Original Meaning

IF IT WAS difficult at first to find direct relevance for 5:1–26 to the situation at Galatia, it is even more difficult for 6:1–10. Here we have what appears to be four random thoughts (bearing burdens, sharing with one’s teacher, sowing and reaping, and doing good), so random that they not only seem unrelated to one another, but also unrelated to the situation at Galatia. Is this accurate? I think not. A close examination of the verses confirms what has been stated by John Barclay: “We can also safely conclude that these various maxims are by no means irrelevant to the Galatian churches but are intended to meet their general problems of strife and division.”1 What we find here, then, is an interplay between two themes: personal responsibility and mutual accountability—both emerging from the context of communal strife.

What I would add here is that these two themes are rooted in Paul’s call to freedom (5:1, 13). It will be remembered that such freedom was freedom from the law, that this freedom was unsettling for the converts, that they wanted some kind of moral guideline, that the Judaizers contended that the absence of the law of Moses would throw the Galatians into moral confusion, that the Galatians became quite divisive over the problems, and that Paul countered this with the so-called restriction of freedom: it is not a license for sin (v. 13) but an opportunity for love (vv. 13–14). Such a life of freedom is life in the Spirit (vv. 13–26). In the present section, Paul now gives some concrete illustrations of what it means to live as a Christian individual within a community when that community is guided by freedom in the Spirit.

To be sure, Paul applies this notion of “freedom in the Spirit” to more than one topic here, but each of them is related to the Galatian context of strife and to the two themes stated above. The flow of the verses seems to be as follows: living in the freedom of the Spirit precludes conceit (5:26), so spiritual people should bear one another’s burdens in humility (6:1–5), bear one another’s burdens to the degree that they financially support their teachers (v. 6), and recognize that God will hold them accountable for how they have treated others (vv. 6–10). The specifics of how all these ideas are connected to the divisiveness at Galatia will come out in the paragraphs that follow.

Spiritual People Should Bear One Another’s Burdens (vv. 1–5)

I BEGIN BY trying to put together these verses, perhaps the hardest unit when it comes to the matter of the flow of the ideas. Paul begins by stating a problem: restoring a sinful brother (v. 1). This is followed by the underlying principle to solve the problem, namely, that spiritual people (i.e., those who “live in the Spirit”) need to be responsible for one another and look after one another (v. 2). The next three verses refer to the problem of pride (vv. 3–5). When restoring others, spiritual persons may be tempted to pride (cf. v. 1b). After insisting that they bear one another’s burdens (v. 2), Paul returns to his point about being tempted and brings up the matter of a person thinking too much of himself in the process of restoration (v. 3). The solution to this is simply to examine one’s actions and see if he (or she) is living “in the Spirit” (v. 4a). One does not need to assess one’s standing before God by comparing oneself to others (v. 4b). This leads Paul to yet another principle underlying his point about pride: in the end, each person must stand before God for how he or she has lived (v. 5). To do this means becoming personally responsible.

The problem: Restoring a sinful brother (v. 1) When Paul wants his readers’ special attention, he calls them “brothers” (3:15; 4:12; 5:11). In so doing he makes a claim on them as well: if I can call you “brothers,” I can assume you will live the way God wants, and this means “living in the Spirit.” One problem that sometimes arises for those who live as a community of people who are striving to live in the Spirit is that someone falls into sin or begins to manifest “the works of the flesh” (5:19–21).2

In this situation, the community should take it upon itself to restore such a person because this is one way a family expresses its love. But Paul’s emphasis here is not that this restoration should be done but how. His emphasis is on the word “gently”; though this is a good translation for en pneumati praütetos (lit., “in the spirit of humility”), it masks the key word “spirit.” I am persuaded that Paul is making a connection here to the “fruit of the Spirit” in 5:23 (“humility”); he enjoins the Galatians to restore (cf. 1 Cor. 1:10) the sinning brother under the influence of “the Spirit who provides humility.”3 Gentleness is crucial for restoration, and only the spiritual, those under the Spirit, should be involved. “One of the reasons why only spiritual Christians should attempt the ministry of restoration is that only the spiritual are gentle.”4

In so doing, however, those restoring must watch out for themselves because they “also may be tempted” (v. 1b). As made clear above, I think the temptation here is to pride because of verses 3–4, which carries on Paul’s point. While some have argued that the temptation would have been to the specific sin that the erring brother was trapped in, that does not seem as likely as the view I have offered.5 Regardless, this is the problem Paul is emphasizing; he is not as much concerned here with the sinner as he is with the restorer.

