Hey man, would you please send me biblical proof that we need to listen other as part of our spiritual growth...assuming its true. -Gordon
Listening to other believers is not only part of our spiritual growth, in a general way, but actually a part of our salvation--
Matthew 18:15-17-- The one who does not listen to a brother or the church is to be counted as a gentile and a tax collector-- one who is no longer a part of God's kingdom.
Matthew 10:14-15-- Whoever does not listen to prophets will be treated as Sodom
James 5:19-20-- The one who speaks to a sinner, helping them to repent, saves that person.
Also, forgiveness is not just between us and God, but is a process that includes the church--
John 20:23; Luke 17:3-4-- We are to be part of the process of forgiveness
I Cor. 6:1-5-- The church is supposed to be mediating between brothers
I John 3:15-18; Galatians 6:10; Matthew 25:31-46-- We are to be assisiting each other in need; If we don't we don't love God, and we will be punished on the final day
John 13:34-35; John 15:12-13-- We are supposed to love one another-- and this love is to be reflected in giving up our lives to each other
All of this is to prove that the Christian life is life in community. We can't ignore each other, we have to pay attention, we have to connect, we have to love. Our very salvation depends on it.
However, we do not just listen, but we also discern what each other is saying-- I John 4:1; I Thessalonians 5:21-22. Thus we need to check what others say by the word and by other believers.
So, in summary, we are to listen to other believers, it is a part of our salvation. If we refuse to listen, we will be judged by God. And yet, we need to have discernment in listening, taking care that what believers tell us is really God's word.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Abortion and Mediation
I have two comments on the abortion discussion in general:
I am often disturbed by the lack of understanding between the two main viewpoints. They are each based on a philsophical (NOT religious, unless you are Catholic) answer to the question: When does human life begin? One viewpoint says that human life begins at conception, and that such a human being deserves all the rights and privleges of humans. The other point of view realistically says that human life– as far as rights and privliges go– begins at birth. In the ancient pagan world, human rights didn’t exist until much later in the human development. So, philosophically, there are different points of view. For the first point of view, it makes sense that the fetus has equal rights– not more than– to the mother, and so both should be treated with respect. The second point of view, while honoring all life, gives preference to the mother, and all points follow from that.
The main issue is to understand that the point of view opposed to the one we hold is not evil incarnate, but simply a different point of view. If we react harshly to those who disagree with us, then we will never come to agreement, or even compromise.
And this leads me to my second point. The responses in the abortion debate in society in large has been so dramatic and extreme, that it makes discussion about the subject almost impossible.
Could it not be that Anabaptists, with concern for mediation and peacemaking, could open up this discussion to all, trying to understand the other point of view, even while disagreeing with it, setting aside the propoganda and seeing the true human feeling and compassion on both sides?
I have hope in some of the present discussions about public policy, seeing possibilites that both sides might agree to having abortions reduced by reducing poverty, and increasing opportunities for well rounded education about sex and contraception.
I am often disturbed by the lack of understanding between the two main viewpoints. They are each based on a philsophical (NOT religious, unless you are Catholic) answer to the question: When does human life begin? One viewpoint says that human life begins at conception, and that such a human being deserves all the rights and privleges of humans. The other point of view realistically says that human life– as far as rights and privliges go– begins at birth. In the ancient pagan world, human rights didn’t exist until much later in the human development. So, philosophically, there are different points of view. For the first point of view, it makes sense that the fetus has equal rights– not more than– to the mother, and so both should be treated with respect. The second point of view, while honoring all life, gives preference to the mother, and all points follow from that.
The main issue is to understand that the point of view opposed to the one we hold is not evil incarnate, but simply a different point of view. If we react harshly to those who disagree with us, then we will never come to agreement, or even compromise.
And this leads me to my second point. The responses in the abortion debate in society in large has been so dramatic and extreme, that it makes discussion about the subject almost impossible.
Could it not be that Anabaptists, with concern for mediation and peacemaking, could open up this discussion to all, trying to understand the other point of view, even while disagreeing with it, setting aside the propoganda and seeing the true human feeling and compassion on both sides?
