Grown Up Religion: Polemic and Pastoral Practice in Paul’s Letter to the Galatians

1. Introduction

Christians have always believed it a legitimate exercise to look to Scripture for situations analogous to their own. ¹ Generally, this method has been used by readers who are looking to the text for ethical teaching or guidance. As its reception history shows, Galatians has often been interpreted in this way, especially by readers facing opposition or division in their church—perhaps because of disagreements about doctrine or behaviour, or quarrels due to perceived ‘legalism’. ² Most famously, Luther’s view that Paul is arguing against the Law, and for justification by faith, led to the momentous events of the Reformation. ³ Recently, scholars have been preoccupied with the letter’s role in fuelling anti-Judaic thinking among Christians. ⁴ It is ironic that a letter in which Paul expresses a concern for unity (5:15) should have become an instrument of division over the centuries.

Today, most non-academic readers seek guidance for their own church or personal lives. Understanding that the apostle objects to the imposition of certain practices—on the basis of the principle of a law-free gospel—they see him urging his congregation to have nothing to do with those who oppose his view. It is not uncommon for readers to see similarities between their own situation and that of the letter and, believing that they are being faithful to Paul’s example, to find ‘permission’ to split from those with whom they disagree, on the grounds that the latter are ‘adding to the gospel’.

Given these difficulties, the question arises if Galatians can be of use for pastoral guidance today. My purpose here is to suggest one way in which these problems might be overcome and show that Galatians can be rescued for contemporary application. Building on a critique of J. L. Martyn’s interpretation of the letter, and drawing on ideas from the psychology of religion, I will suggest that Paul is tackling a kind of behaviour which is as common now as it was in his day, namely ‘immature religion’. This, I hope, will enable analogies to be drawn and guidance taken without fear of anachronism or inappropriate interpretation. However, I shall also note some important differences between Paul’s worldview and ours, and suggest that the tactics he employs in Galatians might not be suitable for contemporary pastoral practice.

2. Galatians and the analogical method

First, however, we need to consider our methodology. How appropriate is the use of analogical reasoning for contemporary application? James Gustafson states the method thus:

Those actions of persons and groups are to be judged morally wrong which are similar to actions that are judged to be wrong or against God’s will under similar circumstances in Scripture, or are discordant with actions judged to be right or in accord with God’s will in Scripture. ⁵

Since Paul’s letters deal with ethical problems raised in pastoral settings, it seems reasonable to see analogies between our own situations and those reflected in his writings. The next step is to act in a way which we think respects and follows Paul’s suggested response—for surely, Paul’s view that the Gentiles should not adopt Jewish practices is fuelled by a concern for the welfare of individuals and the community as a whole.

But caution is required. As Moises Silva notes, the prior commitments of readers are likely to influence decisions as to how the situation at Galatia is interpreted and applied today. ⁶ For example, in some Protestant circles the belief continues that Galatians can be cited to argue against the supposed ‘works’ of Roman Catholicism. ⁷ Such ‘works’ have been taken to refer to beliefs about the eucharist and confession (inter alia), and arguments like this have serious implications for ecumenism. The problems are not restricted to the Catholic/protestant divide. In any church setting, there may be differences of opinion regarding mode of dress, attendance at meetings, liturgy, types of preaching, and practices such as the use of charismatic gifts, depending on the preoccupations of the people involved. Such disputes may range from the petty to the very serious indeed, but all may have grievous consequences for the communities concerned.

It is important, therefore, to ensure that the analogy stands up to scrutiny. It is possible to see correspondences which do not exist, or to stretch the analogy to breaking point. Moreover, the method must be used with integrity. It is easy to see those with whom we disagree as present day ‘Judaizers’, and tempting to follow Paul in his polemical approach. But we must ask ourselves: are we seeking biblical warrant for marginalising those with whom we disagree, ensuring that our own power base is unassailable, or are we concerned with the wellbeing of the church? ⁸

