We Believe ...

Last term, one of the students in our fellowship asked me about a group calling themselves 'The International Church of Christ'. A friend of hers had got involved with them, and she was worried by what she heard. She was right to be worried. 'The International Church of Christ' is a cult, and here's what one ex-member wrote about them: "Towards the end of my first year [at university] a friend… invited me to his church for a Sunday service. I thought I would go, as I fancied myself as being open and experimental. After the service he then suggested we study the Bible together and I then met with him regularly, as well as going to church on Sundays and to other mid-week meetings. The people impressed me with their strict sense of morality, conviction about the Bible and their commitment… Although other people had warned me about… the group, my friend was insistent about our meeting together to study… He showed me such care and love that it was hard to say 'No'. Eventually, because I become convinced that the teachings were true, I was baptised and became a member… Soon after I was baptised, I discovered that many of the church meetings were compulsory. Not only were special events mandatory, but so were retreats, evangelism, morning quiet times, Bible discussions, conferences… and of course, financial contributions."

And the words which struck me were 'compulsory' and 'mandatory'. Things you're told you have to do in order to get in and stay in. So to get in, you have to submit to their baptism - even if you've already been baptised - because theirs is the only 'proper' baptism. And to stay in, you have to live the way they tell you. And it's very unsettling when you meet people from those kind of cults. To be told you're not a real Christian because you haven't jumped through their hoops and you don't do things their way. It can shake your assurance about where you really stand with God. In fact it raises the question: what is the church? And what's the basis of membership? And we're going to let Galatians 2.11-16 answer those questions.

Galatians was written by the apostle Paul to Gentiles in the area of Galatia who'd come to faith in the Lord Jesus. And before we get into the verses, it's important to understand what Paul means when he talks about 'Jews' and 'Gentiles'.

Before the coming of Jesus, God had revealed himself over the period of the Old Testament [OT] to one group of people - the nation of Israel, or the Jews. And God took the initiative in that. They didn't earn their way into relationship with him by keeping the law. God rescued them from slavery in Egypt, brought them into relationship with himself, and then gave them this whole package called 'the law' so that they knew how to relate to him in response. Part of the law was basically God saying, 'Be like me' - eg, 'You shall not bear false witness' (God is truthful; people in relationship with him must be truthful). Part of the law was basically God saying, 'Don't be like them' - 'them being the other nations around. So that included various markers to make Israel different - eg, circumcision and the kosher food laws. And part of the law was basically provision for failure - the sacrifices at the temple were the way people could approach God for forgiveness when they sinned.

Now that period of one nation relating to God through that whole package called 'the law' was only meant to be temporary. It was simply to get people ready for Jesus, so that when he came, they'd understand who he was, and why he had to come to die for us. So with the coming of Jesus, everything changed.

Before his coming, there were two groups of people in the world. There were the Jews. They had the OT in their hands. They knew what God had revealed about himself. And they lived by this whole package of 'the law' Eg, they circumcised themselves and only ate certain types of food. Not all of them had personal faith in God - within the circle of the Jews was a smaller circle of those with faith. But the point is this. In order to have a relationship with God, you had to come inside that circle. You had to become a Jew. If you were a Gentile - outside that circle - you had no way of coming into relationship with God.

But what about now Jesus has come? The heart of the apostles' gospel was this: the way to be put right with God is by faith in Jesus alone. Whether you're culturally a Jew or a Gentile - whoever you are - now that Jesus has come, that's how you're brought into relationship with God. Faith in Jesus alone. Nothing more.

No other way. Now Galatians mentions two of the leading apostles - Peter and Paul. Peter mainly preached that gospel to Jews. And Paul mainly preached it to Gentiles. And on one occasion they met together with the other leaders to ensure that they were all saying the same thing. Paul describes that meeting in Galatians 2.1f. Look at 2.7.

On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews.

