FARLEY PART IX: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary and Conclusion

One must have sympathy toward, and show mercy toward another who has lived under a legalistic religious system as Andrew Farley has done in the past.  It truly is a burdensome way of moving through this life as a believer, and one that can be very frustrating.  However, having had that experience does not excuse moving completely to the other side of the spectrum.  Rebellion against “religion” does not excuse taking up a position that reinterprets—tweaks—the truth of the gospel.

It is rather ironic that Farley quotes heavily from Galatians, in that the Apostle Paul wrote to that church to chastise them for buying into the ritualism of the Judaizers (circumcision), and casting aside the one true gospel of Jesus Christ.  The church at Galatia had deserted “him who called (them) in the grace of Christ” and turned to a different gospel, preached by those who troubled them and wanted to distort the gospel of Christ (Galatians 1:6-7).

By tweaking, misinterpreting, and coming up with premises that are not supported with Scripture, Farley has inched dangerously close to distorting the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 Soli Deo Gloria!

Further Reading

Bridges, Jerry, The Discipline of Grace: God’s Role and Our Role in the Pursuit of Holiness, Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 1994, 2006

Chester, Tim, You CAN Change: God’s Transforming Power for Our Sinful Behavior and Negative Emotions, Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010

FARLEY PART VIII: “WE DON’T MARRY DEAD PEOPLE” OR “DO NOT LIVE LIKE JESUS” AND “SPIRITUAL DISCIPLINE IS NOT FOR THE BELIEVER” AND “EVIDENCE IS NOT NECESSARY”

We ARE To Walk As Jesus Walked

Farley argues in this section that believers are not to live like Jesus lived.  He wrote, “Hence, we’re not being asked to imitate the recorded actions of Jesus of Nazareth.  Instead, we’re invited to allow Jesus to do what he has always done—be himself.  The risen Christ wants to do this through our unique personalities in every moment of every day” (p. 178).  One of the problems with this statement is that Farley fails to describe what that looks like.  Farley also rejected living like Christ when he wrote, “Some Christians mistakenly obsess over everything that the historical Jesus did in the four gospels.  We memorize his words and actions and try to imitate them the best we can” (p. 180).  Farley discarded living like Christ when he wrote, “The motivation for daily living within the New Testament centers around acting like the person you truly are and benefiting from Christ’s life in the here and now…We’re urged to grasp an important spiritual truth: when we come to Jesus Christ, we receive his life.  Through our expression of him, we find fulfillment” (p. 182).  Again, Farley fails to describe what this looks like,

FARLEY PART VII: “CHEATING ON JESUS” OR “THE HOLY SPIRIT DOES NOT CONVICT BELIEVERS OF THEIR SIN”, BELIEVERS ARE NOT TO CONFESS THEIR SIN TO GOD” AND “1 JOHN 1 WAS WRITTEN TO UNBELIEVERS”

This section is perhaps the most disturbing portion of the entire book.  Here, Farley begins by saying believers can “live guilt free, knowing that a perfect lamb has done away with their sins once and for all” (p. 133, emphasis added). This appears to be the primary theme and purpose of the book—to “live guilt free” (p. 133), “more comfortable in the possession of” one’s Christian religion (p. 12), being “content with our choices” (p. 157), to “do away with all of the religious guilt” (p. 36), going “through life being ourselves” (p. 36), escaping “the misery of today’s hybrid religiosity” (p. 36), “…(there being a) distinction between what Jesus taught to the Jews and what God wanted (us) to enjoy under the New” (p. 87), and “to enjoy life free from guilt” (p 156)—in short, to basically feel good about ourselves.   

1 John 1 Was NOT Written to Unbelievers

Sadly, Farley offers an assertion in the fifth section of his book that is full of serious errors in Biblical analysis.  He argues that the first chapter of John’s first letter was to an audience made up, not of true believers, but “…Gnostics who had infiltrated the early church and (who) were teaching false doctrines” (p. 151).  Any good student of Scripture recognizes that none of the letters authored by any of the apostles were written to unbelievers.  None of those letters had unbelievers as the audience.  All of the letters were written to believers in churches or to individual believers, and many of those letters were shared among the various churches.  1 John is no exception.  Authored by the Apostle John,

FARLEY PART VI: “BURNING MATRYOSHKAS” OR “BELIEVERS BATTLE WITH AN ‘ENTITY’”

Believers in the Lord Jesus Christ are at war.  Paul made it clear that we do not battle in the physical realm, but in the spiritual realm—powerful spiritual beings, evil days, darkness, the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience, flaming darts of the evil one, this present darkness, and spiritual forces of evil were all terms he used to describe that war.