A crucial first task, then, is to try to understand the situation in Galatia, and Paul’s response, as best we can. The difficulties of mirror-reading notwithstanding, it is possible, to some extent, to say what the situation in the Galatian churches might have been. ⁹ Certain Jewish believers are insisting that Gentile believers need to adopt Jewish practices (circumcision, festivals and observation of food laws) in order to be followers of Christ (4:10; 5:2; 6;12,13). ¹⁰ Some, though perhaps not all (5:15), have been persuaded. But Paul describes the agitators as ‘cursed’ (4:10), and urges the Galatians to reject their teaching. Men and women are justified, not by ‘works of the law’, but by following Jesus Christ. The opponents’ message is tantamount to saying that one has to be a Jew to be justified before God, and this is as good as saying that Christ’s death was for no purpose at all. He begs the Galatians to appreciate the freedom Christ brings and live as a community characterised by agape love.

At first sight, these principles—‘freedom from works of the law’, unity in Christ, and agape love—appear timeless. However, two problems arise. Firstly, in Galatians the term ‘law’ refers specifically to Jewish practices. But to what might ‘law’ correspond today? Secondly, how far does one go with the principle of unity? Would a contemporary pastor be right to curse and banish someone who felt that a particular practice was an essential part of the Christian life?

Analogies, of course, always break down, and chronological and cultural gaps of the nature we find here add to the difficulties. Aware of this, Charles Cosgrove suggests a strategy of ‘augmentation’—of ‘fleshing out’ the paradigm case. ¹¹ Is there a conceptual reason for Paul’s argument which is governing the practical response? In other words, does an understanding of the apostle’s worldview help us to understand his reaction? It is here that Martyn’s interpretation may be helpful. ¹²

3. J. L. Martyn’s view of Galatians

When Paul objects to the agitators’ position (or ‘Teachers’ as Martyn calls them), he is not arguing against the law, but against ‘religion’, which is directly opposed to ‘God’s apocalypse in Christ’ (39). Martyn writes:

For Paul religion is the human being’s superstitious effort to come to know and to influence God, rather than the faith that is elicited by God’s invasive grace and that is active in the love of neighbour (Gal 4:8–10;5:6, 13–14; Rom 1:25). ¹³

Those Gentiles who observe the ‘works of the law’ are taking on ‘religion’, rather than simple faith. Paul takes a serious view of this, according to Martyn, because of his apocalyptic worldview, which sees history divided into two eras—the time before the coming of Christ and the time after. ¹⁴ In the old age, the world is made up of Jews and Gentiles, circumcised and uncircumcised, those who observe kashrut and the Jewish calendar, and those who do not. Therefore, the ‘Teachers’ are behaving as if the new age has not been inaugurated. Religion belongs to the old age, which is now obsolete.

Designating the problem as one of ‘religion’ rather than ‘law’ has potential for contemporary application because it points beyond the immediate historical question of Torah observance and towards a problem which is common throughout history—the view that there is only one way of worshipping God which should be adhered to regardless of cultural differences or circumstances. Working analogically with Martyn’s interpretation, we could say that any religious practice which is insisted on as necessary by some, but not by others, should be discarded in the interests of freedom in the Spirit and agape love. Such a position could be attractive to those disturbed by certain practices in their churches and the politics supporting them. However, two aspects of Martyn’s interpretation require attention before we can use it as a basis for contemporary application. The first is his view that religion should be discarded, and the second is his understanding of Paul’s ‘apocalyptic’ worldview.

4. Martyn on ‘religion’

Martyn’s use of the word ‘religion’ is, to some extent, unfortunate, for it is a slippery term which is variously understood. ¹⁵ It is important that we understand what he means by it and operate within those confines. By ‘religion’ Martyn means,

the various communal, cultic means—always involving the separation of the sacred from the profane—by which human beings seek to know and to be happily related to the gods or God. ¹⁶

However, since only God can initiate knowledge of himself, all such practices should be discarded. Of course, Martyn does not suggest that Paul thinks all religious practices should be thrown out altogether: baptism and the eucharist are vital in the life of the church. But these too, presumably (although Martyn does not say so), would become problematic if used as a way to knowing God.

However, it is not at all clear that we can or even should want to dispense with ‘religion’ in this sense. True, religious practices can assume too much importance, becoming ends in themselves rather than means to worshipping God. However, religious practice is a significant aspect of human behaviour—essential in the expression of spirituality. ¹⁷ Moreover, traditional practices have a social and psychological purpose which cannot be underplayed. They can give people a sense of identity, of comfort, of belonging and security. ¹⁸ To discard them seems neither desirable nor wise.