Ie, there was agreement on the gospel. Now, one place where Paul had preached and a church had begun was a town called Antioch. (Acts 11.9f), where many Gentiles had come to faith in Jesus. And Peter came to visit the church at Antioch, and that's what Galatians 2.11f is about. And what happened in Antioch teaches some huge lessons about the church - what the true church is, and what makes you a member. It takes a bit of work to see what happened and what were the implications, but it's well worth it when you begin to see what it all means for us today. So,


First, WHAT HAPPENED? (vv11-12)

What happened was that the apostle Peter made a very big mistake - which put both the gospel and the church in jeopardy. This is how Paul tells it. 2.11:

When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. (vv11-12)

So, when Peter first arrived in Antioch, he ate with these Gentile believers. He said to himself, 'That whole period of relating to God through the law was temporary. I don't have to keep food laws any more and nor do they. So I'll eat with them, and eat what they eat, to show that I accept them just as they are, because God accepts them just as they are.' So he tucked in to the sausage rolls and the bacon butties and so on. But then, v12, 'certain men came from James'. James was one of the other leading apostles back in the mainly Jewish church in Jerusalem. We don't know exactly who these 'certain men' were or, end of v12, who exactly the 'circumcision group' were. But it's clear from Galatians that they were people who reckoned that you couldn't really be one of God's people unless you were circumcised and kept the Jewish laws - like the food laws. And Peter, v12, was afraid of them - afraid of their opinion. So, v12, 'he drew back and separated himself from the Gentiles.' Which probably seemed a small thing to him at the time. But Paul saw that the implications were massive. So,


Secondly, WHAT WERE THE IMPLICATIONS OF WHAT HAPPENED? (vv12-14)

Well, Peter had effectively denied the gospel by his actions. Verse 12:

Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles…

One moment he's in fellowship with his Gentile fellow-believers. The next minute, he's drawn a line around himself, between them and him. And the implication is: unless they come inside his line, they don't really belong to God's people. Peter would never have thought that was what he was doing. But Paul sees the implications straight away. In v13, he says it's hypocrisy:

The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabus [one of Paul's close Jewish Christian colleagues] was led astray.

Hypocrisy is believing one thing and doing another. Joining the vegetarian society and eating meat, for example. So Paul is not saying Peter no longer believes the gospel. He knows Peter believes that people are put right with God by faith in Jesus alone. He knows that's why Peter had been eating with the Gentile believers. He's not saying Peter no longer believes the gospel. He's saying: Peter is no longer living out the implications of the gospel. He's not crying, 'Heresy' but 'Hypocrisy'. Verse 14:

When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel…

There are two ways to deny the gospel. You can deny the gospel by what you say (eg the ex-Bishop of Durham denying the bodily resurrection of Jesus). That's heresy. But we can also deny the gospel by what we do, - when what we're like as a church is not in line with the gospel. That's hypocrisy. Verse 14 again:

When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, 'You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile, and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

Ie, 'You're a Jew. But you know that a person is put right with God by faith in Jesus alone. You know we're now free from all those Jewish laws that were designed to mark us out. You know all that Jewish culture was temporary. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to adopt all that Jewish culture?'

Well, if you'd been Peter, you might have said, 'I'm not forcing the Gentiles to do anything.' But in reality, he was.

To begin with, he was in fellowship with the Gentile believers. There he was, Peter the Jewish Christian, with Paul and Barnabus and various other Jewish Christians, eating with his Gentile fellow-Christians. Which said loud and clear that he believed people are put right with God by faith in Jesus alone: 'If you have faith in Jesus, you're in.' But then, we're told he drew back and separated himself from the Gentile believers. And the other Jews and even Barnabus joined him in his hypocrisy. And it leaves Paul and the Gentile Christians 'unchurched' - on the outside, left in the lurch. And effectively, Peter was forcing them to do something else apart from have faith in Jesus in order to belong. He'd re-drawn the boundary-line of the church, so that it was no longer faith in Jesus alone. But faith in Jesus plus something else - in this case, plus Jewish law-keeping. That has massive implications.

Unwittingly, Peter had just redefined the church and what makes you a member of the church. The gospel says - ie, God says - the church is everyone who has faith in Jesus alone (eg Galatians 3.26). The church is not a human organisation at all. It's the body of people which God creates as he brings folk to faith in his Son, as they hear the gospel (eg Galatians 6.15). But Peter, unwittingly, was saying the church is something narrower. Peter had created a narrower, human organisation, where in order to belong, it wasn't enough simply to have faith in Jesus alone. You had to jump through some other, human hoops, set for you by human leaders. So the very nature of the church was at stake here. Which is why Paul goes on to his third point:


Thirdly, WHAT IS THE TRUE BASIS OF MEMBERSHIP IN THE CHURCH? (vv15-16)

The answer is: faith in Jesus alone. Verse 15:

We who are Jews by birth, and not Gentile 'sinners' know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no-one will be justified. (vv15-16)

For the first time in this letter, Paul uses that word 'justified'. To 'be justified' means to have God declare you in the right with him. It's a legal word. If you're taken to court and tried and the judge acquits you, you're justified. It means no charges will be held against you. The Bible says God is our Judge and that our lives are not right in his sight. There are charges that ought to be held against us.

