The Naked Gospel | a review
Saturday, 1 May 2010
The Naked Gospel by Andrew Farley, a reaction to Christian-legalism. The author grew up in an environment where he would feel compelled to do. He describes getting out of bed at night, to ‘witness’ at the gas station, so he check the box and go back to sleep.
It is from that hyper-works based system in the background that he jumps ship and finds himself, at the polar opposite. He describes it as ‘Jesus plus nothing.’ In this basic sense, while we are talking about our justification before God, he is right. Our status before God isn’t based on a performance review, rather our identity is found in Christ alone. Though he then takes this concept and tries to wash away much of the Bible.
He uses the texts of Hebrews (focusing on the Old/New covenant divide), Romans 6 (focusing on the concept of death to sin, rebirth into Christ), among other similar passages which focus on this transition from old to new. What Farley does though, is make this transition absolute, with no looking back. We can not look to anything written before Christ’s resurrection to understand our identity today. As he explains, everything before that event (even Christ’s own teaching!) is based in an understanding of the law. With the resurrection everything changes, our salvation is found in this new identity, therefore we can’t look back to the law. The law, as he explains, is only meant to show us our sin and lead us to Jesus. He even describes the gospel accounts of Jesus in this same way. Jesus is talking one way before Friday, then another way after Sunday, essentially.
While I agree with his central premise, our salvation is only found in faith in God’s work in the death & resurrection of Jesus, but how he gets there & then where he goes with it I think is very wrong.
Let me discuss a few of the larger issues I had with this book.
The initial question that follows when we through out the law, well how are we supposed to live if not by the law. He answers this simply by saying the Holy Spirit is the means by which we are guided. While I think this is true, should we not ‘fact check’ that against scripture. His dismissal of the law, becomes problematic around this issue also. Taking his argument that the law is meant to show our need for God’s salvation—don’t you think reading the law in how to live can guide us, whereby we see our need of God to fulfill what we are called to be.
The missional aspect of the gospel is completely lacking from this account. Sadly he has made this ‘Jesus plus nothing’ into a very personal salvation. There is no call, no discipleship, no proclamation. In the very last line of the book he says,
So have you been awakened to how good we have it on this side of the cross?
If so, there’s really only one sensible thing to do.
Thank God. (p.219)
Hmm…can we just take a moment and think about the word ‘gospel’. I mean it is in the title, so hopefully we are under the understanding that it is a good news, a good news which is to be proclaimed. Think about how differently Matthew concludes his book,
Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (Matt 28:16-20)
Thanking God is definitely part of what we do after we receive that new life, but it doesn’t stop there. It seems the author is happy to let it stop there. On my reading, it seems the author is making the Christian life one of freedom from the law and a life following the Spirit. Well yes, but what does that entail? He enjoys the book of Hebrews, but he failed to describe Hebrews 11, 12 where the author of Hebrews lays out what faith is.
It seems the author is reacting to a harsh experience with a negative church experience and is instead offering a cheap grace. Here take this salvation, nothing is required of you, nothing to do or worry about. This isn’t really what any of the Bible describes life under the covenant {new or old} as.
Lastly I would wonder what parts of the Bible can we keep. Obviously, the Pentateuch is out (except maybe Genesis 1-3, since that has the important science & sin account), the Prophets are probably out too since they explain seeking God as among other things as obedient following His law, Psalms probably (definitely Ps. 119, since it’s an ode to the law) can be counted out too, we should probably just throw out the Writings like Proverbs and the like also, since they all take Torah observance as the underlying normative narrative.
I wonder about the New Testament also. He dismisses everything Jesus says before his resurrection. He describes it as doing what the law does; Jesus’ teaching is to point them to their need of his life giving resurrection to come. Though it is curious in that the gospels we written after his resurrection; they were at least partly inspired and definitely understood under the rubric of the resurrection. So wouldn’t they not include something of value for the believer?
While I can agree in his desire to move believers & non-believers alike to an understanding of God that doesn’t involve a ‘do good to make God happy with me’ salvation plan. Though his path towards that objective end seems problematic at best. I would definitely desire a presentation of the gospel and the subsequent life of the believer with very different terms. We need to make sense of the law as New Covenant believers, though not by means of simply throwing it out. We need to make better sense of our connection to the Old Testament and the people of the Book. Finally understanding our place and purpose within Christ and his life giving sacrifice.