5. Dualism in Galatians

The second problem with Martyn’s reconstruction for contemporary application is his insistence on Paul’s ‘thoroughgoing apocalypticism’. In essence, this means that ‘God has invaded the present evil age by sending Christ and his Spirit into it’, and subsequent division of history into two distinct eras. ¹⁹ In the new age there is a clash between the flesh and the spirit (5:17), which are ‘at war’ with one another. These ‘antinomies’ replace old pairs of opposites which characterised the old age—Jew/Gentile, slave/free, male/female (3:28). Such antinomies, Martyn argues, are fundamental to Paul’s view of the world, and it this understanding of Paul which leads him to say that the apostle wants the abolition of religion—for it belongs to the old age.

However, this view of Paul’s thought presents some problems. Not least is the assignment of Judaism to the old age: it becomes hard to see how Martyn can avoid the accusation of rendering Paul anti-Judaic. Martyn denies this, noting that the apostle does not object to the Law itself but to the view that its observation is a necessary part of church life. But despite his protestations, his dualistic Paul does seem to have a supersessionist view of Judaism. ²⁰

Along with several ‘New Perspective’ scholars, I favour the view that there is more continuity between old and new in Paul than Martyn allows. ²¹ There are two principal reasons for this. First, Paul’s arguments from Hebrew Scriptures suggest that, theologically, he does not see such a polarity between Israel and the church as Martyn advocates. ²² While it is true that Jesus’ coming inaugurates a new creation, this does not mean that all that has gone before is obsolete. Paul thinks in terms of what Jesus has done in Israel’s history, and this history continues in the life of the church. As Bruce Longenecker notes with regard to Gal 4:4–5:

The means of salvation for the Jewish people has been effected by the entry of Christ Jesus into their own situation; this results in the opportunity of salvation extending to the gentiles by this same Christ Jesus. ²³

Just as Abraham had faith, so now may the Gentiles. Abraham, whose trust in God was reckoned as righteousness, is held up as the exemplar of knowing God through faith, as opposed to the erga nomou on which the opponents are insisting. ²⁴ The faith demanded by the Abrahamic covenant is the way to knowledge of God, rather than adherence to the rituals laid down by the (later and inferior) Sinaitic law (3:18). The story of Sarah and Hagar illustrates this: the two women represent two covenants—the Sinaitic law represented by the slave-woman Hagar, and the promise represented by the freewoman Sarah. The Galatians are not children of the slave but of the freewoman. They therefore belong to the Jerusalem above rather than the Jerusalem below, and are meant for freedom rather than slavery. However, this does not mean that the two sets of offspring are for ever irreconcilable, as Martyn implies, for they are all children of Abraham. There is still a family connection. The God of whom Paul speaks is the God of the Jews, to whom the law was given. ²⁵

Second, Paul is much more worried about the Gentile believers’ religious practice than he is about that of Jewish believers. At Antioch, Jewish believers were expected to be able to have table fellowship with Gentiles without feeling that they are somehow being defiled or betraying their own traditions (2:14–21). So too in Galatia; Jewish believers may do as they like when they are alone, but when they are eating with Gentiles they must remember what they already know—that man is not justified by the law (2:16), and they should not act is if this were not the case. ²⁶ They need not give up their traditions—it is the Gentile believers who will make a retrograde step and once more find themselves in thrall to the ‘elemental spirits of the universe’ (4:3) if they Judaize, because it is so easy to become enslaved to the Law’s demands. Thus, there is room for both law/not law, circumcision/uncircumcision within the church of God, as long as a healthy attitude prevails. The law itself is not obsolete; what is obsolete is belief that its ritual strictures are absolutely necessary to the life of the believer.

