The Main Problem with Hebrew Roots Theology

I've encountered so-called "Hebrew Roots" theology a number of times over the years, but most recently when I was given a self-published manuscript to review. The author clearly loves God and believes we are saved through faith in Jesus, but insists that we need to live out our Christian lives by following certain portions of the Old Testament Law.

There is no standard set of beliefs in the Hebrew Roots movement because there is no single denomination, seminary or leader to provide consistency. It seems to be practised on a spectrum that varies from group to group, but at a minimum includes requirements to follow the Ten Commandments and celebrate the Jewish feasts. Some followers of this theology also insist on using only the Hebrew names for God and Jesus, following the dietary restrictions of the Torah (e.g. no pork), keeping the Sabbath (and not worshipping on Sunday), refusing to celebrate Easter or Christmas, and wearing Jewish clothing such as Tzitzit belts. There are probably other variations but these are the practices I've encountered.

I will be making some additional posts about some of the details of Hebrew Roots theology, but in this post I want to deal with the one key question:

How Do We Understand the Old Testament in Light of the New Testament?

All of the Hebrew Roots beliefs really reduce down to the single question of how Christians should understand the Old Testament. It is a foundational issue for interpreting the theology of the Bible (i.e. hermeneutics). This is not a new question, as it has been an issue for the church since the New Testament books were being written.

For Christians, the foundational interpretive principle is that the Old Testament must be viewed through the lens of the New Testament, and more specifically through the lens of Jesus Christ.

When Jesus celebrated the Passover with his disciples the night before his crucifixion, he announced a "new covenant in my blood" (Luke 22:20), echoing the promise God made through Jeremiah centuries earlier that a new covenant was coming (Jer. 31:31-34). This new covenant changed everything. It was not a minor tweak or a modification to the old system -- it completed the old system and ushered in something completely different.

Jesus explained that he was not coming to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it (Matt. 5:17). Fulfill means "bring to completion or reality; achieve or realize something desired,  promised or predicted." Even though the Law was not abolished, it was completed in Christ.

The Main Problem

This is the main problem with Hebrew Roots theology: it ignores the work of Jesus Christ in fulfilling the old covenant. It demands Christians follow two covenants simultaneously, which is impossible to do. It demonstrates a lack of understanding of the new covenant of Jesus Christ and how radically it changed things. It teaches that the old covenant is "fulfilled" only in the sense that it remains mostly unfulfilled. It fails to understand the reality of grace and instead reverts back to the practice of legalism.

More to say on this in coming posts.

Lakeland and Greasy Grace

Earlier this month, the editor of Charisma magazine J. Lee Grady published an article regarding the Lakeland saga titled The Tragic Scandal of Greasy Grace.  In it, he is critical of the quick remarriage of Todd Bentley so soon after his divorce, and especially the quick move to begin restoring Todd to ministry.

The term "greasy grace" is not new, but it was used by Peter Wagner in his first letter following the public announcement of Todd's separation from his wife.  Peter was one of the apostolic leaders who publicly laid hands on Todd in late June.  In that letter, Peter commends the apostolic leaders who were stepping in and removing Todd from his ministry leadership:

I am  delighted that they are not buying into typical charismatic soft morality, also called “greasy grace” or “don’t touch God’s anointed” or “mercy must triumph over judgment,” phrases that have been used on other similar occasions as convenient religious cop-out excuses. They’re proceeding in love, but it is tough love!

I don't know this, but Lee's title may be an intentional reference to Peter Wagner's use of that term, and thereby an implicit criticism that what is happening with Todd is exactly what Peter said was not happening.

What is Greasy Grace?

An understanding of greasy grace has to start with an understanding of grace.  

Grace is getting something good that you don't deserve.  It is unmerited favour.  In the context of Christianity, it is God allowing Jesus' death to be counted as punishment for our sins.  God's grace flows as a result of his love for us.

Grace is risky.  It means undeserving people get good things.  Most of us would prefer that good people get good consequences, and bad people get bad consequences.  That is justice.  God's grace says Jesus can take my bad consequences, and I can receive Jesus' good consequences instead.  Justice is served overall, but it wasn't justice for Jesus to be punished when he didn't sin, nor is it justice that I don't get punished for my own sin.  Grace is joining God's love with His necessity for justice.

When Christians confront someone who has sinned, we have the choice of being gracious like God has been gracious to us, or we can dispense justice.  Of all people, Christians should be the most gracious when it comes to dealing with sinners, but that's not always the case.  Throughout history Christians have been very effective and doling out punishments and dire consequences to fellow Christians who are caught trespassing in some way.

Greasy grace therefore is a negative term used by folks who feel someone has inappropriately slipped out of the consequences of their sinful deeds in the name of grace, or has benefited inappropriately from their sin.  Like Peter Wagner implies, greasy grace is the opposite of "tough love."  

Lee Grady describes what he means by this term:

Many Christians today have rejected biblical discipline and adopted a sweet, spineless love that cannot correct. Our grace is greasy. No matter what an offending brother does, we stroke him and pet him and nurse his wounds while we ignore the people he wounded. No matter how heinous his sin, we offer comforting platitudes because, after all, who are we to judge?

Therefore, Lee is suggesting that greasy grace involves forgiving and not disciplining the offender, while ignoring the pain of the victims of his sin.

Observation #1:  All Grace is Greasy

The more I think about grace, the more I am faced with this question:  Isn't all grace greasy?  Doesn't grace by definition mean that all Christians are getting away like bandits?  

