Last Sunday I substitute taught the Gospel Doctrine lesson on Romans, which is one of the most pivotal books in Christian scripture, inspiring Luther’s 95 Theses, and thereby sparking the Protestant Reformation. A single lesson was not sufficient to do it justice, obviously, but there were a lot of interesting facts. [1] For those who haven’t read it, I highly recommend Adam Miller’s book Grace Is Not God’s Back Up Plan. It’s an easy read and makes Romans even more accessible with modern language.
Romans was written by Paul (most scholars agree he personally wrote it) between 55 and 57 AD, from Corinth. This means it was about 20 years after his conversion. The letter was transcribed by Tertius (his “amanuensis” which is something between a scribe and a ghost writer). Romans is a letter (to a specific audience) rather than an epistle (to the public in a city). His audience was just church members, and there were two groups of them: Jewish Christians and Pagan converts to Christianity. There was still a lot of tension between these two groups with the Jewish Christians feeling that Jewish customs and the Law of Moses were still important and Pagan converts being called by the Spirit, following Christianity without the encumbrance of Jewish traditions.
Paul’s background is important because he was a Hellenistic Jew (combining both Judaism and Greek culture) as well as a Pharisee (a political movement and school of thought within Judaism) before his conversion to Christianity. He had sided against Peter by opposing the need for new Christian converts to be circumcised. Paul had not yet been to Rome (where Peter had formed the churches), and some of the Jewish Christians in Rome were riled up about his viewpoints regarding their beloved traditions (if circumcision can be beloved). He writes his letter to clarify his position and settle things down a bit and says he will come to Rome soon on his way to preach in Spain.
There are so many parallels to church culture today. Within any group of people, those who are more established have privilege, particularly when they’ve been told they are the chosen people or are special. I couldn’t help but draw parallels between the Jewish Christians and several groups within Mormonism: multi-generational members with pedigreed family trees and pioneer stock, members who are born in the covenant (vs. converts) or even Utah Mormons. All of these groups are steeped in Mormon culture in a way converts are not, having been raised in it. Unlike the Pagan converts who respond to the gospel, they have the baggage of heritage to sift through, to determine what is part of the gospel, and what is not. They have the disadvantage of being an insider, and Paul points out that it can be a disadvantage.
He doesn’t let the Pagan converts off light, though. They too have their disadvantages. Basically, he says nobody is more special than anybody else. We are all equally sinful, and all equally divine; we all benefit from the roots of Judaism, and God is no respecter of persons. As he reveals in Romans 8: 14-17, the crux of this chiastic letter [2]:
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
If we see ourselves and others as children of God, this shouldn’t be to make us think we are better than others, but to show that we are all equally divine, and that a spiritual conversion awakens our awareness of that divinity within us and within our fellow men.
Paul starts in chapter 1: 21-23 by listing out all the ways humans are sinful. One that he points out is particularly interesting:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things.
This is a very Hellenistic idea, that what is ideal and spiritual is more important and more real than what is physical or material (corruptible); his Greek roots are showing. By decrying the human tendency to focus on the “natural” world over the “spiritual” world, his criticism hits both groups squarely; Pagan converts were superstitious and used to idols as part of their culture, while Jewish Christians made the law an idol, trying to be justified by exact obedience to the Jewish law.
He points out that the Jews are quick to justify themselves by the law, but they have no leg to stand on for two reasons: 1) the pagans weren’t given that law and aren’t beholden to it, and 2) they aren’t perfect at adhering to the law, so they hypocrites and are condemned by the law. He even has to get one more dig in on circumcision, pointing out that they are not saved by circumcision which is physical, but by what’s inside of them, the spiritual. Sorry, but the circumcision was all for naught. Thanks for playing.
Paul then sets up a bunch of strawman arguments and easily knocks them down one by one, using these rhetorical questions to answer his supposed hecklers among the believers in Rome. He says the law is only valuable to teach us what sin is, but we are all sinful. It’s like driving with the speed limit. There’s no perfect driver. The speed limit just tells us what is safe, but when it’s not posted, we don’t have a guideline. We just have to do our best. But you don’t get a speeding ticket when there is no speed limit.