No. 1 — May 1st, 2010 at 2:40 pm
I also thought Farley’s argument was thoroughly antinomian, though he claimed that he was not an antinomian. I also thought the exegetical work on a number of Scripture passage lacked strength. Far too often I was given a proof text that, put in proper context, wasn’t applicable to the matter at hand.
Thanks for this review.
No. 2 — May 1st, 2010 at 3:34 pm
OPENING COMMENTS:
Below are some quotes from “The Naked Gospel” on the value of the Old Testament and the importance of behavior verses in Scripture. Large portions of the book are devoted to rejecting sin, living uprightly, and understanding behavior verses in context. One of the final chapters of the book is entirely devoted to upright living in light of the gospel.
As for the role of the law in the life of a Christian, the Bible clearly teaches that we are “dead to the law”, “free from the law”, “not under the law”, not under the “supervision of the law”, and that “Christ is the end of the law” for all of us who believe.
If we Christians were to use the law to define sin for ourselves today, then Saturday yard work and eating pork sandwiches would be sin. The reality is that we are free from the law but have hundreds of New Testament behavior verses directed at the church today to show us the New Covenant view of sin and how to live uprightly in dependency on Christ.
Nevertheless, the Old Testament is God’s Word and should be interpreted in context. For example, most of us eat pork and mow lawns on Saturday, so we have obviously concluded that some Old Testament Scriptures do not apply to us. This is common sense in light of the cross, not controversial. (In addition, most of us are Gentiles and were never given the Jewish law to begin with. We were “without hope” and had “no covenant” and were “excluded from the commonwealth of Israel” – see Ephesians 1-2).
Living godly lives is precisely what Scripture teaches us. This is spelled out clearly in The Naked Gospel. But wherever the grace of God is taught, there will always be those who misinterpret it and say, “Should we just go on sinning so that grace may increase?” (Romans 6). The answer to that question is a resounding, “No!”, and that is precisely the answer given in The Naked Gospel.
I am encouraged when I see a review that misinterprets my view of grace as being a license to sin. This means I have clearly portrayed the forgiveness and love of God as being unconditional. It is unconditional.
But it is also God’s grace that motivates us to live godly lives (Titus 2:11-12).
—-
QUOTE 1: The Value of the Old Testament as God’s Inspired Word
“In the Old Testament, we find out how the universe came into existence. We read of the fall of the human race. We learn why there’s so much evil in the world. We experience the history of God’s interactions with his people. We see his faithfulness despite their faithlessness. We see God’s prophets at work and God’s mercy on display. We learn about what God calls wisdom and how it differs from humans’ sense of the same. Finally, we discover early indications of the coming Messiah, and we understand more fully how Jesus fulfilled prophecy.
The Old Testament offers us something we can’t get from the New. It provides a thorough background in how God initiated a relationship with humankind and how we did whatever we could to ruin this relationship. The work of Christ has far greater impact against the backdrop of how despicably the human race has acted toward God. How gracious our God has been over the course of human history!
We also can’t forget that the promise of the New has its root in the Old. God told Abraham that through his seed (Jesus), Abraham would be the father of many nations. The promise that salvation would come to many nations was given in the Old Testament long before the law.
To disregard the Old Testament is like covering up a huge portion of a portrait God has been painting for thousands of years. But it’s important to read and teach from the Old Testament while keeping it in context.”
—
QUOTE 2: The Importance of Behavior Passages in Scripture:
“Behavior passages foretell our destiny. It makes sense to seek them out and crave them, since they quench our thirst for conformity to Jesus Christ. They’re a road map for saving time and expressing who we really are. And as we live out who we really are, we experience peace.
We can concoct all kinds of doctrines and motivations for upright living. But the only thing that really matters is the new creation. And as we focus on our newness and Christ’s presence within us, our behavior changes.”
No. 3 — May 3rd, 2010 at 11:18 am
Andrew-the problem with your view is in the 2000 year Great Christian Tradition it is defined classically as antinomianism. To reject the entire old covenant law as having no ability to guide us once we are in Christ is simply wrong and needs to be rejected. For example-the old testament law requires us not to marry our sister! According to your view to require someone to follow this law if it were allowed would be legalism. There are many OT laws as Walter Kaiser and others point out that can guide us in the process of discipleship and knowledge of what is good that compliment new covenant teaching. The New testament is not comprehensive and much of the Old Testament law can supplement the commands in the new!
