Amazing Grace—it is a song and a concept I have known since childhood and which I experienced in a more profound way in my mid-20’s. Yet, I now recognize that God’s grace is vastly richer and deeper than I knew then. My understanding of grace is the most significant change in my theological thinking in the last ten years.
Salvation by grace not works, was perhaps the most significant belief in the Christianity I grew up in. Our experience of salvation rested on that truth and our evangelism focused on it. We conceived of grace as a gift with no strings attached. Therefore, we avoided any talk of human action related to the gift of salvation. In my youth I perceived that it was clarity on the truth that salvation was by grace and not by works that distinguished us from other streams of Christianity. From my bounded-group perspective, those who did not state this clearly enough were not truly Christians. And, people who thought they were going to heaven because they were good were definitely not Christians.
It is not that I now think salvation is by works not grace. I have not reversed my thinking. What I thought about grace was not fundamentally wrong. Rather, it is that I have come to see that the combination of individualism and a modern western concept of grace produced a narrow and watered down understanding of grace. When Paul wrote of God’s grace, he had in mind something deeper, richer, more communal, and more integrated with discipleship.
Paul’s Concept of God’s Grace Compared to Others in the First Century
In 2016 I taught a course on Galatians at the Mennonite seminary in Bogota Colombia. When I was not teaching, preparing for class, or exploring Bogota with students, I read a book that had weighed down my suitcase: Paul and The Gift by John M. G. Barclay (2015). I had brought it along thinking I might garner an a few insights or quotes for the course. But what I read was so transformational I could not simply take Barclay’s insights and just sprinkle them as seasoning into my already prepared class. The paradigm change it provoked required more fundamental adjustments to my teaching of Galatians. So, I read, pondered and waited until my next Galatians course and my work on a commentary in English to integrate this new understanding of grace into my interpretation of Galatians.
Barclay explores in detail common understandings of grace, or gift, in Paul’s time—both in Gentile and Jewish writings (gift and grace are the same word in Greek). The various perspectives had two things in common. First, gifts were given only to worthy recipients. In a society absorbed in status seeking and honor accrual, one gave gifts discriminately as a way of establishing or strengthening relationships and gaining honor. For instance, an invitation to a dinner was a gift, grace; the attendees did not pay for the meal. But the host would only invite people who would improve their reputation. Low status people at the table would reflect poorly on the host, but having a high-status person accept their invitation would add to the host’s status. A worthy person could reciprocate and return the favor through a meal invitation or some other gift that would further add to the host’s honor. This points to the second thing that all understandings of grace had in common—a response was always expected. In Paul’s time, and still in many cultures today, the expectation is that if you receive a gift, you will give a gift in response. Reciprocity is necessary for continuing the relationship.
What was radical about the gift from God, the grace, that Paul proclaimed? How did it differ from other common understandings of grace at that time, including, for instance, the other missionaries he confronts in his letter to the Galatians? Barclay maintains that the distinction is in the first point above, worthiness, not the second, reciprocity. For people at that time, the shockingly different thing about the grace Paul proclaimed is that God does not limit the gracious gift to fitting recipients. God gives without regard to people’s social, gender, religious, or ethnic worth.
(For a fuller explanation of Barclay’s argument see pages 58-64 of my book, Freedom from Religiosity and Judgmentalism: Studies in Paul’s Letter to the Galatians, his shorter book, Paul and the Power of Grace 2020, or the original, Paul and the Gift 2015.)
Compared to my Previous Concept of Grace, What is New about the New Understanding?
The view of grace I grew up with and held until I read Barclay’s book was correct to emphasize that we are incapable of making ourselves worthy of salvation through human effort. But we got off track by seeking to accentuate and preserve the radicalness of God’s grace by stressing the lack of reciprocity—no response is expected. We created a firewall between talk of grace and any talk of human actions. In contrast, Paul, accepted reciprocity. Like others of that time, he assumed that of course there were expectations of a response. Paul would applaud our emphasis that nothing we can do makes us worthy of God’s gift of salvation; but our avoidance of any linking of grace and human actions would puzzle Paul.