Paul asks whether faith or law comes first. You could say that it depends whether you are raised in the church or not. In Romans 4: 1-3, Paul explains why the Jewish Christians got so mixed up:
What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
The Jewish Christians inherited the law (the Law of Moses in particular) as offspring of Abraham, but Abraham’s covenant wasn’t a set of laws. Faith (or trust in God) came before the law, not the other way around. But for those raised in that culture, law comes before faith.
So it is in our Mormon culture. If children are raised in the church, they learn the “laws” or commandments from a very young age. They are forced (or encouraged) to go to church, to fast, to say prayers, to read scriptures, to follow the Word of Wisdom, not to shop on Sundays, etc. These are all the “law” of Mormonism–the outward behaviors–and they have their rewards like approval from authorities, parents and other church members.
But they aren’t the same thing as having faith or trust in God. We talk about gaining a testimony, but that’s not how Paul puts it. The way we talk about testimony often turns it into a proof of our faith, evidence that bolsters our being right. It’s another reason Paul cautions us in Romans 14: 1:
Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
He talks about conversion, being born again, starting a new life, being awakened and suddenly able to leave our sinful state. We often don’t talk about that type of conversion for those born into Mormon culture, but perhaps we should because without it, there’s too much validation for obedience and the “law.” It’s too easy to miss the point, which is that the law and our works don’t and can’t save. Period. Only trust in God’s grace can. Believing we are earning salvation through our works is just another sin after all, a very insidious one because there’s such a reward with it: admiration, approval from leaders, and even increased responsibility through higher church callings!
When Paul describes that newness of life that comes with conversion, he also describes that when we live in grace we quit focusing on all the behavior policing and we follow the great commandment to love one another:
- We love our enemies and do good to them. We don’t lay a snare for others. (Romans 12)
- We welcome doubters (those with weak faith) and quit trying to prove we’re right. (Romans 12: 1)
- We are awakened to a new way of living, loving our fellow men. (Romans 13)
- We quit arguing over politics. We take care of our societal obligations and leave it at that. (Romans 12: 7-8)
- We quit judging people for preferences like what they eat, clothing, hairstyles, or other cultural customs. (Romans 14)
It seems to me that not a whole lot has changed in 2000 years. We are just as prone to self-justification and judging others as ever. People still tattle in the name of righteousness and don’t welcome doubters. People judge others as less righteous than they are, and then use that to justify mistreating them. Maybe we’ve gained a testimony, garnered evidence to prove we are right, but not been converted in the process. And without that conversion of heart, we don’t love our neighbors. We keep trying to show how we are better than they are.
Discuss.
[1] Not only that, but the manual reduced it down further by only focusing on two things: that you still have to do works (Paul is probably rolling over in his unmarked grave somewhere) and the part about being a child of God. In fact, the manual recommended ditching a huge portion of the lesson time to having kids come in to sing I Am a Child of God. To me, that’s giving Romans–and Paul–short shrift.
[2] The lesson didn’t point out that Romans is a chiasmus, oddly enough. I thought Mormons lurved chiasmus. I just happened to notice it was one while I read it.
Nicely done! Long time reader, first time commenter. I almost raised my hand to make this comment in our GD class last week but didn’t.
The BOM and other scripture are filled with examples of sudden conversions. They seem to happen without regard to prior righteousness or adherence to he the law but get dismissed in church circles as the exception and not the rule. It’s taught instead that conversion is a slow gradual process. I think this is a mistake. We need to be pleading for mercy (a common thread in those BOM conversions) rather than the strength to do ‘X’ better. Once we get out of God’s way and allow a proper conversion to take place then we will be filled with love and “have no more disposition to do evil but to do good continually.” Grace needs to be applied early and often in the process, not left to the end, as is so often taught.
Well-research and thought out OP, Hawk.
I would agree that regardless of one’s family history within the Church (I have none, other than my older sister, who went inactive some three years after her baptism), EVERYONE needs to be ‘converted’ and have his/her own testimony. I don’t feel any special cachet for being an adult convert, and after 36 years and change and having raised seven kids as Mormons (not all of whom have followed it once they became adults), I’m indistinguishable from those with six or seven generations under their belt. Which is at it should be. Even the Apostle Peter, whose zeal and testimony was never in doubt (just ask Malchus who temporarily lost an ear thanks to the hot-blooded Apostle), was told by the Savior to strengthen his brethren “When Thou Art Converted” (Luke 22:31,32).