We can only guess, but guess we will, that the Judaizing controversy created problems of pride among the leaders in Galatia. Evidently those who were in charge of restoring the sinful were doing so by calling attention to themselves, to their goodness, and probably to their confession of Moses. In carrying out restoration in this manner, they were comparing themselves to those who were not performing such a ministry (cf. v. 4). This suggests that the Judaizers had gained the upper hand in the churches by finding allies in the leadership.

The principle: Love one another (v. 2) Underneath Paul’s point about restoring others “in the Spirit of gentleness” is the basis for such behavior: the “law of Christ,” which is to live in the love of the Spirit6 (cf. 5: 6, 14, 22; James 1:25; 2:12), means loving the sinning brother by carrying his burden to help him on the way. The expression “law of Christ” is surprising in its formulation since Paul has spent a great deal of time dismissing the law as the Christian’s guide. Nonetheless, his willingness to say Christians are under the “law of Christ” and not under “the law of Moses” is entirely reasonable, once we understand that “law of Christ” is nothing other than (1) submission to the teachings of Jesus that fulfill the law (Matt. 5:17–20) and (2) life in the Spirit, which is essentially love and which itself fulfills the law of Moses (Gal. 5:6, 14, 18, 22). The Christian’s law is following Jesus, that is, living in submission to the Spirit.7

A specific example of following the law of Christ is to carry the burden of a brother or sister. Paul is here addressing those who are restoring, and so we must envision the restorer as a person who undertakes not only to point out problems and sins, but also to carry the responsibility of helping that person become free of that entanglement. Here we find Paul’s theme of mutual accountability. The Christian, when seeing a sister stumbling into sin, does not go to the other side of the road in the way the Levite and Pharisee did in the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37). Rather, like the Samaritan, the Christian approaches the sister “in the Spirit of gentleness,” does whatever he or she can, and so works through the problem with that sister until she learns to live “in the Spirit.”

The principle, then, of restoration is loving one another. Christians are responsible for one another and, because of the love of God that comes to them through the Spirit, they carry one another’s burdens when those burdens are too difficult for one person to carry.

The problem of pride (vv. 3–5) As mentioned above, the problem that occupies Paul’s attention while addressing restoration is pride on the part of the restorer. Pride is wrong (v. 3), and each restorer should check himself or herself out (v. 4a) and not find personal status by comparison with others, especially with sinning brothers and sisters (v. 4b). In the final analysis, each person is responsible before God for what he or she has done (v. 5).

Our only comment here is addressed to the tension between carrying each other’s burden (Gk. ta bare; v. 2) and carrying one’s own burden (Gk. to idion phortion; v. 5). The issue is not contradictory but two sides of one coin. Christians need to help one another in the struggles of life, but each Christian will also have to answer to God individually. Part of that individual responsibility is carrying the burdens of others. Before God one cannot look around at others and thereby find grounds for justifying oneself. That Christians will be judged by God for their works, their actions, and their motives is taught elsewhere in Paul’s letters (cf. Rom. 2:6–16; 14:12; 1 Cor. 3:8; 4:1–5; 2 Cor. 5:10).

Spiritual People Should Support Teachers (v. 6)

HAVING DISCUSSED THE problem of a sinful brother and the process of restoring him without getting caught up in the web of pride, Paul closes with an underlying principle: each person must stand before God and be personally responsible. But this raises a problem that Paul knew all too well: those who are full-time teachers cannot really live completely independently; they need the financial support of others. So Paul now curbs his idea that everyone should carry his own load with the idea that an exception is granted to teachers: they need support because they cannot always carry their own load. This verse, then, is little more than a parenthetical remark—a footnote if you will, and one whose logic is not so easy to discern.