I have hope in some of the present discussions about public policy, seeing possibilites that both sides might agree to having abortions reduced by reducing poverty, and increasing opportunities for well rounded education about sex and contraception.
Judging the Culture of Oppression
Joe responds to Top Ten Acts of Oppression:
It seems to me that it is fairly obvious these are at the very heart of the things that offends God. I’m not too bothered about arguing over the other stuff - which seem to me like straining a gnat to catch an elephant.
For me the problem is that by existing I am deeply entrenched in a lifestyle which oppresses. Like it or not, people exist in terrible conditions so that I can enjoy a lifestyle characterised by the pursuit of leisure.
I can’t speak for God, but I honestly can’t see him blaming people for being within a structure they didn’t create. But I think he will blame us for knowing that our lives are oppressive and not doing much about it.
It is one thing to identify an evil institutional structure and quite another to work out what to do about it. This seems to me to be the great question of our time - if we claim to have something to do with Jesus of Nazareth, how can we continue to live like we do?
Joe:
I understand your perspective, and I deeply appreciate it. It is one the main focuses of my life since as a teen I spend time in Kolikut (Calcutta) and Bangladesh. I am a part of a wealthy, oppressive nation, and what is my response to it.
I personally don’t feel that God is so much judging us for being a part of our culture, but is calling us to be free of it. Jesus isn’t in the judging business, but in the deliverance business. So when he told the rich young ruler, “Sell your possessions and give to the poor,” he was calling him to be free of what was oppressing him.
So, for me, the response I have to God is less in speaking out against injustice– although I do that– but in living a lifestyle that frees me from being oppressive, a lifestyle that sets me apart from a culture of leisure and spiritual and cultural narrowness.
It seems to me that it is fairly obvious these are at the very heart of the things that offends God. I’m not too bothered about arguing over the other stuff - which seem to me like straining a gnat to catch an elephant.
For me the problem is that by existing I am deeply entrenched in a lifestyle which oppresses. Like it or not, people exist in terrible conditions so that I can enjoy a lifestyle characterised by the pursuit of leisure.
I can’t speak for God, but I honestly can’t see him blaming people for being within a structure they didn’t create. But I think he will blame us for knowing that our lives are oppressive and not doing much about it.
It is one thing to identify an evil institutional structure and quite another to work out what to do about it. This seems to me to be the great question of our time - if we claim to have something to do with Jesus of Nazareth, how can we continue to live like we do?
Joe:
I understand your perspective, and I deeply appreciate it. It is one the main focuses of my life since as a teen I spend time in Kolikut (Calcutta) and Bangladesh. I am a part of a wealthy, oppressive nation, and what is my response to it.
I personally don’t feel that God is so much judging us for being a part of our culture, but is calling us to be free of it. Jesus isn’t in the judging business, but in the deliverance business. So when he told the rich young ruler, “Sell your possessions and give to the poor,” he was calling him to be free of what was oppressing him.
So, for me, the response I have to God is less in speaking out against injustice– although I do that– but in living a lifestyle that frees me from being oppressive, a lifestyle that sets me apart from a culture of leisure and spiritual and cultural narrowness.
Killing the Innocent in War
Regina responds to Top Ten Acts of Oppression:
Perhaps the reason a liberal democracy was such a wonderful idea was because people helping people was alway the best and most Biblical way.
If you were oppressed by Saddam Hussein would you be wishing America would not have spent billions of dollars to free you? That seems like it goes along with your social liberal philosophy. EVERY war kills innocent people, read about WWII but that doesn’t make it a waste….. Read Romans 13.
My response:
Regina:
Every human is not only an individual, but a whole society, of thoughts, cultures and endeavours. Every human is a little piece of God. Should any society or group decide that a number of innocents are worthy to be killed, not by their own choice, then it is not only a tragedy, but a travisty. It is a disaster for a whole culture, if the death of innocents is so casually accepted then justice is turned upside down and we have accepted the Big Brother who tells us that the lie is truth.
