Online Articles
The Gospel of the Left and Right
The Miracle of the Marne is how history remembers the French-British counterattack that stopped the German advance in the opening days of the First World War. With his Ninth Army trying to hold the line between the enemy and Paris, General Ferdinand Foch (according to Liddell Hart) sent this message to headquarters: "My right gives way, my left yields, everything's fine—I shall attack!"
I can imagine Paul saying something like this.
Paul preached the gospel of the grace of God (Acts 20.24). Early on, however, his gospel—which is to say, heaven's gospel—was threatened. The clearest statement of this is in Galatians 1.6–7: "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: which is not another." The ambiguity of the KJV ("another gospel: which is not another") is clarified in more recent translations: "You are following a different way that pretends to be the Good News but is not the Good News at all" (NLT). The Galatians had fallen for a fake. And the same still happens today.
On the left of the gospel of the grace of God is liberalism (e.g., Gal. 5.16–21).* Remembering Chesterton's comment that heresy is truth taken to an extreme, liberalism (aka, licentiousness, lasciviousness) emphasizes grace to the neglect of truth. It is soft on sin and lackadaisical about holiness, believing that life in the Spirit is not necessarily incompatible with the works of the flesh. The liberal gospel turns "the grace of our God into a license for immorality" (Jude 4, NIV), which is tantamount to a rank denial of Christ and all He represents (2 Pet. 2.1).
On the right of the gospel of the grace of God is legalism (e.g., Gal. 5.1–4), which emphasizes law-keeping to the neglect of grace. It is the gospel of the Pharisee who talks grace, but practices law. Legalists trust not in God, but in themselves (Luke 18.9)—in their (supposedly) correct knowledge and superior obedience. Whereas liberalism is associated with immorality, legalism is the home of hypocrites who religiously (and sincerely) dot their i's and cross their t's (Matt. 23.23), proudly and uncritically conserve the traditions handed down to them (Mark 7.1–13), and regularly place their interpretations on a par with divine revelation (Col. 2.20–23).
These descriptions aren't exhaustive; I hope they're not caricatures. Here are some thoughts.
First, the gospels of the left and right both have staunch defenders. False teachers in the New Testament were those who pushed false gospels. False teachers not only advocated error, but they did so persuasively, being skilled in making a religious rip-off sound reasonable (Rom. 16.18, 2 Pet. 2.2–3, Jude 4). In my experience, I've heard the respected and the angelic (Gal. 1.8–9) make strong cases for heresy—which I was only able to detect by carefully comparing their arguments (often, widely accepted, long-held orthodox views) with the words of God (1 Pet. 4.1).
Second, the gospels of the left and right are ugly behind their façade. Read Matthew 23, 2 Peter 2, and Jude if you doubt this. Purity of truth can never atone for the lovelessness of legalism and the beauty of grace can never mitigate the selfishness of indulgence. Let a self-righteous Pharisee look down his nose at you, or see the wreckage inflicted on another by the self-centeredness of the licentious, and you'll glimpse the repulsiveness of which I speak.
Third, the gospels of the left and right offer a redemptive opportunity. Christ welcomed those battered by the right (Matt. 11.28–30) and disgusted by the left (2 Pet. 2.7–9). When the right gives way and the left yields, those who hold the gospel of the grace of God need to go on the offensive.
*It is due to the influence of current political jargon that I put liberalism on the left and legalism on the right. Other writers (e.g., Alan Redpath, Victorious Christian Living, Studies in the Book of Joshua), following the terminology of their time, reverse my placement, locating liberalism on the right and legalism on the left.
