I preached this sermon at Ryker’s Ridge Baptist Church on the morning of November, 13 2011. In this message, I speak of Paul’s gracious calling as an apostle, his gracious welcome to the churches at Galatia, and his gracious warning to those who are believing and teaching a false gospel. Grace is something that characterizes Paul’s ministry, and it should ours as well.

I sincerely hope you benefit from this message!

SERMON: Grace to You and Peace – Galatians 1:1-10

This week, the opportunity to write an article for the local newspaper about Hanukkah came up. I looked forward to going to the local Jewish congregation (which I had no idea existed prior) to interview a retired teacher and Hebrew instructor. In addition to what I learned of Hanukkah (which Jesus himself celebrated in John 10:22-23) and its importance to Jews worldwide, I got some firsthand insight into Reformed Judaism.

Reformed Judaism is a liberal sect of modern Judaism prevalent in North America and Europe. While we didn’t have time to delve into the historical roots of this tradition, the little she did tell me was intriguing enough for a Christian.

“The thing about Reformed Judaism that people don’t understand is you don’t necessarily need faith,” she said.

I was aware of this position and she aware of mine as a Christian. I told her how most Christians, including myself, typically perceived Jews as adherents to the Old Testament; just without belief in Jesus as the Messiah. They’re puzzled that so many Jews are agnostics and even atheists.

Her reply was, “Jews are equally baffled that Christians feel obligated to adhere to scripture and doctrine which is more than likely mythological.”

“Why would anyone believe things that haven’t been proven true? I would like to believe in heaven or eternal life but I simply don’t know…..and the Old Testament isn’t very clear on the issue.” she said.

“The whole point of Reformed Judaism is simply to be good; nothing more.”

“We don’t have fear because there is no such thing as hell –we just try to do good. Just like you.”

I had only a limited amount of time with my interviewee and playing the apologist was practically and professionally out of the question. An hours-long discussion could have ensued; addressing all the issues but she had an appointment so we wrapped up the conversation and I left.

Here was a physical descendant of Abraham –as far from the Biblical patriarch as possible.

“For what does scripture say? Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” –Romans 4:3

“For the promise of Abraham to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith.” –Romans 4:13

Simply “be good”? For what? For whom?

If the Biblical accounts are mythological, if God may or may not exist, if heaven or hell is a false notion, then there’s little reason for any hope.

But then there’s Jesus.

He affirms the truth of the Old Testament, he clarifies the mystery of the afterlife saying, “…..Whoever believes in me will live even though he dies and whoever lives and believes in me will never die” –John 11:25-26.

He is the fulfillment of the promises and in him the fullness of deity dwells. He adopts us as children by faith.

“Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also..” –Romans 4:30

He doesn’t call  men to be good, but to believe.

The debates that led to the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century were not over minor details of theology. Of the debated issues, the doctrine of justification became the most divisive and controversial issue in the history of Christendom. R.C. Sproul is correct to point out that “both the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant Reformers understood that what was at stake in the controversy was nothing less than the Gospel itself.”[1] It was upon this conviction that Martin Luther, in his 1537 Schmalkaldic Articles, singled out the teaching of justification as “the article upon which the Church stands or falls.”[2] In similar fashion, John Calvin regarded justification sola fide as “the main hinge on which religion turns.”[3]

The Reformers of the Protestant Reformation were willing to face anathematization for their dissenting beliefs concerning justification.[4] Today, however, not everyone within Protestant circles are willing to take such a stand.[5] Some Evangelical leaders have referred to this doctrine as the “small print” of the Gospel, that it is “nothing more than a large misunderstanding,” and that the seemingly major issue of the sixteenth century is “no longer a matter of serious debate.”[6] In Evangelicals and Catholics Together, many scholars from both camps have agreed that there are “some differences within both the Evangelical and Catholic communities.” However, they have affirmed that, “All who truly believe in Jesus Christ are brothers and sisters in the Lord and must not allow their differences, however important, to undermine this great truth.”[7] [...]

Your individual identity, in a regional sense, is only fully realized when you reside somewhere outside your home (whether city, state or country).  In the Suriname interior, I’m often designated the “American boy” and even more inclusively as a “baaka” (foreigner).  It happens when you are the sole white person in a village of 3,000 black persons.  As so often exists, associations are invariably tied to stereotypes.  “Did you ever meet Michael Jackson?  Do you know Obama?”  With Maroons, and their understandably narrow worldview, opportunities to educate them (among other things) of the vastness of the U.S. in proportion to their country.

[...]

In a culture where sex is flaunted and success and money are the primary means for which people live their lives, it is only plausible that marriage would be placed on the back burner until later on in life.