I have read Romans 13. It says that a government holds the sword, not to harm innocents, but to strike fear in those who do evil. I have also read Romans 12 that says that we, who believe in Jesus, need not take vengeance, because that is God’s job, not our own. God himself will judge those who determine that the life of the innocent is unimportant.
Read Psalm 82.
Perhaps the reason a liberal democracy was such a wonderful idea was because people helping people was alway the best and most Biblical way.
If you were oppressed by Saddam Hussein would you be wishing America would not have spent billions of dollars to free you? That seems like it goes along with your social liberal philosophy. EVERY war kills innocent people, read about WWII but that doesn’t make it a waste….. Read Romans 13.
My response:
Regina:
Every human is not only an individual, but a whole society, of thoughts, cultures and endeavours. Every human is a little piece of God. Should any society or group decide that a number of innocents are worthy to be killed, not by their own choice, then it is not only a tragedy, but a travisty. It is a disaster for a whole culture, if the death of innocents is so casually accepted then justice is turned upside down and we have accepted the Big Brother who tells us that the lie is truth.
I have read Romans 13. It says that a government holds the sword, not to harm innocents, but to strike fear in those who do evil. I have also read Romans 12 that says that we, who believe in Jesus, need not take vengeance, because that is God’s job, not our own. God himself will judge those who determine that the life of the innocent is unimportant.
Read Psalm 82.
The OT and the NT
Top Ten Acts of Oppression as quoted in Young Anabaptist Radicals:
All references are from the ancient Hebrew prophets:
1. Refusing to defend the needy- Isaiah 1:17, 23; Jeremiah 5:28
2. Stealing from the poor- Isaiah 3:14-15
3. Unjust judgments against the poor- Isaiah 10:1-2
4. Not assisting the needy- Ezekiel 16:49
5. Taking interest for loans- Ezekiel 18:15-17
6. Enslaving a people- Amos 1:6
7. Excessive violence in war, especially against innocents- Amos 1:13
8. Excessive rent against the poor- Amos 5:11
9. Accepting bribes- Amos 5:12
10. Turning away those who need shelter for a night- Amos 5:12
Daylight replies:
You are absolutely right in your scriptural basis against acts of oppression. I wonder though. If I posted a list of Old Testament scriptures to build a case against homosexuality, abortion, or to support such things as the death penalty and war, you might reject my list under the notion that we are New Testament people now. Why do liberal Christians have one list of favorite Bible causes and conservative Christians have different list? Both lists have a common source. Just asking.
My response:
I have to admit, that while I am deeply interested in the Hebrew Scriptures, I don’t often use it as a source of moral truth, except when it explains what Jesus was saying. Jesus (and especially his brother James) spoke against the oppression of the poor. However, the definition of this, he depended on the Hebrew Scriptures, just as he depended on the Hebrew Scriptures for the defninition of “porneia” or sexual immorality. So this list is in the way of a definition.
Also, although I know that there are “liberal” and “conservative” Christians, I don’t find that divide to be helpful. There are people who use the Scriptures for their own ideologies. I have no interest in them. I think that kind of interpretation of the Scripture is not only wrong-headed, but boring. I find truth in Jesus, and so Jesus is the way to interpret the rest of the canon. We understand him first, and then the rest of Scripture makes sense.
All references are from the ancient Hebrew prophets:
1. Refusing to defend the needy- Isaiah 1:17, 23; Jeremiah 5:28
2. Stealing from the poor- Isaiah 3:14-15
3. Unjust judgments against the poor- Isaiah 10:1-2
4. Not assisting the needy- Ezekiel 16:49
5. Taking interest for loans- Ezekiel 18:15-17
6. Enslaving a people- Amos 1:6
7. Excessive violence in war, especially against innocents- Amos 1:13
8. Excessive rent against the poor- Amos 5:11
9. Accepting bribes- Amos 5:12
10. Turning away those who need shelter for a night- Amos 5:12
Daylight replies:
You are absolutely right in your scriptural basis against acts of oppression. I wonder though. If I posted a list of Old Testament scriptures to build a case against homosexuality, abortion, or to support such things as the death penalty and war, you might reject my list under the notion that we are New Testament people now. Why do liberal Christians have one list of favorite Bible causes and conservative Christians have different list? Both lists have a common source. Just asking.