Yes!  If we are receiving good things that we don't deserve, we are experiencing grace.  That ridiculous display of God's grace for us by sending Jesus is what is supposed to motivate us to love God in return.  Grace is really shocking when you think about it, especially when you start to dispense it to others.

It's either greasy grace or sticky justice.  I don't believe there can be such a thing as "sticky grace."

Observation #2:  Grace Does Not Ignore The Victims

Grace does not deny that people have been hurt by that sin, nor does it ignore them.  

Sometimes people think that if you forgive someone, you have to pretend the sin did not occur.  If you forgive them, you are saying there never really was any harm.  That is completely untrue.  Forgiveness simply means I give up my desire to seek revenge or punishment for that person.

We cannot be ungracious to people who have been wounded by a person's sin.  We must care for and stand with them as they attempt to process their pain and come to a place where they can offer forgiveness as well.  We must protect them if a risk exists of being wounded in the same way by the same person, such as in an abusive relationship.

Failure to support the victims of sin is not due to grace being offered to the sinner; it is just a failure to support the victims.  That failure is wrong, but it is a separate issue from how we deal with the sinner.  

However, we cannot become so consumed with a desire to restore a sinful leader that we overlook the victims.

Observation #3:  Grace Does Not Preclude Correction

Being gracious with a sinner means we choose to forgive and not punish them for the sake of punishing, but that does not mean we cannot bring discipline and correction to them.

In fact, Jesus gave us each the responsibility to make disciples (Matt. 28:19).  You cannot make a disciple (literally a "disciplined one") without bringing discipline.  So how could a Christian leader be restored without bringing discipline and correction?

Grace means we will correct a sinner in love; we will stand with them and not abandon them; we will not condemn them; we will help them face and deal with the consequences of their sin; we will help them see their error and learn to avoid it; we will make an environment where it is possible for them to be restored.

Final Thoughts

All of these things are really easy to write about in a blog.  They are much harder to live out, especially when you have been wounded by the sin.  Situations are complicated and God's wisdom is needed to know how to deal with the people involved.  But as Christians, we have no choice but to be gracious with sinners.  We have been the biggest recipients of God's grace, and we must dispense grace to others.

Grace or Righteousness?

Terry Virgo describes a situation where a pastor is asked by an unmarried couple if he would baptize them. Terry uses it as a starting point for a study on grace and righteousness, and that grace is not an alternative to righteousness.

The situation Terry describes led me in a slightly different direction of thinking. What are the requirements for baptism? Is righteousness (Godly behaviour) a prerequisite for being baptized?

To Baptize or Not To Baptize?

In Acts 2:38 Peter says, "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." There is no time for a demonstration of righteous behaviour on the part of Peter's audience -- repentance was the only prerequisite.

In Acts 8, Philip asks the Ethiopian eunuch if he understands what he is reading in Isaiah. After Philip preaches Jesus to him, the eunuch immediately asks to be baptized in the nearby water. In this case, an understanding of what Jesus did for him was the prerequisite for baptism.

In Jesus' great commission, he tells us to "make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you." (Matt. 28:19-20) A decision to become a disciple of Christ preceeds baptism, but instruction on observing Christ's commands comes after baptism, not before.

So it appears from just these 3 passages that the requirements for baptism include:

1. A clear commitment to follow Christ;
2. Repentance of sin;
3. An understanding of what this commitment involves, and of what baptism signifies.

If a person meets these requirements, then there should be no objection to baptizing them. Baptism is a beginning, not an end, and we should not put a lot of hurdles in the way of a person beginning their walk with Christ.

There is no Biblical basis for us to insist that a person be disobedient to God by postponing their baptism in order to become obedient in another area first, such as marriage.

So What About Sin?

Getting back to the original situation of an unmarried couple wanting baptism, how do we address the fact that God intends for sex to be reserved for marriage? How do we address their sin?

First, we show them grace by allowing them time to become disciples of Christ before we expect them to live like Christ.

Second, once they are disciples, we begin teaching them how to live like Christ. We set expectations that their lives will look differently down the road, and that they need to be willing to let Christ show them areas that need changing. In this case, we show them that either they will get married or they will separate, but that they cannot remain in the status quo situation indefinitely.

Third, we do not presume which sins God wants to deal with first in the lives of new believers. There is no Biblical basis to assume that a couple in a common-law relationship is the most offensive sin before God and that it must be dealt with first. It may be the first sin God deals with for some people, but for others it may be second priority or fifth priority. We need to give God room to work within his priorities and not impose our own agendas on new believers.

For example, God may need to deal with a person's violent temper or their addictions or their chronic lying before marriage is even going to be a possibility. Rushing a couple into marriage before they are ready may just result in another divorce, and that is not God's desire either.

If there are children in the home of this unmarried couple, taking the father away until a marriage can occur may cause other undesirable problems in terms of family life. We want the children to see that their heavenly Father has changed their earthly father for the better, not that their Daddy became a Christian and suddenly couldn't live with them anymore.

A Year of Grace

At The King's Family Church, we talk in terms of a Year of Grace for new people who come to us. The idea of a year is rather arbitrary, but it seems to be a length of time that allows God to bring some significant changes, but not too long to seem indefinite.

If a particular sin is causing problems in the new believer's life, or in church life, we take the initiative to address it. Otherwise, we let God shine his light on different areas of the person's life and follow God's lead. As long as we see growth in at least one area, we know that God is at work and we can therefore be patient with the other areas of that person's life.

And when we see the fruit of righteous living in a new believer, even in just one little aspect of their life, we're grateful to God.