¹²For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. [Ephesians 6:12 ESV]

Believers Do Not Battle an “Entity”, but an Enemy

Discussing sin, Farley wrote, “There’s a power called sin, and its desire is to overtake us.  Again, we’re not speaking of sins or sinning but of an entity called sin” (p. 116, emphasis in original).  He then asked the question,

FARLEY PART V: “CROSSING THE LINE” OR “JESUS’ TEACHING WAS UNDER THE OLD COVENANT”

Sadly, Farley identified the teaching of Jesus as being under “the old”, and that his teaching was therefore hopeless in that it was addressed to the Jews of his time.  He wrote, “…Jesus’ harsh teachings aimed at the religious kill you every time…(there is a) distinction between what Jesus taught to the Jews and what God wanted (us) to enjoy under the New” (p. 87). 

Jesus’ Teaching is Old Testament—Not So!

Farley goes so far as to posit that the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ are not for believers at all, in that he wrote, “Peter, James, John, and Paul wrote epistles about life under the New Covenant.  Years earlier, Jesus was teaching hopelessness under the Old.  The audience wasn’t the same.  The covenant wasn’t the same.  And the teachings aren’t the same” (p. 86).

To say that the teachings of Christ are Old Testament teachings, and not applicable to the New Covenant believer is to walk ever so closely to the line—in fact, some would argue that he crossed the line.  Ironic, in that “Crossing the Line” was the title of Section 3.

Next: 

FARLEY PART VI:  “BURNING MATRYOSHKAS” OR “BELIEVERS BATTLE WITH AN ‘ENTITY’”

FARLEY Part IV: “RELIGION IS A HEADACHE” OR “THE LAW IS BAD AND HAS NO PLACE IN THE LIFE OF THE BELIEVER” AND “ADAM AND EVE DID NOT SIN”

In Part 2 of his book, Farley takes on the law, sin, and Adam and Eve’s illicit activity in the Garden of Eden.  One can understand the title of the section, given the past experience Farley had with “legalistic religion” rather than grace infused Christianity.  In that, he is right—“religion” is a headache!

In this section, we will examine three of Farley’s arguments in this regard, that is, (a) the Law has nothing to do with the fruit of the Spirit, (b) Adam and Eve did not sin, and (c) the pursuit of godliness or sanctification is off the table.

The Moral Law and Antinomianism

While there is no argument that Christ fulfilled the ceremonial law and eliminated it with his voluntary, sacrificial death on the cross, one must consider two questions posed by Farley, who asked, “So if you’re a Christian, what place should the law have in your life?” (p.48) The implied answer is “none!”  He also asked, “But should Christians still look to the Ten Commandments as their moral guide?” (p.54) Farley says that no one can keep the law, and he is absolutely right!  But he then makes a giant leap, casting aside the moral law.  He answered the questions he posed at page 48 and page 54 when he wrote about his confrontation with pastors at a conference in Chihuahua:  “After several minutes of absorbing heated comments, I realized that what angered them the most was my insistence that Christians are even free from the Ten Commandments” (p. 57, emphasis added).  As will be shown below, that is classic Antinomianism.

 

To support his theory that the law has nothing to do with believers,

And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you.  (1 Peter 5:10 ESV)

FARLEY Part III: THE GOSPEL

The Gospel

A proper understanding of “the gospel” is essential when launching a discussion of God, Jesus Christ, salvation, justification, forgiveness, and other theological topics.  The best overall description of the gospel I have found to date is in Jerry Bridges’ The Discipline of Grace, at Chapter 3, entitled “Preach the Gospel to Yourself”.  You may ask, “why a description of the gospel?  Isn’t it merely the fact that Jesus paid the penalty for sin for those who would believe?”  Of course, that is true, but it is much more than that.  “The Gospel” includes God’s complete plan of redemption from the beginning.

Bridges refers to Romans 3:19-26 as “the single passage in all of the Bible that most clearly and completely explains the gospel...”[1]  There, Paul wrote:

¹⁹Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. ²⁰For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

²¹But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—²²the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: ²³for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, ²⁴and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, ²⁵whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. ²⁶It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.  (Romans 3:19-26 ESV)

Bridges then does an excellent exposition of the passage, identifying “seven truths that we need to clearly understand”.[2]  Those seven truths are:

FARLEY Part II: HOW ONE STUDIES MATTERS

Study of the Word of God comes with an incredible responsibility to be true to that Word.  One cannot merely “come up” with “new ideas” and then attempt to find Scriptural passages that seem to substantiate or validate those ideas.  One must conduct an exegetical study of the Word and intentionally avoid eisegesis.  These are two opposing means of studying the Scripture.  Exegesis is the exposition or explanation of a text based on a careful, objective analysis, which would include context, word study, and looking at the Scripture in light of other Scripture.  Conclusions are arrived at by a thorough examination of the Biblical text.  The opposite approach to studying the Word is eisegesis, in which the interpretation of a passage is based on a subjective, non-analytical reading. The word eisegesis means, “the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one's own ideas”[1] which means the interpreter inserts his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants it to mean.