The only issue is whether or not Paul has in mind financial sharing. The vast majority of commentators think the issue is financial and I agree. Paul elsewhere speaks to the rights of those who minister the Word to be rewarded with financial support (cf. 1 Cor. 9:14; 2 Cor. 11:7–12; Phil. 4:10–19; 1 Thess. 2:6, 9; 1 Tim. 5:17–18), even though Paul himself refused such help (1 Cor. 9:12–18; 2 Cor. 11:7–12; Phil. 4:10–20; 1 Thess. 2:9; 2 Thess. 3:6–13). Paul drew on Jesus’ own teachings (Matt. 10:10 par.; Luke 10:7). F. F. Bruce puts it succinctly: “The teacher relieves the ignorance of the pupil; the pupil should relieve the teacher of concern for his subsistence.”8

This little statement is a revelation about early Christian teaching and teachers, whose primary responsibility was to pass on traditions from the apostles and to interpret those traditions for their churches.9 Here we find that teachers worked full-time in their ministry so that they could study and teach effectively; they were apparently being disrespected in the Christian community to the degree that their students were not taking care of them. Such treatment was inconsistent with “life in the Spirit” because it was unloving and unkind (5:22–23). We can guess that such disrespect was an extension of the Judaizing controversy: perhaps the teachers were part of the Pauline wing of the churches and were now being neglected by the Judaizing wing. Such a result of factionalism would not be surprising.

Spiritual People Are Accountable to God (vv. 7–10)

AFTER THE PARENTHESIS of verse 6, Paul gives the foundation of his instructions in verse 5, that people will have to stand before God. His point here is clear: since we will stand before God, we must live now before God, and that means living in the Spirit. Put differently, we must do good to all people, especially to the church, which may well have been neglected by those caught up in the divisions at Galatia.

That the antithesis of flesh and Spirit has been in Paul’s mind since he began these injunctions at verse 1 becomes clear with verse 8. What we envision here is a divisiveness that was leading to shunning sinning brothers and sisters, to arrogant leadership, to comparing one’s righteousness with another’s, and to outright ugly treatment of teachers. Such kinds of behavior are “works of the flesh” (5:19–21).

So Paul enters with the strongest foundation that one can perceive: God is the Judge,10 and people cannot sneer at him. Paul knows that “moral indifference would be an imperfection in God, not a perfection.”11 If a person lives to the flesh, that person will “reap destruction” (condemnation); if a person lives “in the Spirit,” that person will “reap eternal life.” What Paul is saying is what I have said on numerous occasions in this book: while works do not save us, no one is saved without works. Why? Very simply, because works are the sure indicators of a person’s heart, orientation, and status before God. Every judgment in the Bible is a judgment according to works (cf. Matt. 7:13–27; 16:27; 22:1–14; 25:1–46; 2 Cor. 5:10; Rev. 20:11–15). A person’s final standing before God will be determined by that person’s relationship to Jesus Christ as revealed in his or her works. While it is absolutely true that our grounds of acceptance is the sacrifice Jesus Christ made on our behalf, our connection to that sacrifice is by way of a faith that works itself out in the many good works in a person’s life.

So Paul speaks of “doing good,” because doing good is what it means to sow “to please the Spirit.” We should not become weary in doing good because, he repeats, our judgment is based on this (“we will reap a harvest if we do not give up”; v. 9). Paul then argues that the Christian is to do good “to all people,” regardless of their culture, nation, or sex (3:28). But the Christian’s deeds of mercy are especially (though not exclusively) to be directed toward “the family of believers.”

In sum, Paul interweaves two highly fundamental ideas for Christian ethics: mutual accountability and personal responsibility. Indeed, John Barclay sees the alternation between two themes as the structural impulse behind our section.12 He uses the terms in a reverse direction (personal accountability to God and corporate responsibility to others), and I shall change them to my terms to ease understanding. His structure (changed in terms only) is as follows:

The Heading (5:25–26)