6. The paedagōgos and ‘immature religion’

If Paul is not so anti-religion as Martyn argues, what is the apostle worried about? As Martyn notes, what concerns Paul is not the law or its practice by Jewish believers, but the view that it must be carried out in its entirety by all believers. In order to correct this, Paul speaks of the law as a paedagōgos (3:24). Just as a child needs the guidance and protection of a guardian (a role carried out by slaves known as paedagōgoi in Graeco-Roman society), so the Jewish people required the guidance and protection of the law before the coming of Christ. ²⁷ However, the opponents are behaving as if they still have a paedagōgos (3:24), as if they are still children who need rules for every aspect of life. ²⁸

Pursuing the analogy further, Paul notes that the child who is under the tutelage of the paedagōgos, even though he is heir to his father’s property, is in the same situation as the slave. He must obey until the father decides that he can live without supervision. Similarly, before Christ came, the Galatians were slaves of ‘the elemental spirits of the world’ (4:3), knowing only basic teaching suitable for spiritual ‘minors’. ²⁹ But Jesus set them free, and they gained the capacity to grow up and take their full inheritance. Those who behave as if they still need a paedagōgos fail to see that with the coming of the Messiah, Judaism has come of age. They misunderstand what it means to be children of Abraham, let alone heirs with Christ (4:7).

It is this immature attitude towards religion which gives an opportunity for contemporary application. For, in their view of the law, the Judaizers are displaying a kind of behaviour often found in churches (indeed, in all religious communities)—a tendency to see discipleship as consisting in obedience to rules. The psychologist of religion Gordon Allport calls this attitude ‘immature religion’, and describes it thus:

Immature religion, whether in adult or child, is largely concerned with magical thinking, self-justification, and creature comfort. Thus it betrays its sustaining motives still to be the drives and desires of the body. By contrast, mature religion is less of a servant, and more of a master, in the economy of the life. No longer goaded and steered exclusively by impulse, fear, wish, it tends rather to control and to direct these motives toward a goal that is no longer determined by mere self-interest. ³⁰

Allport is describing a mindset which wants to impose itself on other people, ensuring uniformity. It fears punishment and seeks the comfort of knowing it is right. However, while law and custom will always have a place, we should no more allow them to rob us of the freedom which the gospel brings, than we should permit a respected schoolteacher to rule our lives once we have become adults.

But what would mature religion looklike? Galatians 5 and 6 speak of a community characterised by freedom, and agape love. In the Galatian context, freedom means a healthy attitude to the law. But this should not be misused—they must walk by the Spirit, rather than gratify the desires of the flesh (5:16). For Martyn, this means that one set of dualisms (faith/works and so on) is replaced by another—flesh and spirit. Sarx will be conquered in the cosmic battle; in the meantime it must be kept in its place. However, once again, we should be careful about drawing such a sharp distinction, for it suggests that Paul thinks that everything about the flesh is negative and to be discarded. ³¹ Believers are caught between the two (5:17), but this need not imply a denigration of the flesh. ³² Certainly, over-emphasis on the flesh could lead to the kind of mayhem described in the vice list (5:19–21), but believers still have to live in the material world. Similarly, over-stressing the spiritual could lead to a passivity which undermines personal responsibility, or to excessive asceticism, or to over-emphasising the charismatic gifts (1Cor 12–14:25)—all of which is as much a sign of immaturity as the need to follow rules.

Mature religion recognises that the abuse of freedom can undermine agape love. In the new creation, ‘love your neighbour as yourself’ sums up Mosiac law ‘as redefined and fulfilled by Christ’ (5:14). ³³ Obedience to this principle will produce spiritual fruit and equality (3:28), in anticipation of the full harvest (6:8). Rigid thinking will give way to an ethic of love which looks to serve others.

7. Paul’s response and contemporary worldview

The agitators’ behaviour, then, may be described as a case of immature religion. They are treating the law as if it were a life-long taskmaster, rather than a paedagōgos. But Judaism has come of age, and Jewish believers need to see that their dearly-held practices should not be imposed on Gentiles. In this way, a modified version of Martyn’s analysis of Galatians and Allport’s notion of immature religion offer us hermeneutical keys with which to interpret Galatians for today. The agitators’ faulty view of the law can be seen as analogous to the common belief that certain religious practices constitute a necessary part of church life, and should be imposed as the ‘right’ way to worship God.

