I don’t believe that grace-oriented theology is the opposite of works-based theology. There is a tendency in fall into a trap in critical thinking to set up two extremes and find the answer between them. In this case, the two extremes are placed as ‘too much works-thinking’ on one side and ‘too much grace-thinking’. This kind of thinking only produces muddiness and uncertainty. It’s not that everything is certain and that muddiness is a bad thing. A lack of clarity has often produced faith in my life because it forces me to remember that I am not always going to find the answer and that God is being a father to me by letting me find my own way through. However, my point is that I want to look for a different perspective that might produce at least a little more clarity. Setting up these two end posts and looking for the answer between is bound to produce all kinds of arguments over words and hairs and other minutia that exasperates many.

Aside from that, works-based theology is not something that needs to be balanced out. It is not partially right or half right, it is not right at all. I truly believe, like John Eldridge has said, that men are meant to be free. Works-based theology in any form produces duty, not freedom. Men will tend to fulfill their obligations and be dutiful, but such duty to anything (work, church, even God) kills the heart inch by inch over time. The response to works-based theology is God-thinking theology. Who knows this God-thinking theology? I don’t think any one person does, but I look forward to finding out. It’s a great journey.
Having said that, though, there is one fundamental thing that I have learned so far: I have nothing to prove to anyone.

God chose me when I was His enemy. I think about the events of Acts 9. Look at the conversion of Saul and the reaction of Ananias. Ananias was honest with the Lord and questioning what was happening, but ultimately, he did what the Lord asked him to do. Saul didn’t have to prove anything to Ananias before or after his conversion. When he went back to Jerusalem, he wasn’t allowed to join the disciples there. Quite understandably, they were afraid of him. The last time they had dealt with Saul, he had arrested their friends (and possibly family). In this situation, it would have been easy for Saul to try to prove that he was a changed man. The key is this: Saul needed an advocate. No amount of watching, reporting, or measuring would have changed many of the disciples’ minds in Jerusalem. Not only that, it would have produced pro-Saul and anti-Saul factions. Mistrust cannot be overcome with proofs, only love.

Instead, Saul is brought before the apostles by Barnabas who speaks on his behalf. After Barnabas tells of what Saul has done, Saul is accepted. Not only was he accepted, as it says in verse 28, he moved about freely in Jerusalem. In addition to being accepted, he was trusted. Was it because of what he had done in Damascus? Not really. He was trusted because the apostles trusted Barnabas. The Bible says that wisdom is proved right by her actions, and the result of the apostles’ trust is that Saul proclaims the gospel in a powerful way. The apostles could have been cautious and put him on ‘move-in status’. They could have asked Barnabas to stay with Saul and keep an eye on him. They could have even asked for Barnabas to report to them so that they could be aware of the situation. None of this occurs – not because Saul was so great and powerful, but because Barnabas took a risk to be an advocate.

In the same way, Jesus is an advocate for each of us. Just like he was an advocate for Saul to Ananias, he is an advocate for us before the throne of God. Satan accuses us day and night (Rev 12:10), but Jesus is there on our side. I imagine that, like Ananias, Satan brings up legimate concerns about each of us. I certainly have some very legimate issues that he could bring up, especially in areas of self-control. However, Jesus is also there as an advocate on my behalf. He doesn’t argue that the good I do outweighs the bad, although I’m sure he does present to good that I do. Ultimately, it comes down to him saying, “I chose him, and I will show him his errors.” God then chooses to accept me, not because of what I’ve done, but because he trusts his Son, the author and perfecter of our faith. I believe that Jesus will continue to advocate me and He will continue to show me the error of my ways.

If Jesus is my advocate to God, then what do I have to prove to anyone? I don’t have to prove that I am right and I don’t have to be angry when I am wrong. Whether Jesus chooses to show me my error through my critics or my friends is up to His discretion. I don’t have to be right, but I want to be His. Unless I am humble, how will I know when Jesus is trying to tell me something. Certainly, I can trust His word as an anchor, and I’m glad that I don’t have to wonder so much about that. I have to work to understand it correctly, but there’s no discernment needed about how the message is delivered. It came from God. With others, however, it’s tempting to judge the messenger and not the message. I do not have to trust someone for them to tell me the truth. My trust or lack thereof is irrelevant, what is important is the message. Is someone telling me what is right? Because I have nothing to prove to them or myself, who cares what they think of me? Who cares if they score a point against me on some imaginary scoreboard? It’s not about winning. My enemy is not flesh and blood, so my fight is not against the person I see, but the powers of the evil one, the false teaching, the deceptive theology, and hollow promises offered in exchange for the freedom in Christ that all Christians share.