A. Mutual accountability (6:1a)

B. Personal responsibility (v. 1b)

A. Mutual accountability (v. 2)

B. Personal responsibility (vv. 3–5)

A. Mutual accountability (v. 6)

B. Personal responsibility (vv. 7–8)

A. Mutual accountability (vv. 9–10)

Bridging Contexts

BEFORE THE READER of the Bible launches out into his or her world with the messages of personal responsibility and mutual accountability, he or she needs to have a firm grasp of the essentials of this text and of what it meant when Paul said it. This means a careful delineation of the text in its context and of what Paul meant by crucial expressions like “mutual accountability,” “personal responsibility,” and “living in the Spirit.” To do this means to read his letters and the book of Acts to see just how Paul worked out his ideas. We are not fair to Paul if we take his terms (e.g., “carry one another’s burdens”), distill them into our own (“mutual accountability”), and then start inferring what mutual accountability means today when our applications are not Paul’s. It takes patience and industry to be a faithful applier of Scripture—the patience of much study to answer our own questions about application and the industry of intensive group study to come to terms with all that we need to have in our hand to get the job done.

I want to explore this approach a little more completely here. A great deal of abuse has been dispensed in the name of mutual accountability. Some have argued straight from mutual accountability to Christian communities (we tend to use the word “communes” here) and have pointed sharp fingers at the vast majority of Christian churches. But this is surely wrong for, as any reader can see, Paul did not establish communes in which there was complete economical partnership and the sharing of all possessions. To be sure, Christians living with one another, sharing their possessions, and so producing a team effort in their witness to the saving activity of God is a possible application of the concept of mutual accountability.

Furthermore, I find places like Reba Place Fellowship in Evanston, IL, Sojourners Fellowship in Washington, D.C., and the Jubilee Fellowship of Germantown in Philadelphia, Pa., to be inspiring, encouraging, and challenging.13 Their simplicity, their focus on things eternal, and their wholesome relational atmosphere certainly challenge the normal Western capitalistic complexity with its focus on things material and its stunting of personal relationships. On the other hand, to claim that this communitarian form of life is the only biblical model is simply wrong, for it is not the only model to be inferred from the Bible. Agreed, such a lifestyle can be rooted in biblical principles, and the people who so choose can live effectively for the kingdom of God in this form; but such a lifestyle is not the only way to describe how early Christians lived. In fact, I am prepared to argue that such a lifestyle was indeed abnormal in the ancient world and rare among Christians.

But refutation of this lifestyle is neither my desire (since I find it wholesome and clearly an effective form of life) nor my purpose. Rather, what I want to point out is that claiming such a lifestyle to be rooted in the biblical sense of mutual accountability is not accurate because this is not the kind of communities Paul left behind when he declared his ethic of “carrying one another’s burdens.” To be fair, of course, I should point out that these communities do not base their existence and concepts on Galatians 6:1–10, but on texts like Matthew 6:25–34; Luke 9:57–62; Acts 2:43–47; 4:32–5:11; 2 Corinthians 8–9; Ephesians 4:28; and 1 Timothy 6:9–10. Nor do I want to suggest that their whole foundation is the sense of mutual accountability, though I am sure this is fundamental to their ideas. Rather, my goal in this section is to point out a possible misapplication (community lifestyle is mandated) of a biblical idea (mutual accountability) and to point out that the surest way of applying such a principle correctly is to see how Paul applies it. What mutual accountability can look like in our world will be explored below.

Yet another typical reading of this passage, especially one focusing on verses 4–5, 7–10, is one that explores the implications of personal responsibility. Paul speaks here of such things as each person testing his (or her) own actions to make sure that pride is not present, of each person carrying his (or her) own load, and of the correspondence between each person’s life and actions to God’s final assessment of that person. This has led some to a Western sense of personal individualism because context has been neglected. For these people Paul is saying that they are accountable to no one but God; that pastors have no rights inquiring into their past, their present, or their plans for the future; that religion is exclusively a private matter, like politics and sex;14 and that, since they stand before God alone, they are to live alone. But once again we see an interpretation that is fundamentally sound at first but one that goes astray because it neglects two things: the wider context (where personal responsibility before God is surrounded by a mutual accountability) and the way Paul himself actually lived.