Key Questions
Paul’s first century audience would have assumed that God’s gift, like any gift, included an expectation of reciprocity. How might the Western, and relatively new, view that pure grace means no strings attached undermine or weaken the connection between salvation and discipleship?
Paul’s first century audience would have seen, and been shocked by, the new communal configurations that flowed from God’s grace including all regardless of social status. How might the combination of individualism and a focus on grace without reciprocity undermine or weaken the connection between salvation and community?
These questions arose from my first reading of Barclay. The potential impact of this different view of grace excited me. Although, I think I have done well at communicating Barclay’s argument in class and in my book, I have not made much movement beyond that. Now I am asking: How do we move from a conversation about the concept itself, to utilizing the concept in teaching, preaching, evangelism, discipleship?
Answering these Three Questions Through the Lens of 2 Corinthians 8:1-15
An essay by Barclay himself stimulated further thought on the first two questions, and helped me begin to answer the third question. I am eager to share some of his insights and my reflections with you. His essay, “Manna and the Circulation of Grace” studies 2 Corinthians 8:1-15.[1]
And now, brothers and sisters, we want you to know about the grace that God has given the Macedonian churches. 2 In the midst of a very severe trial, their overflowing joy and their extreme poverty welled up in rich generosity. 3 For I testify that they gave as much as they were able, and even beyond their ability. Entirely on their own, 4 they urgently pleaded with us for the privilege of sharing in this service to the Lord’s people. 5 And they exceeded our expectations: They gave themselves first of all to the Lord, and then by the will of God also to us. 6 So we urged Titus, just as he had earlier made a beginning, to bring also to completion this act of grace on your part. 7 But since you excel in everything—in faith, in speech, in knowledge, in complete earnestness and in the love we have kindled in you—see that you also excel in this grace of giving.
8 I am not commanding you, but I want to test the sincerity of your love by comparing it with the earnestness of others. 9 For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich. . .
13 Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. 14 At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. The goal is equality, 15 as it is written: “The one who gathered much did not have too much, and the one who gathered little did not have too little” (NIV).
As part of his exhortation to the Corinthian Christians to contribute toward the needs of Christians in Jerusalem, Paul writes about the Macedonian churches’ giving. At one level the text displays the societal norm that when you receive a gift you give something in return. The Macedonians received from God and they reciprocated. More significant are the ways that what Paul writes differs from first century societal practices.
How Paul’s Description of Grace and Giving Differs from Norms of that Time
- The way of reciprocating for the grace/gift received from God is not giving something to God but paying it forward to others.
- This is modeled and enabled by Jesus Christ (vs. 9). His model undermines and redefines honor and perspectives on how to gaining status. Jesus gave to others instead of grasping for status and honor.
- Part of the richness received through Jesus Christ is this practice of giving to others. In an ironic way, an aspect of the grace received from God is the gift of giving to others rather than focusing on accumulating societal points through gifts from others. (Note how Paul begins his description of the Macedonians’ giving by labeling it as grace given them by God [vs. 1].
- A fundamental factor relaxing the drive to grasp for status is that in contrast to societal practices, God does not measure the worth of the recipient before giving. As Barclay observes, “Since the surplus thus passed on does not arise out of any competitive grasping for advantage (but merely out of God’s equal generosity to all) it is possible that it can circulate in ways that produce neither competition nor status inequality” (422) (as in vs. 13-15).
- There is reciprocity (having received, give) yet what is described in the above observations replaces a calculus of debt and obligation with a system of mutual sharing of surplus. Note that Paul does not use any language of direct reciprocity between the recipient and the giver, or between the client and the patron. He does not say, “since you received blessings from Jerusalem you should give them something.”
- “Rather than one side being permanently the patron, and the other the ever-grateful client, each is patron to the other, or—perhaps better—each is equally the client of a surplus-providing patron (God), who gives, however, not in order to receive back but in order that grace be given on” (423).