You know I have some issue with this stuff. I’ve been struggling over the Law of Moses versus the Abrahamic covenant since I joined the Church. I fail to see how Christ’s fulfillment of the Law of sacrifice has anything to do with circumcision as a sign of the covenant.
We are all brought up to follow rules. We like it. We may test the parameters, but we love having them. They keep us safe. Or so we think.
To fully rely on faith, well, it takes too much faith. To accept the gift of the Grace of Jesus Christ without a contract of obedience is hard to fathom.
Until we “(can)not look upon sin save it were with abhorrence;(Alma 13:12), I guess we have to have lists of things to do and things not to do in order to not go crazy.
“To fully rely on faith, well, it takes too much faith. To accept the gift of the Grace of Jesus Christ without a contract of obedience is hard to fathom.”
As Paul wrote, the “Law” is like a schoolmaster, to teach us what sin is, and how we of our own efforts can’t escape being condemned by it. Hence why we realize our dependence on the Savior and the Atonement He provided. (Galatians 3:24)
I’d say, Jeff, that you understand the Atonement better than you’re giving yourself credit for.
Where is jared to complain that scriptures are absent from the bloggernacle?
Great post hawk.
hawkgrrrl-
Nice post.
When it comes to scripture, the Book of Mormon is my primary scripture. I enjoy reading Paul, but I just don’t see the depth of doctrine in his teachings as compared to Book of Mormon prophets.
I think there is too much emphasis on grace vs. works, BIC vs new member, Utah Mormon, and etc because wherever we are on the various continuum’s doesn’t matter to Heavenly Father.
His emphasis is on obtaining a remission of sins. A remission of sins occurs when a water-baptized member receives the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost. In other words, full conversion.
A remission of sin is available to all members contingent on faith in Jesus Christ and sincere repentance.
mh-
After I made the above comment I saw that you had murmured again. Well, I still think you’re OK.
I think Paul’s perspective is beautiful, and I try to adhere to its principles myself, but I don’t think it is very Mormon. If we had a Paul in the current quorum of the 12, one who was attacking the LDS works-oriented culture, that would be one thing. But we don’t. Joseph Smith seemed very keen on laws and ordinances, and so have all his apostles since. There are LDS theologians who teach Pauline grace, like Adam Miller or Stephen Robinson, but they are more like apologists who are trying to reconcile Bible teachings with LDS doctrine.
By fudging things a bit in their definitions, these apologists can almost make LDS culture look grace-based. But Paul’s grace is actually totally different than LDS grace. LDS grace is “enabling power” universally granted to those who obey various laws. Pauline grace is totally and completely unearned and un-universal, given for belief alone, and even arbitrarily, according to predestination.
But I think Mormons individually can get a lot from Paul, and even adopt his anti-works stance, not to be able to sin, but to be able to understand the more “amazing grace” given to Paul, and let go of the less amazing “enabling power” given to Mormons. But collectively, in Gospel Doctrine, I think we should point out that Paul and Joseph Smith disagree.
Nate said, “Paul and Joseph Smith disagree.”
Could this be the case because Joseph Smith was given more and deeper revelation in that we believe God will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
Jared says “I enjoy reading Paul, but I just don’t see the depth of doctrine in his teachings as compared to Book of Mormon prophets.”
Honestly curious. What doctrines do you find in the Book of Mormon that are deeper–I admit that I’m not sure that means, detailed, insightful, profound?–or even different? Again, in the Book of Mormon, not the D&C, or Lectures on Faith, or discourses, etc.
Nate says “If we had a Paul in the current quorum of the 12, one who was attacking the LDS works-oriented culture, that would be one thing. But we don’t.”
How do you read President Uchtdorf’s address during the last conference, “The Gift of Grace”? https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2015/04/the-gift-of-grace?lang=eng
Nate and Jared,
I think Mormons have difficulty with Paul because (1) we read Paul selectively, without analyzing epistles entirety as a whole. Paul repeatedly hammered on the importance of strict moral conduct. (2) As you seem to do, we may assume the historical, Protestant interpretations of Paul. (3) Even at that, we contrast ourselves against a straw-man, cartoonish conception of Protestantism. (4) Importantly, we don’t know our own doctrine because it’s practically impossible to pin down. (Contrast Joseph Smith’s Lectures on Faith with Pres. Uchtorf’s last talk.)