My response:
I have to admit, that while I am deeply interested in the Hebrew Scriptures, I don’t often use it as a source of moral truth, except when it explains what Jesus was saying. Jesus (and especially his brother James) spoke against the oppression of the poor. However, the definition of this, he depended on the Hebrew Scriptures, just as he depended on the Hebrew Scriptures for the defninition of “porneia” or sexual immorality. So this list is in the way of a definition.
Also, although I know that there are “liberal” and “conservative” Christians, I don’t find that divide to be helpful. There are people who use the Scriptures for their own ideologies. I have no interest in them. I think that kind of interpretation of the Scripture is not only wrong-headed, but boring. I find truth in Jesus, and so Jesus is the way to interpret the rest of the canon. We understand him first, and then the rest of Scripture makes sense.
Two Jesus'
Folknotions asks on Young Radical Anabaptists: “the Jesus of the gospels, not the Jesus of theology” Could you clarify this distinction? Thanks.
The Jesus of theology is the Jesus discussed conceptually in intellectual circles, churches and Bible studies. This is the many “historical Jesus’” (although there have been many honest attempts to find the “real” Jesus), the Jesus of orthodox doctrine, the Jesus of deity alone, the Jesus who rules and who only loves in the abstract. The Jesus of theology has been developed over two thousand years, and has increasingly made Jesus, as a person, more philosophical and able to put in a box. Although this Jesus is arguably greater than the Jesus of the gospels, he is less “touchable” and more moldable by whatever concepts we find most dear within our own worldview.
Perhaps the Jesus of the gospels is more static, but he is more touchable, more realistic, and more difficult to conform to our notions of morality and reality. The Jesus of the gospels always challenges our thoughts and who we are. The Jesus of the gospels never panders to us, or tells us what we want to hear.
But the Jesus of the gospels is the one who looked with compassion at the rich young ruler. The Jesus of the gospels is the one who drew in the sand when asked for judgement. The Jesus of the gospels yelled at his disciples. The Jesus of the gospels insulted the Pharisees. The Jesus of the gospels cried to God to change the plan they had determined upon already. The Jesus of the gospels didn’t know everything. It isn’t just that this Jesus is human– he is real.
The Jesus of theology is the Jesus discussed conceptually in intellectual circles, churches and Bible studies. This is the many “historical Jesus’” (although there have been many honest attempts to find the “real” Jesus), the Jesus of orthodox doctrine, the Jesus of deity alone, the Jesus who rules and who only loves in the abstract. The Jesus of theology has been developed over two thousand years, and has increasingly made Jesus, as a person, more philosophical and able to put in a box. Although this Jesus is arguably greater than the Jesus of the gospels, he is less “touchable” and more moldable by whatever concepts we find most dear within our own worldview.
Perhaps the Jesus of the gospels is more static, but he is more touchable, more realistic, and more difficult to conform to our notions of morality and reality. The Jesus of the gospels always challenges our thoughts and who we are. The Jesus of the gospels never panders to us, or tells us what we want to hear.
But the Jesus of the gospels is the one who looked with compassion at the rich young ruler. The Jesus of the gospels is the one who drew in the sand when asked for judgement. The Jesus of the gospels yelled at his disciples. The Jesus of the gospels insulted the Pharisees. The Jesus of the gospels cried to God to change the plan they had determined upon already. The Jesus of the gospels didn’t know everything. It isn’t just that this Jesus is human– he is real.
