft*"
What, I think, it missed - it crucially missed - per my understanding of Christianity, was the following: Yes, we as Christians believe that Christ took the punishment for our sins - past, present, future. We are forgiven, and nothing can take us from that forgiveness.
But that means that Christ is punished for all our sins - those committed before our repentance, and those after. (Hence "where sin increased, grace increased all the more" - when we sinned under grace, grace extended to cover it as well.) And though our sin cannot be reckoned against us, it is still sin - and still reckoned against Christ on the cross.
And he calls it fashion?
I would have thought antinomianism - that is, anti-law heresy - was pretty well dealt with - but it seems like the classic heresies are having an upswing again. And I can kind of get it: people run into legalism somewhere along the way, and they write the whole idea of law off as a bad deal, armored with just a little seed of actual truth. And then they go back through and reinterpret everything in the light of this new revelation: this says ignore manmade laws? Must mean Scripture. That says 'Do this, do that?' Must be written to non-Christians.
The best example of this sort of forced-agenda reading came from Genesis. "The tree in the garden - the fruit was religion. And Adam and Eve wanted to know what to do. They ate the fruit because they wanted to do what was right. And what they got was religion."
Interesting stuff.