No. 4 — May 4th, 2010 at 10:02 am
Below are just a few Scriptural facts concerning the Christian’s relationship to the Law:
1) We Christians died to the Law. (Romans 7:4; Galatians 2:19)
2) We Christians are not under the Law. (Galatians 5:18; Romans 6:14)
3) We Christians are not supervised by the Law. (Galatians 3:25)
4) We Christians are not perfected by the Law. (Galatians 3:2-3)
5) We Christians shouldn’t even live by rules. (Colossians 2:20-23)
I think we should read the passages above carefully. If we consider ourselves to be of the intellectual, theological elite, we should read them even slower.
Now, what kind of relationship do you think we Christians should have with the Law?
To claim that the Law is intended to guide a Christian’s daily life requires a re-writing of Scripture. Essentially, it requires taking all of the above passages and adding the phrase “for salvation only” to each one. Examples of this rewriting of Scripture would be: “we died to the law for salvation only,” “we are not under the Law for salvation only,” etc. These theological gymnastics simply display our lack of confidence in Jesus for every ounce of daily living.
It is a shame that this basic Scriptural view is sometimes mislabeled as antinomianism. But categorize-label-dismiss is a common human tendency; we all do it.
The true definition of antinomianism (anti-law) is that the law is evil or sin: “What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not!” (see Roman 7:7). But, today, someone who simply holds to the Scriptures listed above about our freedom from law may be mis-labeled as antinomian.
The believer’s total freedom from law should be normal and commonplace, not controversial. In fact, it is those who abandon the old way of the law that truly respect it! Everyone else is picking and choosing from the 613 laws to make it palatable and convenient for themselves. This is disrespectful to the Law.
Wanna wear polyester? Delete that one. Wanna work on Saturday? Delete that one. Wanna eat shrimp? Delete that one. And so it goes as we conveniently pick and choose some moral laws to keep our behavior in check. All the while, Jesus is telling us that the fruit of the Spirit is enough and “against such things there is no law.” (Galatians 5:23b).
God’s grace teaches us to live godly, upright lives free of immorality:
“For the grace of God… teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age.” (Titus 2:11-12).
Finally, we need to examine the opposite idea. And here’s what we find – there is no verse in any New Testament epistle that tells us that Christians should have an ongoing relationship with the law. In fact, it says quite the opposite. Romans 7 tells us that we died to the law and are now married to Jesus. Any return to law for daily living is spiritual adultery – cheating on Jesus.
This should be normal Christian thought, not controversial. The misunderstanding of “beginning by the Spirit” for salvation and then turning to the law after “beginning by the Spirit” was precisely what angered the Apostle Paul, prodding him to say, “You Foolish Galatians.”
Two thousand years later, I’m afraid we are not doing much better:
“Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.” (Romans 10:4)
APF
No. 5 — May 4th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
Andrew-you state in the Naked Gospels that the epistles have multiple “behaviour verses”. Where do you think the apostles got these verses from? The moral ethics of the Mosaic Law! I’m sure if a brother and sister married in the 1st century church-Paul would have no problem quoting the Torah on why this is wrong. Of course we live out our identity in Christ and the spirit fulfills the law, etc. but to make the claim the old testament law has nothing, zero, etc. to guide the church in issues of justice, in how New Creations in Christ are to express the Divine Life, etc. is just plain wrong! It’s clear the apostles did the very thing you advocate we can not do, they applied Old Testament law to the reality of injustice, sinfulness, etc. that existed in the church.
No. 6 — May 4th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Again-For example-the old testament law requires us not to marry our sister! According to your view to require someone to follow this law if it were allowed would be legalism.
No. 7 — May 4th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
Thoughts on Selective Obedience:
Leviticus 20:17 says to refrain from having relations with your sister. Just one verse later, Leviticus 20:18 says not to lay down with a menstruating woman or even uncover her nakedness. Just one chapter earlier, Leviticus 19:19 says, “Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.”
This is precisely why we (as Christians, and as Gentiles who were never given the law!) should not look to Old Testament law as a guide. If we do, we inevitably resort to….
**selective obedience**
Why obey verse 17 but not verse 18? Why obey chapter 20 but not chapter 19? We become “God” as we pick-and-choose and engage in selective obedience. In addition, most of us are Gentiles who were never given the law. We were “without hope” and “without God” and “excluded from the commonwealth of Israel” (see Ephesians 1-2).