Jesus and the Bible
Posted by Tim N, on Facebook:
My awareness of how I read the bible has been strongly shaped by my experience of British Anabaptism through working Anabaptist Network. The second of the Anabaptist Network's seven core convictions is: Jesus is the focal point of God’s revelation. We are committed to a Jesus-centred approach to the Bible, and to the community of faith as the primary context in which we read the Bible and discern and apply its implications for discipleship.(read more from the AN) Naming an Anabaptist value as a "Jesus-centred approach to the bible" helped me to understand some distinctive of my own Mennonite tradition
I just read a book that talked about this approach to the Bible, but the Jesus he was speaking of is a theological Jesus-- the Jesus of the creeds. This isn't exactly an Anabaptist approach. The theological Jesus can just as well be a construct in our minds. The Jesus of the gospel is a real Jesus, one that we can disagree with at times, but one that is worthy to be acknowledged as Lord of our lives, not just the world.
My awareness of how I read the bible has been strongly shaped by my experience of British Anabaptism through working Anabaptist Network. The second of the Anabaptist Network's seven core convictions is: Jesus is the focal point of God’s revelation. We are committed to a Jesus-centred approach to the Bible, and to the community of faith as the primary context in which we read the Bible and discern and apply its implications for discipleship.(read more from the AN) Naming an Anabaptist value as a "Jesus-centred approach to the bible" helped me to understand some distinctive of my own Mennonite tradition
I just read a book that talked about this approach to the Bible, but the Jesus he was speaking of is a theological Jesus-- the Jesus of the creeds. This isn't exactly an Anabaptist approach. The theological Jesus can just as well be a construct in our minds. The Jesus of the gospel is a real Jesus, one that we can disagree with at times, but one that is worthy to be acknowledged as Lord of our lives, not just the world.
Discussion on Death to Self
“The outflow of the Spirit depends upon death to self.” -Donald Gee
Phil replies on Facebook:
I usually know when the Spirit is at work because it's the direct opposite of what I think I would want or desire. It also speaks to me when the message is in opposition to the things of this world like money, security, luxury, etc.
Julie replies:
Oh yeah...whenever I have a knee-jerk reaction to something I know it is time to re-think my position...
Emmet replies:
Rather than "death to self," "life to self" - that is, the self choosing G-d's life. G-d does not want us merely to vacate and become a finger-puppet for the divine; G-d wants us to become better us's, in communion with him. This takes more than pulling the trigger. This takes ongoing active investment of our selves. Let the self live to receive the spirit.
Cat replies:
I am inclined to agree with you, Emmet (hi, nice ta meetcha!)Death to self-will, not self itself. I hear in Christian teaching and lyrics all the time the prayer to "disappear." But I wonder if that is really God's heart. God wanted us to be ourselves enough to give us the gift of free will. That suggests to me that there is a wholesome, holy self we are to lay hold of. I wonder if we are afraid of the freedom to be ourselves?
Phil replies on Facebook:
I usually know when the Spirit is at work because it's the direct opposite of what I think I would want or desire. It also speaks to me when the message is in opposition to the things of this world like money, security, luxury, etc.
Julie replies:
Oh yeah...whenever I have a knee-jerk reaction to something I know it is time to re-think my position...
Emmet replies:
Rather than "death to self," "life to self" - that is, the self choosing G-d's life. G-d does not want us merely to vacate and become a finger-puppet for the divine; G-d wants us to become better us's, in communion with him. This takes more than pulling the trigger. This takes ongoing active investment of our selves. Let the self live to receive the spirit.
Cat replies:
I am inclined to agree with you, Emmet (hi, nice ta meetcha!)Death to self-will, not self itself. I hear in Christian teaching and lyrics all the time the prayer to "disappear." But I wonder if that is really God's heart. God wanted us to be ourselves enough to give us the gift of free will. That suggests to me that there is a wholesome, holy self we are to lay hold of. I wonder if we are afraid of the freedom to be ourselves?
Apathy and Hatred
Apathy is the bedfellow of hatred. Both are equally the enemy of love.
Phil replies on Facebook:
Yes and apathy can sometimes be worse than hatred. I think God would rather have us hate Him than not care at all... or be lukewarm.
