good works

We talk a lot about the difference between salvation by works and salvation by grace. I thought I’d spend a little time on the subject because in some Christian circles, it is a common to compare theology based on the perceived difference.

An oft-used explanation for “works-based” theology is that it is like a scale: Our good deeds and bad will be weighed, and whichever wins determines our fate. Arguments against scale theology are that we cannot ever do enough to earn G-d’s favor and that when asked, we would never put ourselves in the “didn’t do enough” camp. I want to go on record as saying that I believe both of those things to be true. However, there are some complications and I think they deserve some discussion.

First, we need to be clear about what we mean my “works.” Does that mean avoiding naughty behavior (personal morality), or does that mean feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and visiting the sick and in prison (social ministry)? Evangelical churches, which are solidly in the salvation-by-grace-through-faith camp, emphasize personal morality as vital to our spiritual journey, but fail to include social ministry. This is a form of works-based salvation. It amounts to saying, “You may have said the magic words, but it’s clear from your behavior that you didn’t really mean it.”

Second, the emphasis on personal morality over social ministry is not Biblical. Jesus himself said that what we do to minister to our fellow humans marks the difference between the sheep and the goats. James said that “faith without deeds is dead,” and from the context, it’s clear he didn’t mean just personal morality. A failure to encourage both being good and doing good misses the mark.

To illustrate, imagine an elementary classroom. The students are learning the “silent e” rule for long vowels. Many children misunderstand and begin adding an e to every word at first. The teacher must spend time reviewing the concept until the students have learned it. Does the error mean that the teacher should throw out the e altogether, because it’s too confusing to the students? Of course not!

Yet that’s exactly what has happened to the idea of social ministry. Some people have misapplied the principle, wanting to replace faith and personal morality entirely. In response, some evangelicals have thrown out the principle entirely, wanting to emphasize personal morality as the key to or evidence of genuine faith. Sadly, it has led to inactivity on the part of Christians when it comes to caring for the world and people G-d has created.

There is a tension (in a good way) between social ministry and personal morality. How much do we emphasize one or the other? How do we carry them out practically? What role (if any) do they play in our salvation—from being necessary to being a reflection? We have to be able to talk about these things openly and in a healthy way in order for Christians to know what it means to live out our faith.

I earned my undergraduate degree at a small liberal arts Christian college in the northeast. There is a line in the Alma Mater that says, “Her fruit trees loaded down.” My friends and I were never able to sing this with a straight face. Most of us sang it in the singular, as the only known fruit tree was an aging green apple tree near the dining hall. It has occurred to me that collectively, Christians are often more similar to that tree than they realize. The fruit we bear is scant, sour, or unattainable to people outside the orchard.

We might be approaching the idea of bearing fruit from the wrong direction. It’s often seen as one of three miss-the-mark types: obligation, evidence, or opportunity. For some, “bearing fruit” is defined as no more or less than doing good deeds. If we feed the poor, clothe the naked, and visit the sick or imprisoned, we’ve successfully avoided becoming the morally bankrupt goats of Matthew 25. It’s something we have to do; it’s not optional.

For others, “bearing fruit” is the proof that we are real Christians. That might include some form of doing good deeds, but it is neither limited to such nor are such necessary as proof. It’s often nebulous, and might take the form of, say, not swearing at the driver who just cut you off. There’s an element of somehow becoming a nicer or better person.

Still others look at “bearing fruit” as some combination of doing good deeds and telling people how to be saved from Hell. I personally find this one more distasteful than the others. The previous two options are empty, but they don’t carry the weight of kindness with strings attached: “I’ll feed you, but you need to listen to a sermon while you eat.” I’m all for sharing the Good News, but the primary reason for helping people shouldn’t be in order to gain their undivided attention to our religious views.

Somewhere along the way, we’ve forgotten how to just live. We’ve forgotten to simply care for a need when we see it, born out of love for a fellow human. This isn’t just a problem among Christians. Governments, and politically-minded people, do it too. We argue over whether taxes should feed the poor and to what extent, failing to put real faces behind the very people we’re arguing about. The educational system does it, too. Those at the top and those in the trenches fight over what’s best for the students, while large numbers of kids are not getting what they need.

Maybe what we need, instead of more ministries, organizations, and methods, is to simply let ourselves be drawn in when a situation arises. Where will you see someone today who is hurting, sick, naked, or hungry? Let’s make a commitment together that we will be the love that someone needs today.

Let's Be Friends

Sharing

Tip Jar

Shopping Cart

Your Shopping Cart

Supposed Crimes Publishing

Beaten Track Publishing

More Content