Opposing worldviews give us more than substantial reason and provide more than a solid foundation for why 2 people disagree.  With multiple languages, ethnicities, cultures, philosophies, and religions alive in the world today, there are multiple frameworks, sometimes countless frameworks, in which people might approach truth issues.  But for Christians the Bible is the source of truth.  The Bible’s claim that its story is ‘the’ story is the foundational approach that Christians should take in all the decisions they make. 

Even about marriage.  Even about sex.  Even about being a husband, father, and leader.  Even about being a wife, mother, and nurturer.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 

• The median age at first intercourse is 16.9 years for boys and 17.4 years for girls.
• Over half of males (55%) and females (54%) ages 15 to 19 report having had oral sex with someone of the opposite sex.  Approximately one in 10 (11%) males and females ages 15 to 19 had engaged in anal sex with someone of the opposite sex; 3% of males ages 15 to 19 have had anal sex with a male.
• The percentage of high school students who report having had four or more sexual partners declined in recent years from 18% in 1995 to 14% in 2005. Males (17%) are more likely than females (12%) to report having had four or more sexual partners.
• Among those ages 20 to 24, males have a higher average number of partners (3.8) than females (2.8). Men in this age group are also more likely (30%) than women (21%) to report having had seven or more sexual partners.
• Approximately nine out of 10 men (89%) and women (92%) ages 22 to 24 have had sexual intercourse. 

• The average age of first marriage has risen by over a year for both men and women since 1990, reaching 26 for women and 27 for men in 2003, suggesting that many young people have sex before they are married.

In letting the statistics above speak for themselves, I am a strong advocate for young men and women dating intentionally for short periods of time and getting married early rather than later in life.

[...]

How do we know what the right thing to do is?  Is there a way to differentiate between right and wrong without a standard?  Speaking of the latter, when there is no standard for what is right and what is wrong morality then becomes relative to the mind, or eye, of the beholder.  Questions people ask when speaking of morality are:

• Is what is right for me concerning morality right for everybody?
• What about the tribe in South Africa who kill people for sport?  Are they right in doing so?
• Is murder in America okay to do?  If not, then why?
• Is the ‘law’ relative only to certain societies?
• What about other cultures who practice the abuse of women and discard baby girls in dumpsters?  Is that okay for their culture?
• Is murder in general wrong?
• Is homosexuality morally ethical?  If yes, why?  If no, why?
• Is there a difference between not obeying the speed limit and raping a young girl?
• Is sex, explored in relative ways, right for the individual partaking in it?

These are only a summary of questions one might ask when thinking through the topic of morality: what is right and what is wrong?  We must ask, “how do we know this?”

[...]

Step 3- Numinous Awe and Morality collide

Finally, we have come to the third step that Lewis believes every religion experiences at its foundation. We would do well to note that this is the final step according to his calculations that every religion experience, and the fourth step is saved for Christianity alone. To recap, the first step was the innate sense of awe towards a numinous (supernatural) reality that is different and alien to human. The second step was the observation that every people set for themselves a moral standard in which everyone under the standard fail at some point producing guilt. Now, we come to the start of a religion: the collision of steps one and two.

[...]

Step Two- The Presence of Morality and Guilt

The next step in C.S. Lewis’s road to religion is morality. If you remember, Lewis observes that every major religion has three steps at its foundation. Then, Lewis goes on to say that Christianity has a fourth step that sets it apart and gives validity to Christianity that no other can claim.

But let’s get back to this second step. There is no connection between the first step of numinous awe and this second observation of morality. In fact, every people that has lived (religious or not) has possessed some sort of system within their being that is expressed in the sense of “I ought” or “I ought not.” Lewis is not concerned here if the laws among people are similar or different, the important thing is that there is some form of foundational sense of right or wrong that has characterized man from the beginning. Lewis also states that, “Morality, like numinous awe, is a jump [an unexplainable phenomenon in human existence]; in it, man goes beyond anything that can be given [deduced] from human experience.”

The last incredible observance of morality in mankind is that everybody sets the standard too high! We all experience a sense of guilt from failing to do the “I oughts” and accomplishing the acts of “I ought not.” One would think that at least one society would set a standard of morality that would render them guiltless, but they all without exception “prescribe a behavior that their adherents fail to practice.” If it is remarkable that every culture in every time sets a standard of morality, it is even more astonishing that everybody sets a standard that leads to guilt.

So, here we are two steps in. To recap, the fact that people of all time stand in awe of a numinous presence they cannot explain is observation one. The fact that people of all time set a standard of morals in which a characteristic of guilt is present is observation two. In the next step, we will see Lewis not simply make an observation but a connection…

In 2 Kings 9-10, we get a sobering message of the destruction of moralism. Moralism can be defined as the outward obedience to God’s rules without righteousness on the inside. Many of us find safety in a good, clean life on the outside thinking “If my life doesn’t look bad, then I am doing the will of God.” But is that the example of King Jehu?

[...]