I reply:
Not to disagree with your basic notion, but the basis for the idea that God would rather have us hate him, Revelation 3:16, when it speaks about the church being either "cold or hot" means that either cold water or hot water is useful-- good for drinking or cooking. But lukewarm water is the only one not useful at all. The apathetic Christian is like lukewarm water, as is the hating Christian-- neither does the will of God, which is love.
Phil replies on Facebook:
Yes and apathy can sometimes be worse than hatred. I think God would rather have us hate Him than not care at all... or be lukewarm.
I reply:
Not to disagree with your basic notion, but the basis for the idea that God would rather have us hate him, Revelation 3:16, when it speaks about the church being either "cold or hot" means that either cold water or hot water is useful-- good for drinking or cooking. But lukewarm water is the only one not useful at all. The apathetic Christian is like lukewarm water, as is the hating Christian-- neither does the will of God, which is love.
Death and Suffering
My original post on Facebook:
“The outflow of the Spirit depends upon death to self.” -Donald Gee
John Johnson comments on Facebook:
I was teaching Romans a couple of years back and was taken with the theme that Christianity is about death. I love the quote, "When Christ calls a man, He bids him come and die" (Bonhoffer). The "secret" to my progressive freedom in Christ seems to be tied to my acceptance of and submission to the reality that I am crucified with Christ. This leaps on into the radical doctrine that I am already righteous, not positionally, but factually. Unfortunately, the conscience "I" is rarely in step with the righteous "I." As this earthly "I" is killed off more and more, the "I" Christ has made me will show through more and more. When talking with religious people I love to point out that God doesn't want us "good," He wants us dead; and that is a much tuffer standard.
I reply:
Speaking of death of self, I'm beginning to realize that the main way Scripture talks about this is the embrace of suffering-- whether that be suffering for refusing sin, suffering from persecution or suffering for being in a place to preach the gospel. I'm still studying this.
John replies:
I'm working on suffering. One discovery is that I tend to avoid the emotional effects of suffering through "masking" so I won't feel the pain. It's a cop survival thing. But Jesus did nothing to mask the pain. He suffered the sufferings both outside and inside. Hence, under the heading of Things I Learned since Bible School in my FB Notes you read "Suffering hurts." Pretty profound discovery, huh?
“The outflow of the Spirit depends upon death to self.” -Donald Gee
John Johnson comments on Facebook:
I was teaching Romans a couple of years back and was taken with the theme that Christianity is about death. I love the quote, "When Christ calls a man, He bids him come and die" (Bonhoffer). The "secret" to my progressive freedom in Christ seems to be tied to my acceptance of and submission to the reality that I am crucified with Christ. This leaps on into the radical doctrine that I am already righteous, not positionally, but factually. Unfortunately, the conscience "I" is rarely in step with the righteous "I." As this earthly "I" is killed off more and more, the "I" Christ has made me will show through more and more. When talking with religious people I love to point out that God doesn't want us "good," He wants us dead; and that is a much tuffer standard.
I reply:
Speaking of death of self, I'm beginning to realize that the main way Scripture talks about this is the embrace of suffering-- whether that be suffering for refusing sin, suffering from persecution or suffering for being in a place to preach the gospel. I'm still studying this.
John replies:
I'm working on suffering. One discovery is that I tend to avoid the emotional effects of suffering through "masking" so I won't feel the pain. It's a cop survival thing. But Jesus did nothing to mask the pain. He suffered the sufferings both outside and inside. Hence, under the heading of Things I Learned since Bible School in my FB Notes you read "Suffering hurts." Pretty profound discovery, huh?
Jesus, Not Religion
Gordon asks: When some says they dont want religion, they want Jesus. What are they really saying?
They mean they don't want organization-- they don't want anyone telling them what to believe about Jesus.
I can appreciate that, but I think that we all should at least be in conversation with the main traditions of Christianity. For example, anyone who denies the Catholic tradition without looking at it is poorer in their understanding of Jesus. Not because they should agree with the Catholic tradition, but because the tradition has been working through what Jesus means to them and what it means that He is Lord for 1700 years. That's a voice that should be heard. So "religion" is important, tradition is an important voice, even if it issn't the only one.