Andrew Farley seems to have done just that—he has come up with ideas that sound really good at first blush, but when compared with the Word, they fail.  When he refers to Scripture to “back up” his ideas, there is an obvious disconnect in the majority of instances.  Rather than conduct an exegetical study of the text, Farley has conducted an eisegetical study—forcing the Scripture to fit his personal preconceived biases and notions.

For that reason alone, his argument fails.  However, the analysis will continue.

NEXT:  Farley Part III:  The Gospel

---

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eisegesis

A REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF ANDREW FARLEY’S THE NAKED GOSPEL

Introduction

The first time through The Naked Gospel proved to be a fairly quick read.  Andrew Farley writes very well, in a conversational style, which makes reading his book quite easy.  He is quite conversational, and one can feel as if one knows him already.  As this writer made his way through the book though, red flags began to flap in the breeze. 

If one were to fly an airplane from east to west on a 5,000 mile trip, but off by one degree, one would wind up way north or way south of the desired destination.  In the same way, if one fails to remember a common navigational equation—Heading = Course + Wind Correction + Intercept—one will again miss the desired destination.

The same thing is true in studying the Bible.  If one starts with a premise that is not supported by the Scripture, or if one starts with an erroneous understanding of what Scripture says, then the conclusions one comes to will be “off”.  More importantly, if one begins with an “opinion” rather than Scriptural truth, then the conclusion cannot be considered a Biblical position.

At the risk of alienating the reader at the outset, I have to be honest—my second reading of Farley’s book not only confirmed the concerns that arose the first time through, but a number of conclusions he arrived at cannot be considered Biblical positions.  Why?  They cannot be considered Biblical positions because they begin with a flawed premise or with his personal opinion rather than with the Scripture.  Additionally, a little more than half way through the book it seemed that his argument is more about feeling good about oneself as a believer, rather than the grace-infused gospel of Jesus Christ as revealed in the Scripture.

A Dusting of Error

The majority of what Farley writes is quite Biblical in its content—most of what he wrote is Biblical truth.  However, throughout the book, there is a bit of a “dusting” of error, rendering entire arguments ineffectual.  Farley’s past “church” experience—something his description left no doubt as to its being in the extreme—leads the reader to believe that he perhaps moved to the opposite extreme.  One extreme seems to have led to another—not unlike this writer’s personal experience growing up years, being told, “you shouldn’t feel that way”.  That particular extreme led me to stifling my feelings in my teen years and following, resulting in my being in a position where I did not know what I felt, as well as an unwillingness to “get in touch” with my feelings.  I went to the opposite extreme.

Another notable problem is that Farley is attempting to make understandable that which cannot be completely comprehended in this life.  There is still mystery that is veiled, only to be disclosed on the Last Day.

A Lack of Specificity

Farley makes a number of statements in the book, as if he has discovered something new.  At issue is the fact that he neglects to explain what his premises “look like”, he does not provide any “specificity” as to what he is attempting to convey, and he does not provide any Scriptural support for the statements.  In most instances, he utilized examples from the human experience to “prove” his “spiritual truths”, rather than using the Word.

Exegesis and Hermeneutics

Farley’s exegesis of the written text in many places is faulty.  The premises he articulates, for example, about Adam and Eve, John’s epistle, and James’ letter are, at best, inaccurate.  He does not properly interpret multiple passages of Scripture.  

Listening to a Heretic

Finally, of grave concern is the fact that Farley quotes from a recognized heretic to make his point that “religion is a headache”. (p. 32) Hannah Whitall Smith was a Universalist whose view of God was horribly skewed.  Many other people could have been quoted to make the point—including D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones who preached a series of sermons on spiritual depression, discussing some of the issues Farley referred to in quoting Smith—but Farley chose to quote one who made it her goal to advance heresy.

The purpose of this paper is to examine a selected few of what appear to be problem areas in various sections, and I do so with one goal:  to point to God’s Word in order to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ.  I have provided alternate section titles in order to summarize the thrust of Farley’s teaching.

NEXT:  Farley Part II: How One Studies Matters