The truth is simpler than us taking on a picking-and choosing role and engaging in selective obedience. Here’s the simple truth: We are free from the law, so that we serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the old way of the law (Romans 7:6). The Old Covenant is now obsolete (Hebrews 8:13) and weak and useless (Hebrews 7:18).
All Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, but the question is *how* do you teach it. We should teach the Old in light of the fact that Jesus set us free from the law.
There is a surprise ending to the history of God’s interaction with humanity – the cross – and it changes everything!
Jesus plus nothing,
APF
No. 8 — May 7th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
Andrew & Glenn thank you both for your thoughtful comments. I have been thinking about this topic all week. Andrew I am being to see what you are trying to say, though I still feel like there is something that is missing from this account of the law. Let me do my best to spell it out or at least sketch out some paths into it.I have recently listened to some lectures on the Decalogue from Wheaton College; some really great perspectives on theologians through the last 2000 years. One of the things that came up numerous times, was this connection between natural law & the decalogue. The opinions we across the board and I myself don’t have an exact opinion on it either, but interestingly and important for this discussion is the thought of some that the Decalogue was simply the spelling out of what man already knew–something Romans 1 seems to say. Following Romans 1, the Decalogue was needed because sin has corrupted man’s ability to see what is right, was is true, how to live. If we take this as true then we must see that there is something timeless within the whole of the Torah, which Paul’s statements about our death to the law doesn’t apply to.Karl Barth held to an understanding that Revelation was a single thing, though it had many forms; he tied this understanding to our understanding of the Trinity. If this is true, then the same Revelation in the Law as in Christ. So this points to one way of reading the Law–Christological, it points to Jesus’ needed work on the cross to cover sins that couldn’t be absolved any other way.The Naked Gospel does a good job of pointing out this use of the scripture, it shows us perfection which we can’t meet, therefore we need a Savior and an act of grace to cover our deficiencies.
But to go back to Barth idea of a single Revelation–that of God to man–the law gives a beautiful picture of who God is. This is the beauty that Ps. 119 speaks of; having read through Pentateuch recently, I can attest to this personally. The Law has a moving picture of God–this revelation of God must still be there, are we going to say that Ps. 119 is wrong the believer because it is a source of death for them, their life is in Christ now?
No of course not. Paul is speaking of the Law in a certain sense–as the giver of salvation. I don’t love the Law because it saves me, I love the Law because it points to God. So yes I am dead to the Law; I don’t seek my salvation in the Law. But I still delight in the revelation that is found in it.
To read the opening of the Decalogue stirs my soul, I am the Lord God who brought you out of Egypt, you shall have no other Gods before me. Is that not the whole of the gospel!? Or as Jesus spoke, stand up and walk, go and tell the people what has happened to you. Go and sin no more because I don’t judge you…
One last way to read and understand the Law. This is the one that I think is causing us the most trouble. John Wesley saw within the Decalogue, Jesus–He fulfilled the law. So by looking at the law we are able to see the reflection of Christ from it. It then follows as Wesley understood it, that if we strive to follow its precepts we would be following Christ. This is not to say that salvation was found through this, but the road of sanctification.
Andrew thanks again for your responses. I hope to hear from you again.One last question for you. I mentioned this in the original review but didn’t hear a response on the missional character of the gospel. I don’t remember seeing this in the book, if I’m wrong please refer me to the correct passages. If not I love for you to weigh in on why the missional aspect–such a, I believe, central part–was not included. I know you struggled with evangelism during your legalism days, how have you reintegrating the proclamation aspect of the gospel into your life & theology?
No. 9 — May 7th, 2010 at 6:06 pm
1. the law is indeed a shadow (symbol, picture) of things to come, but not the reality. The reality is found in Christ (Hebrews).
2. “striving to follow the precepts of the law for sanctification” is nowhere to be found in the New Testament. It is precisely this thinking that angered Paul (see Galatians 3). It is spiritual adultery and is way off base.
3. the book itself is evangelistic, and is saving many.
apf
No. 10 — May 28th, 2010 at 12:32 am
I also thought Farley’s argument was thoroughly antinomian, though he claimed that he was not an antinomian. I also thought the exegetical work on a number of Scripture passage lacked strength. Far too often I was given a proof text that, put in proper context, wasn’t applicable to the matter at hand.
Thanks for this review.