So the question is, how can we be justified? In every day life, there are two ways of being justified - ie, being declared in the right. One is the way of work. Eg, if you work for an exam and you get the answers right, the school or university will justify you - they'll declare you've got it right; they'll give you a 'Pass' certificate. That's justification by works. The other way is justification by forgiveness.

I played a game of football a while back where I brought this guy down with a terrible tackle. I apologised, and he said, 'Oh, you're all right.' He wasn't saying my tackle -ie my behaviour - was right. It was wrong. He was saying I was still in the right with him. He didn't hold it against me. I was forgiven. Justification by forgiveness. And since forgiveness has to be accepted by trusting someone's word that you are forgiven, you could also call that way justification by trust, or justification by faith.

When it comes to God, the only way we can be justified is that second way. Justification by forgiveness, or by faith. The first way, justification by works, is a non-starter because our works, our lives are never good enough. We deserve God's judgement not just at our worst, but even at our best. That's the point of v15. Paul says, 'We who are Jews by birth, and not Gentile 'sinners' - ie, we who have the law and try to keep it and who've led better lives than many others, v16, even we know that a man is not justified by observing the law [ie by works].' Why not? Because even our best isn't good enough by God's perfect standards. So how can we be justified? The answer is, part way through v16:

by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no-one will be justified.

It's pretty hard to miss the point. The way to be justified is: by faith in Jesus, and not by anything you do. Ie, by faith in Jesus alone.

So what exactly is 'faith in Jesus'? It's more than just believing that Jesus existed (like 'I believe in William the Conqueror'), although it includes that. And it's more than just believing that Jesus rose from the dead and is the Son of God, although it includes that. It's not just believing that certain things about Jesus are true. It's putting our faith in Jesus, trusting the Person himself. Just glance down to Galatians 2.20. Half-way through that verse, Paul spells out what he meant by 'faith in Jesus':

The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave himself up for me.

Ie, faith is relying on what Jesus did when he gave his life up for us on the cross. And over the page in Galatians 3.13, Paul spells that out. 3.13:

Christ redeemed us [ie paid the price to set us free] from the curse of the law [ie the judgement we deserve for breaking God's standards] by becoming a curse for us [ie, on our behalf], for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.

It's like if you were to take me out to a restaurant to treat me to a meal. At the end of the evening you discover you've forgotten your wallet. So I pay the bill on your behalf. Which means you don't have to pay, now or ever. You simply have to accept what I've done for you. So it is with God. God in his love has sent his Son to pay our judgement for us.

Which means we face a choice. Either we go on rejecting God and facing his judgement. Or, we accept his forgiveness in order to come back into relationship with him. And if we want to be justified, we simply have to accept what he's done. Ie, trust that Jesus' death brings us forgiveness. That's justification by faith. Relying on Jesus alone for forgiveness. And not relying at all on our own works to earn us God's acceptance - which they never can.

John Berridge was an 18th century Christian leader. He wrote about how he came to discover justification by faith for himself. He said that to begin with, he knew about Jesus but didn't rely on him for his acceptance with God. He says he 'used Jesus as a healthy man uses a walking stick' - swinging it in the air and occasionally putting a bit of weight on it. But then he realised that even his best 'work' was not good enough, not acceptable to God. He realised his whole life needed covering with forgiveness. And he wrote, 'Now, Christ is my whole crutch.' Ie, I rely entirely on Jesus to make me acceptable to God.

You may think that gets us a long way off the point of the church - what it is and what makes you a member. But it's right on the point. The point is: the church is not a human organisation at all. You don't get in by anything you do, but by Jesus bringing you in through what he's done. You get in by relying on Jesus alone for forgiveness. That's all that's required to be a member of God's church. So,


Fourthly, WHAT DOES ALL THIS MEAN FOR TODAY?

Five quick applications

1. We must see the church as God sees it.

The church is not the building. The church is not the denomination (the 'Church of England', the 'Baptist Church', etc). The church as God sees it is everyone who is justified by faith in Jesus. So imagine a group of, say, five local churches. The human eye sees five distinct groups, five membership circles ( = the 'visible church'). But God can see who really has faith in Jesus ( = the 'invisible church'), and who doesn't. He sees one circle - those who rely on Jesus. And that circle cuts across the other five, so that in each of the five 'visible churches', there will be believers and unbelievers. So, no one kind of local church can say, 'We're the only true church. Our particular flavour is the right one, and in order to be proper Christians, you ought to join us.' But it has to be said that the official teaching of the Roman Catholic church effectively says that.

