Justification by Faith in the Seventies

Bitter polarization has struck most denominations today. Outsiders are bewildered to see that churchmen, who are supposed to love one another, are at one another’s throats instead. How can a group that is called the community of reconciliation be so divided?

Obviously, the divisions in the Church reflect the fracturing of the society around us. In addition, there has developed a certain theological polarization. But a prime and overlooked cause for the whirlwind of dispute is a defection by many from the basic biblical message of justification by faith. A humanistic “works righteousness” is a source of much bitter alienation in the churches today.

In both the Old and the New Testament, justification means bringing one person into a right relation with another. Sinful man needs to be brought into a right relationship with God and with his fellow man. Alienated man desperately needs the wholeness, the new life of mercy and justice, that a right relationship to God can bring.

But human history and the biblical record both attest that man, by his own efforts, can never bridge the gulf between him and God. The abyss separating finite man from the Infinite God is itself infinite. Man, by himself, can never pass over this chasm between himself and the offended God, between what is and what ought to be.

But God has bridged the gulf through Jesus Christ. The cross of Jesus spans the abyss, satisfying the holiness of God and becoming a pathway of forgiveness and new life for those who believe. By faith in Jesus, man can come into a right relationship with God. By faith, man can be progressively transformed into what God wants him to be. So the Apostle declared, “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law” (Rom. 3:28).

Yet humanity through the ages has sought to become right with God by various forms of “works righteousness.” The controversies between Paul and the Circumcision, between Augustine and Pelagius, between Luther and the Roman system, all revolved about man’s attempt to make human existence pleasing and acceptable to God. Paul, Augustine, and Luther insisted that man pleases God and releases His transforming power into society only through simple trust in God’s powerful grace.

The basic controversy in the Church today is of the same cloth. Much social idealism and activism bears the mark of a humanistic “works righteousness.” Many in the churches seem determined to compel humanity to realize God’s Kingdom on earth. Some are determined to seize the wheel of history and by human effort alone force society to accept divine standards of justice and mercy. Just as the Pharisees, captivated by works righteousness, grew self-righteous, hard, hostile, and bitter, many of today’s social activists have become self-righteous, intolerant, inflexible, and impatient. They act as though society’s rebirth depended completely on human effort. They seldom appeal to the Lord of history, who will have the final word. They are unwilling to do their best and then leave the outcome to a sovereign God. Rather, in a frustration born of human inadequacy, they increasingly turn to emotional or even physical violence in frantic efforts to turn the wheel of history. Filled with unresolved guilt, they flail about trying to force society to expiate, to atone for its sins—and for theirs. Yet their frustrations only increase because neither mankind nor individual man can by human effort alone bridge the gulf between what humanity is and what humanity ought to be.

Many of us have known a Reverend Mr. X, who in his younger years felt the life-changing touch of God on his life and turned to the ministry. He had a successful ministry during the early years. But he couldn’t handle success. Imperceptibly, he came more and more to rely on his own cleverness and managerial ability, and human effort, works, began to replace faith. So he gradually lost an intimate relationship with his Lord. Frustration set in because man can never do enough good to compel heaven to bless earth. As his frustration grew, he became dissatisfied with his ministry and with the Church. Groping for a new basis for his ministry, a new justification for his existence, he became captivated by the vision of becoming an agent of change. So he hurled himself into social activity. He sought to bridge the gulf between what society is and what it ought to be by trusting in political stratagems. As angry, self-righteous, and hostile as the Pharisees of old, he became captive to a destructive works righteousness. He grew to hate those who did not accept his humanistic programs. And so he became a divisive force in his church and his denomination.

But the biblical way of bridging the abyss between what is and what ought to be is faith. Man, individually and collectively, is justified only by faith. Salvation for individuals and for society comes as men trust not in their own capacity to change things but in the sovereign grace of Christ to direct, to motivate, and to achieve change. This faith can energize a man, giving him mighty power to do good. Yet there is no strain, no frustration. Rather, there is love, joy, patience, and peace, because his trust is in the sovereign God who is the Lord of history.

Seen from this biblical perspective, the Church’s primary mission is to proclaim that our individual and corporate salvation is by faith. Deliverance from the evils of life comes from God through men and women empowered by faith. It comes in God’s good time and in his way. Does this then suggest retreat into a passive pietism? Not at all. To any serious student of the New Testament, it is apparent that genuine faith, a right relationship with the God who was hurt for all who hurt, motivates men to action, to good works. Yet the New Testament brand of activism is a far cry from the hate-filled, humanistic, impatient variety so often seen in today’s world. It is loving, sacrificial, and humble, as was its Lord. And it is as effective as a Paul, an Augustine, a Luther, a Wesley, or a Kagawa in uprooting the evils of life. The Church, then, must give priority to the message of deliverance through faith.

Secondarily, the Church must work for the reconciliation of man with man, but first within its own ranks. It is significant that Paul’s appeal for reconciliation between men is directed first to those who have already been reconciled to God through faith in Christ. God’s love is the indispensable dynamic liberating man from the sins and prejudices of the past and enabling him to identify with others who also are liberated by God’s grace. Paul yearned to see those who were reconciled to God by faith reconciled to one another through faith. This we sorely need in our day.

One denominational executive has said, “Most Protestants will not be alienated but will support programs of social betterment if they see a biblical or theological rationale for such programs.” Yet today’s ecclesiastical activists usually offer little biblical support for their programs. They seem to have little concern for reconciliation within the Body of Christ and press wildly on, trying to force political programs of reconciliation on society as a whole. But the biblical pattern gives priority to reconciliation within the Church through faith shared, discussed, and experienced together. Only thus can the community of believers become a prototype of the reconciliation that God wills for all men, and an instrument of life-changing grace to humanity.

The man justified by faith should not seek to compel either the Church or the unbelieving world to work its way toward a righteousness that can be achieved only through faith. Rather, he should proclaim to all how the world can become what God wants it to be. And he should, by sharing and experiencing the grace of God with others in the Church, strive for reconciliation within the Body of Christ. As churchmen together rediscover and experience the biblical message of justification by faith, a polarized church can yet be reconciled, and a lost world can be shown the way to harmony with God.

Charles S. MacKenzie is the new president of Grove City College in Grove City, Pennsylvania. He previously was pastor of First Presbyterian Church of San Mateo, California, and of Broadway Presbyterian Church, New York. He has the Th.D. from Princeton Seminary and has done further work at various universities here and abroad. He is a specialist in the epistemology of Blaise Pascal.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.