To take but one example: while Paul was fiercely independent in his sense of calling and his perception of the gospel (see chaps. 1–2), he was willing to submit his ideas and his calling to the wider churches to see if he was running in vain. Paul says, “But I did this [i.e., laid before them the essentials of his gospel] privately to those who seemed to be leaders [whom Paul was willing to brush aside if necessary; cf. 2:6], for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain” (2:2). He then, gleefully I think, says that these same leaders “gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship” (v. 9). Once again, a principle (personal responsibility) needs to be understood in context and in terms of the realities of life as Paul applied that principle.

These two themes, mutual accountability and personal responsibility, fight against a major Western feature of life that I have already examined, namely, individualism.15 Mutual accountability forces many of us to abandon our sense of being alone and forces us to reach out to others. It makes the neighbor stand up and say, “I truly am a neighbor and must be neighborly.” It makes the person abandon the natural (modern) impulse of letting all others do their own thing and pushes that person to invade another’s life. It also forces the neighbor to allow his or her life to be open enough to others to be invaded, to be a neighbor in a genuine sense. To be a neighbor means to be both neighborly and receptive to neighborliness.

Also, Paul’s message fights against the tenacity so many Westerners have with respect to their personal responsibility. While each claims this as an inalienable right, it forces each of us to face the fact that, though we are individuals, we are not solitary individuals. We are individuals in need of community, in need of others, and in need of fellowship. To be human is to relate to God and to others. Our personal responsibility before God does not relieve us from accountability to others, nor does it put us on a deserted island to live a solitary life. These are Western problems that need to be faced, and the message of Paul—a mutual accountability that does not deny personal responsibility and a personal responsibility that includes a mutual accountability—stares our world in the face.

I make one more observation regarding personal responsibility. In our culture we have become acutely aware of the origins and causes of our behavior. I am aware, for instance, that certain aspects of my personality come from what I learned from my father and my mother; I am aware as well that some of my traits (both good and bad) appear in my two children. This is a common perception today. But in this process, at times there is an implicit excuse for our personality traits or our behavior. “I cannot help it,” one might cry, “because this was how I was raised.” Or, “You would not blame me if you knew my past.” We must sympathize here with the obvious reality that what we do and who we are result from what others have made us, and we should not refrain from recognizing that certain bad dimensions of people are not solely their fault. But what the Bible teaches is that we are personally responsible for everything we are and for everything we do, regardless of the causes and problems we might have. This, of course, leads to an entire feature of application: urging people to accept responsibility for everything they do and are. Paul teaches that we must “bear our own burdens” in this regard.

Contemporary Significance

WHILE THE EMPHASIS of Paul is clearly on mutual accountability and personal responsibility—and I shall look more at these themes below—there are other comments made by Paul here that can be directly applied to our day. For instance, verse 6 exhorts the student to share his financial resources with his or her teacher. This is neither a suggestion nor a commandment, but it is nonetheless a principle that was broadly applied by Paul. John Stott pointedly discusses two dangers in the application of this principle: abuse by the minister and abuse by the congregation.16

Regarding abuse by the minister, even though Paul exhorted students to share with their teachers (cf. also 1 Cor. 9:14; 1 Tim. 5:17), he himself refused to accept their offers (1 Cor. 9:12–18; 2 Cor. 11:7–12; Phil. 4:10–20; 1 Thess. 2:9; 2 Thess. 3:6–13), so that he could preach the gospel without any kind of hindrance. I see two abuses possible, one financial and one relating to character. Financially, Paul was not suggesting that teachers/ministers could demand salaries and benefits. What they could expect was that their needs would be taken care of, not that they could dictate economical policies regarding their livelihood. His directive here is intended for the student/congregation to obey, not for the minister to demand. As for a character problem, Stott contends that it is too often the case that ministers who live off the financial benefit of others become lazy and neglectful of their duties. These may be found at the golf course too frequently, on vacations too often, or discharging their work load to others in the name of delegating responsibility or “lay ministry.”