Where we definitively break from Paul is in our emphasis on ORDINANCES, especially the temple ordinances, and the NECESSITY OF MEMBERSHIP in a particular organization. When Paul talks about “the Law,” he is usually referring to the rituals of animal sacrifice, outward tokens of membership like circumcision, and Torah requirements that are aside from morality. And, in fact, this is where Mormonism and Catholicism radically add to the New Testament and The Book of Mormon in general. In both of those, the only saving ordinance referred to is the ritualistic cleansing of baptism.
Joel-
It may be that you are not a member of the Mormon church. I don’t know, just curious.
Follow the link below for an outline and discussion about doctrines not found in the Bible, but are in the Book of Mormon, or if in the Bible, are greatly expanded in the Book of Mormon.
http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Plain_and_precious_doctrines
other Joel is spot on. I don’t see why Jared thinks he’s not LDS. Pres. Uchtdorf is very Pauline in his sermons, and the one at last GC on grace was one of the best talks I’ve heard.
One thing I thought was interesting when I taught the lesson is that an older sister raised her hand and said, “It sounds like you’re saying that works aren’t necessary to be saved.” I said, “Yes, that is what Paul is saying.” Several class members audibly said “Faith without works is dead,” quoting James. I clarified, “Yes, James said that. These are two different people; Paul didn’t write James.
Just like there are different members of the Q12 who focus on different things at conference, two different people said those things.” There’s this tendency to harmonize the scriptures, and even general conference talks, as if they all came straight from one source, but they didn’t.
I actually fully expected the class to come back with the BOM scripture from 2 Nephi that we are saved “after all we can do.” Paul essentially disagrees with this view in Romans, unless the word “after” means something else, more like “despite.” Maybe if after means at the end of our life’s labors. Paul’s argument is that boasting of our works is a slippery slope used to justify excusing ourselves when compared to other sinners. This was what Paul was cautioning the Jews against. (Romans 9:3) Of course, Nephi would have still been operating under the Law of Moses, so those could be the works referred to. Paul points out that even if we have the law, we never DO “all we can do.” But that’s one reason Nephi comes off as a bit of a jerk.
Jared,
Thank you. Agreed, a few of those things are material differences.
Yes, I am a member. In fact, it’s been in preparing Gospel Doctrine lessons that I’ve been analyzing the epistles extensively again.
this is great. I’m so interested in the way that we get so many conflicting messages and our job is to absorb them and move forward with faith. For too long I’ve tried to reconcile everything to make sense, now that I’m comfortable with an “I don’t know” or “It doesn’t make sense” answer I try to do less prooftexting and more marveling at the mysteries of God, I suppose. I guess I need to read Adam Miller’s book on grace that’s been hanging out on my kindle.
In fact, the manual recommended ditching a huge portion of the lesson time to having kids come in to sing I Am a Child of God. To me, that’s giving Romans–and Paul–short shrift.
Even if I liked that song (and I don’t – it is both insipid and grossly over-used), that would be a travesty and a waste of time in an adult Sunday School class.
Hawk’s blatant laying out on the table of the seeming differences of opinion between the Pauline and Jacobean views on grace must have rocked some blue-haired boats. The unfortunate notions about Biblical harmony which we seem to be acquiring from our Protestant brethren – the insipid infection of the body Mormon of the sola scriptura virus, if you will – are serious impediments to a real exploration of early Christian thinking, as well as the implications of Restoration thinking. It seems to me that Joseph might have been on his way to reconciling some of those seeming contradictions, but he never quite made it. Our theological isolation actually made it easier for us for quite some time, but the recent trend in which we assiduously kiss evangelical tuchis in the effort to be loved by all has left us trying harder to reconcile our prooftexting than to understand what we’re being taught.
In a certain sense, Paul and James were playing Whack-A-Mole. I realize I’m mostly preaching to the choir here, but they wrote specific epistles to address specific concerns that they saw arising in specific situations – sometimes localized in specific cities. (Sometimes, as with many of the letters of Paul, we don’t even know that he did the writing at all.) They were not writing a General Handbook on Doctrine and Practice for first-century Christianity. We err, and our Protestant brethren in particular err, when we try to force them to be global and internally consistent.