There remains, however, the problem of Paul’s angry reaction. In his insistence that the agitators are not to be tolerated, he risks undermining his own espousal of agape love. ³⁴ In order to understand his reaction, it is useful to recall Martyn’s emphasis on Paul’s dualistic worldview, which, I have argued, is overstated. But the dualisms are there; what are we to make of them? Firstly, they suit his argument: Jewish apocalyptic categories help to make his point about (and to) the opponents. ³⁵ Secondly, well-versed in Hellenistic rhetoric, he knows the value of employing contrast and exaggeration in order to make his case. ³⁶

All this is appropriate to his time. Today, however, it is rather suspect. For, though fundamental for much of western philosophical thought, dualistic presuppositions and dynamics are not unproblematic. ³⁷ They can lead to the separation of things which should not be divided, and the oversimplification of complex phenomena. Of course, the use of dualistic categories is not always unsafe. It can help to sharpen up debate and aid decision-making. ³⁸ Our law courts would be unable to function without the categories of guilt or innocence. However, as Mary Midgley notes, it can be counterproductive when we ‘strain it beyond its proper function.’ ³⁹ With regard to Christian theology, Wendell Berry censures the kind of thinking which has produced

a cleavage, a radical discontinuity, between Creator and creature, spirit and matter, religion and nature, religion and economy, worship and work, and so on. ⁴⁰

Indeed, as feminist writers have long noted with regard to the male/female divide, dualism is intrinsically hierarchical in nature—an insight which has enabled the voices of groups such as homosexuals and people with disabilities to be heard, with obvious implications for church life. ⁴¹ Moreover, the use of dualistic categories is essentially psychological in nature. ⁴² It is comforting to think in absolute terms, reassuring to be on the right side of the dualistic divide. However, the unnuanced use of dichotomies (often the default position for people who perceive themselves to be under threat) is suspect precisely because of its tendency to divide and conquer rather than win by persuasion. And this, to a certain extent, is what we see in this ‘impetuous’ letter. ⁴³

8. Conclusion: Galatians and contemporary pastoral practice

The hermeneutical lens provided by Martyn and Allport enables us to see Paul as tackling a case of immature religion. Analogies may be drawn between Paul’s Galatia and modern-day differences of opinion over practices such as modes of dress, forms of liturgy and so on. When one party wants to impose its view on others, believing its practices to be the only right way, we may identify a case of immature religion.

Changing thinking of this sort may take time and patience, for maturity is not achieved overnight. It may involve helping people to see what are ‘matters of indifference’ and what are not, as well as to become aware of their motivations. Are they afraid of change or do they want to be in control? Whatever the problem, pastors might follow Paul’s example and point towards the freedom and agape love which are the hallmarks of the gospel. However, exercising maturity of this nature is hard. It requires recognizing that no single viewpoint is completely right, and the humility to admit that one might be wrong. It means learning to live with paradox and uncertainty. It involves, as Rowan Williams puts it, the recognition that

Christianity begins in contradictions, in the painful effort to live with the baffling plurality and diversity of God’s manifested life—law and gospel, judgement and grace, the crucified Son crying to the Father. ⁴⁴

Such ‘painful effort’ may be too difficult for some; not everyone is able to live with ambiguity. Whether the result of education, culture or personality, this needs sensitive handling—‘bearing one another’s burdens’ (6:2). And, however much we may want to avoid it, there may be occasions when bullies need to be confronted, as Paul does here.

Of course, there are times when disputes concern far more serious things than dress code or liturgy. Indeed in Galatians, Paul views the Judaizers’ behaviour as more than immature thinking: he really does think that the agitators are undermining the truth of the gospel—and this he finds intolerable. Today too, people of good conscience may sometimes feel they must take a stand on something they believe fundamental to their faith. In such situations, sensitive pastoral leadership involves enabling parties to disagree with as little animosity as possible.

And this leads us to our final lesson from Galatians. While we may adopt Paul’s teaching on spiritual freedom and agape love, his way of tackling the problem is problematic. Paul may be no different from his contemporaries in his use of rhetoric, but this polemical use of dualistic categories is highly suspect in our age. From our perspective, he seems to contravene the principle of love. And with that in mind, we should perhaps think twice before adopting the same tactic today.