The other area of abuse is by the congregation. This can take on several colors. It can lead to the feeling of employment on the part of the congregation or church board and result in the congregation believing it can control the teacher’s ministry. “They pay the piper, they say; so they must be allowed to call the tune.”17 It can also lead to a feeling of control over what the minister buys and how he spends his or her money. But while I firmly believe in a minister’s accountability to his or her charges, I also believe that a minister should have the character to spend his or her money wisely and be trusted in these matters. One minister might need a set of golf clubs, another might think a new car is in order, while still another might spend more money on clothing; each will have his or her own hobbies and interests. (By the way, John Stott’s is bird watching, a fascination that has occupied many others, including the author of this book.) A final area of abuse by the congregation could be a sense of arrival. Some church members operate as if their contribution to the minister’s salary finishes off their obligations in the church’s ministries. They behave (never, I suppose, would they confess this) as if this is their “ministry”: they believe they have arrived.

What about mutual accountability and personal responsibility, the main themes here? I can think of no better example of how to combine these two themes than by looking briefly at the life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and his writings. His story deserves to be told in some detail. Bonhoeffer, the son of a famous psychiatrist at the University of Berlin, studied theology at both Tübingen and Berlin and eventually landed a post as a lecturer in theology at Berlin. This was 1933, and Hitler was on the rise. Bonhoeffer saw in Hitler a madman bent on destruction, and so he opposed him. His opposition forced him to leave Germany and to pastor two German congregations in London. While there, he was called by the Confessing Church of Germany (the Lutheran churches opposed to Hitler’s plan) to be the leader of an illegal seminary that would train pastors for ministry in the Confessing Church.

He decided to return to Germany and lead a small group of students in Zingst. Then they had to relocate in Finkenwalde. There they studied together, lived together, and worshiped together. After writing three of his most famous books in this context (Life Together, The Cost of Discipleship, and The Prayer Book of the Bible: An Introduction to the Psalms),18 the Nazi authorities closed the seminary and banned Bonhoeffer from writing. A brief visit to the United States endeared him to many on this side of the ocean, but he knew his calling was to return to Germany and oppose the Führer. He returned to become part of the resistance movement, both by speaking in clandestine groups and by writing things that would later be published. But on April 5, 1943, he was arrested with other family members who were in the resistance. He spent time in the prisons at Tegel, Buchenwald, Schönberg, and finally at Flossenburg, where he was hanged. The day before his hanging he had given a sermon on the text, “with his stripes we are healed.” He died as a witness to the concrete responsibility necessary for the Christian as well as to the commitment a Christian must have to others.

His book describing and defining how Christians must live together is called Life Together. This profound little book stirs the reader to this day as he or she is confronted with the implications of Christian fellowship. My worn, marked, and tattered copy has brought me many insights into personal relationships and challenged me over and over. The first two chapters cover “Community” and “The Day with Others.” Since I would like simply to republish the entire contents, I must restrain my quotations.

Before quoting from Bonhoeffer, I pass on Eberhard Bethge’s comment on attending Bonhoeffer’s lectures:

The first classes at Zingst were, for the newcomers, a breath-taking experience. Suddenly the realization burst upon them that they were not there simply to learn new techniques of preaching and instruction, but were to be initiated into something that represented altogether revolutionary prerequisites for those activities.19

The essential course for his students revolved around his stunning lectures on discipleship, now published as The Cost of Discipleship.20

Here, then, is a sampling of Bonhoeffer’s inspiring thoughts about community from Life Together. The foundation for Christian community and for accountability is Jesus Christ. “It is grace, nothing but grace, that we are allowed to live in community with Christian brethren.”21 “One is a brother to another only through Jesus Christ.”22 “Not what a man is in himself as a Christian, his spirituality and piety, constitutes the basis of our community. What determines our brotherhood is what the man is by reason of Christ.”23

But Bonhoeffer knew the realities of life together, that it would involve disappointment with others, frustrations, and anger. Thus, he argues, we must dispense with illusory fantasies about some ideal state of communal life. “When the morning mists of [these] dreams vanish, then dawns the bright day of Christian fellowship.”24 Thus it becomes clear that Christian fellowship is not ordinary human love and not possible apart from the Spirit of God. He says: “Human love produces human subjection, dependence, constraint; spiritual love creates freedom of the brethren under the Word.”25 And he concludes: “It is not the experience of Christian brotherhood, but solid and certain faith in [this] brotherhood, that holds us together.”26