“This principle of reciprocity, then, has the capacity to complicate power relations, and to work against the emergence of one-side systems of gift, patronage, or authority. . . This is not simply a normal honor hierarchy inverted; it is not that the honorable should be demeaned and the insignificant exalted, but something far more complex, and perhaps far more creative, in which community members continually invent ways to honor each other” (424-25) (see Phil. 2:3-4; Rom 12:10). Take a moment and imagine what it would be like to belong to a group where each member is not focused on being on top but rather in looking for ways to give to others and honor others. Imagine the gifts all will receive if all are focused on giving!
Implications for Us Today
Barclay’s interpretation of this passage aids in shifting from a concept of grace focused on the individual to one that includes a communal element. It also highlights that the radicalness of God’s grace is in its being given regardless of a person’s status or worth rather than in its disconnection from any human action. Previously the image I had of grace was more like a golden ticket given to an undeserving individual, or a guilty person given a pardon. These images do capture an element of God’s grace, but they leave out so much. They mislead through leading us to focus on an isolated individual—no one else is in the image. And, they mislead through lacking any sense of response. When the images are combined with modern western definitions of grace, any connection with human action is seen as a contaminant. It is no longer grace.
Barclay’s work has led me to think of an alternative image we might use in evangelism or explaining grace. We could invite people to imagine a person observing a group eating together. It is a potluck and the participants brought great food. The conversation is rich; people treat each other with kindness; their listening and their speaking overflows with love and respect. The person longs to have a seat at the table but they know they are not worthy. They do not belong. We might ask the listeners to list possible reasons the person might not feel worthy. We could then bridge to talking about God’s grace and affirm that the person truly is not worthy to join those sitting together at God’s family table. None of us can gain a seat through their own merit. Yet through what Jesus Christ has done we are all offered a seat at the table. It is grace, a gift! We might then ask them. “How might you respond to God for giving you an undeserved seat at the table?” We could acknowledge that there are a variety of appropriate responses and then state that what God most desires is that the beautiful table fellowship continue. They can help that happen by giving to others what they will receive at the table—great food and loving kindness.
I invite you to reflect on ways a person’s concept of the Christian life would differ if this table image, rather than the golden ticket or get-out-jail-free card images, introduced them to the idea of salvation through grace. What are ways it connects salvation to community and discipleship that the other images do not?
Two caveats: First, this image, like any image, does not explain all. Other images and explanations are needed—for instance, how does Jesus provide the seat at the table and how does the Holy Spirit enable and empower the lovingkindness at the table. Yet, to simply say “all metaphors limp,” does not free us to use any image. There are consequences to using the golden ticket metaphor versus the table fellowship metaphor. Second, in case I have not made this clear: to embrace Barclay’s argument that Paul’s understanding of grace included a sense of human action as response does not mean I have shifted my definition of religion that contrasts human religiosity rooted in human action with biblical revelation/faith rooted in God’s action (see Centered-Set Church, 86-87 or Religious No More, 38-39). Even with this new understanding of grace, I still affirm that the initiative is God’s. We do not earn our salvation. We do not gain a gift from God through actions. It is not works first. This new deeper understanding of grace does, however, tear down the fire wall separating any discussion of human action related to salvation and opens up riches for both individual and community life as part of the flow of love that God’s initiative invites.
My desire, for me and you, is that this understanding of grace moves from conceptual explanation to what Paul did in 2 Corinthians 8—integration with issues of discipleship and daily life. I pray the image I offer is one small step. Please share with me other steps we can take.
Having received God’s radical grace let us share it in radical and profound ways with others.
[1] John M. G. Barclay, “Manna and the Circulation of Grace: A Study of 2 Corinthians 8:1-15,” in The Word Leaps the Gap: Essays on Scripture and Theology in Honor of Richard B. Hays, eds. J. Ross Wagner, C. Kavin Rowe, and A. Katherine Grieb, 2008, pp. 409-426. A significant part of the essay, which I do not write about here, explores Paul’s purpose in quoting Exodus 16:18.