2. We must each ask ourselves, 'Am I a member of God's church?'

In any local church, there are two types of people. There are those who attend, and those who rely on Jesus. And it's that second group who are members of God's church. Coming to services, taking communion, being confirmed or baptised, or jumping through any other membership hoops of a local church doesn't make you a member of God's church - only relying on Jesus does. (And baptism and confirmation are meant to be outward and visible signs that you are relying on Jesus). The trouble is, you can do all of those things - you can even get ordained and become a bishop - without ever personally relying on Jesus.

3. Those whom God has accepted, we must accept and adjust to

Peter was right in the first half of Galatians 2.12. 'He used to eat with the Gentiles.' He believed God had accepted them. So he knew he had to accept them and adjust to them. And it was a big adjustment. Gentile culture was very different from Jewish culture. And it would have been very uncomfortable for Peter as he adjusted to them for the sake of unity in the church. Which is true today. And church services bring that issue to the fore. Some people tell me how much they dislike these informal services. 'Do some people really enjoy them?' they ask. 'Yes,' I say. 'Do they really like this much informality?' they ask. 'Yes, and some would like three times as much,' I say. That's their culture. That's their background and taste. While other people ask me how anyone can enjoy the formality at the other end of the scale. That's just one example of the fact that those whom God has accepted, we must accept and adjust to. A church being true to the gospel will always be an uncomfortable place to be. We will always be putting ourselves out for the sake of others. When it comes to music, for example, the sign of getting this roughly right is that you displease all of the people some of the time.

4. We should not separate from others who are justified by faith in Jesus

Peter was right in the first half of v12 and wrong in the second half. The Reformers made a distinction between the gospel and what they called 'things indifferent'. Ie, things that are secondary to the gospel, things that are not part of the essential gospel, things which genuine Christians can disagree on while still being in fundamental agreement on the gospel. So eg, we can disagree about baptism. Should you or should you not baptise the children of believers? It's not the gospel. You can agree to disagree - even under the same roof. The gospel isn't lost. On the other hand, if something essential to the gospel is at stake, ultimately, it is right to separate, to draw a line between gospel-truth and error. Which is why the Reformers had to draw a line between themselves and the Roman Catholic Church. Because its official teaching denied - and still does - the truth, as Paul defines it, of justification by faith in Jesus alone.

5. A church should not require more of people for belonging than faith in Jesus

Peter was right when he recognised the church to be all those with faith in Jesus alone. He was wrong to create a situation when belonging required faith in Jesus plus something else. As I mentioned at the start, the cults are the best example of groups which add extra requirements - their own baptism, for example. But all churches have to be careful. For example, here at JPC we say at communion services that 'friends from other denominations are welcome to take part'. Ie, the only requirement for being involved is: faith in Jesus. You don't have to be a card-carrying, confirmed Anglican. If you did, we'd be requiring faith in Jesus plus something else. But churches have to be careful of the culture they create, as well as of their house rules. Some charismatic churches, for example, can make you feel you don't really belong, you're not really 'one of us', if you've not spoken in tongues or had experience X, Y or Z.

But then what about us? We must let God's word point the finger at us. Various people have said to me, 'It feels like you have to be an intellectual to belong to JPC.' I wonder if you agree. Does our church culture somehow say, 'In order to belong here, you have to have faith in Jesus, plus be a Financial Times reader (rather than a Sun reader)?' Or what about our international brothers and sisters? Do they think JPC is an unaccommodating British church? Do you have to be British to feel at home here? That would mean we're saying, 'You have to have faith in Jesus plus be culturally British.' Eg, do Chinese people with good English find they have go to the Chinese church because we don't adjust for them? That, in Paul's words, is 'not acting in line with the gospel.' And you could multiply examples of that 'culture' issue.

Let me sum up. What have we seen?

The church is not a human organisation at all, but created by God as people come to faith in his Son. The basis of membership is simply this: faith in Jesus alone. So what?

We must see the church as God sees it. We must ask ourselves, 'Am I a member of God's church?' Those whom God has accepted, we must accept and adjust to. We should not separate from those who are justified by faith in Jesus. A church should not require of people for belonging more than faith in Jesus.