These harsh realities of life together led Bonhoeffer to a chapter entitled “The Day With Others.” He legislates for his students that “Common life under the Word begins with common worship at the beginning of the day.”27 And so, “at the beginning of the day let all distraction and empty talk be silenced and let the first thought and the first word belong to him to whom our whole life belongs.”28 This “common” (in the title of the book itself) worship included the Word of Scripture, hymns of the church, and prayer. After this, the Christian must go to work, but this must be done in constant communion with God. “Then from this achieved unity of the day the whole day acquires an order and a discipline.”29 Later he will say that life together involves the ministry of holding one’s tongue, of meekness before God and others, of listening, of helpfulness, of bearing one another’s burdens, of proclaiming the Word to one another, and of the ministry of the authority of service.

While Bonhoeffer’s experience cannot normally be ours (who of us lives in this kind of community?), his principles retain their force. Christians form a community, a real community of sinful persons who have become attached to God through Christ and in the Spirit, and their community is their new life. They must live responsibly before God in freedom but with accountability to one another. They must confront one another because “nothing can be more cruel than the tenderness that consigns another to his sin. Nothing can be more compassionate than the severe rebuke that calls a brother back from the path of sin.”30 Bonhoeffer died as a martyr of Jesus Christ because he lived responsibly before God as an individual and because he was sustained by the fellowship of mutual accountability.31

I finish here with some thoughts on the importance of God being the judge as a foundation for our faith and ethics. C. S. Lewis began his famous radio lectures with this idea as implicit to all. Hidden in the consciousness of every human being is the concept that we ought to do certain things but that we do not always do them.32 That “oughtness” is an innate sense of God’s judgment, and it functions to motivate all humans to live properly. Now some will tell us that we do kind things to others because such action is good and right and because others deserve it; this is called altruism. Christian ethics, I suppose, has an element of altruism in it, but it is fundamentally wrong to think that the foundation of the Christian lifestyle is some supposed altruism. Instead, the foundation for Christian behavior is the grace of God that awakens us, the love of God that stirs us to action, and the holiness of God that stiffens our resolve to obey him. And behind each of these is the fact that God will be our judge, that we will give account to him for everything done in the body, and that God is altogether honest and completely just.

This thought is uncomfortable for many. “How can a loving God punish?” they ask. The answer once again is context. The God of love in the Bible is also a God who is altogether holy and who will never act contrary to his holy and loving nature. Thus, the only foundation for acceptance with God is his method: his Son, Jesus Christ, expressed God’s love in dying for us, but he had to die for us because God is holy (Rom. 3:21–25 discusses this). This means that God’s justice is expressed in the cross as much as God’s love is.

The message of Paul here is that God will judge us justly. This should create fear, holy fear, on our part. C. S. Lewis commented once that “our fear is precisely lest the judgement should be a good deal more righteous than we can bear.”33 It will be, but we are not to shrink from the concept of being judged. Instead, we are to trust in Christ all the more and stand with confidence before God, knowing we have done what God has called us to do—not perfectly (that is never demanded for the Christian), but honestly and with integrity that we have done what God has asked.

And Paul says that God will judge us on the basis of our life, whether it was “in the Spirit” or “in the flesh.” This means, as I said above, that the final judgment, the judgment that will determine our entry into God’s blessing, is rooted in our works. To be sure—and here I emphasize to the point of being pushy—the basis of our acceptance with God is what Christ has done on our behalf. But for God to assess whether we are attached to Christ, he will simply scan the evidence of our lives: Is it one of living “in the Spirit” or of living “in the flesh”? Those who live “in the Spirit” do so by faith and obedience; those who live “in the flesh” have sins aplenty to show for their time on earth.

The judgment of God, then, is a motivational force for the Christian. Someday we shall stand, each of us, before God. That realization makes us different and changes our lives, or it ought to. I do not know how this will happen (and those who claim they do “know too much,” because they know more than what God has said), but I do know this much: we must each give an account and “the one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life” (v. 8). Let us not garble this demand of God on our lives by minimizing the judgment; behind the judgment stands a holy and loving God who will always act in accordance with his love and his holiness. Judgment is inevitable for such a God.