They mean they don't want organization-- they don't want anyone telling them what to believe about Jesus.
I can appreciate that, but I think that we all should at least be in conversation with the main traditions of Christianity. For example, anyone who denies the Catholic tradition without looking at it is poorer in their understanding of Jesus. Not because they should agree with the Catholic tradition, but because the tradition has been working through what Jesus means to them and what it means that He is Lord for 1700 years. That's a voice that should be heard. So "religion" is important, tradition is an important voice, even if it issn't the only one.
Basic Definitions
Gordon asks: What does it mean to be a christian?? What does it mean to be a God fearing person? What does mean to be truly devoted to Him?
Those are three different questions:
A. A Christian is one who has Jesus as his or her Lord. A cultural "christian" is one who claims some connection to God in the guise of a Christian worldview, even though that person may have no real spiritual life at all.
B. A God fearing person, literally, is one who's actions are changed due to a recognition of judgment. It is a person who is afraid of what God will do to them if they don't change their actions.
C. To be truly devoted to God is defined differently, even in different places in the Bible. Right now, my best understanding is: Treat God as the Lord of all, in worship, obedience, and belief and to treat other people as God's creation in His image-- with respect and care for their needs.
Those are three different questions:
A. A Christian is one who has Jesus as his or her Lord. A cultural "christian" is one who claims some connection to God in the guise of a Christian worldview, even though that person may have no real spiritual life at all.
B. A God fearing person, literally, is one who's actions are changed due to a recognition of judgment. It is a person who is afraid of what God will do to them if they don't change their actions.
C. To be truly devoted to God is defined differently, even in different places in the Bible. Right now, my best understanding is: Treat God as the Lord of all, in worship, obedience, and belief and to treat other people as God's creation in His image-- with respect and care for their needs.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Should Pastors Plan Sermons?
A discussion under "Are Sermons Scriptural?" in MennoDiscuss:
a. Is there a NT basis for a single teaching elder in a church?
b. Were NT sermons extemporaneous or planned?
Of course, my opinions follow:
a. No. There is a basis for elders of a church-- whether one or more than one-- being able to teach (I Tim. 3:2). This might imply that the lion's share of teaching would fall on them, but not exclusively them. However, it is clear that within the church there were many different giftings and many people using those giftings in the church and many people had the same giftings and they all used them in public (I Cor. 14:26ff).
However, in order to prove that a church shouldn't have one pastor who does all the teaching, it should be asked if there is anywhere in scripture where this is not right. The only place I have is I Cor 14 again, which seems to indicate that everyone participates in the service who has something to say, but I don't know if this is proscriptive or descriptive. In general, I think that there isn't anything wrong with the practice, as long as the gifts of each individual are being used in the church.
b. They were both. Most sermons we have in the NT are extemporaneous, such as almost every example in Acts. However, Jesus had a set group of teachings that he presented in different ways in different occasions, but they were pretty standard. We have pretty much the same outline of teaching in Matt 5-7 and in Luke 6, in clearly different locations (unless you think that Matt and Luke invented the locations). Yes, there are differences, but the similarities are striking. Of course, Jesus also preached extemporaneously, but this wasn't his typical teaching style. When it says in Mark or Matthew "he taught" without any description of the teaching, we might assume that the teaching he gave in that location is presented elsewhere. It also says "he taught in parables in every place" in connection with the set of parables we have in Mark 4, which is almost the same as the expanded set in matt 13-- this set of parables he probably taught more than once.
a. Is there a NT basis for a single teaching elder in a church?
b. Were NT sermons extemporaneous or planned?
Of course, my opinions follow:
a. No. There is a basis for elders of a church-- whether one or more than one-- being able to teach (I Tim. 3:2). This might imply that the lion's share of teaching would fall on them, but not exclusively them. However, it is clear that within the church there were many different giftings and many people using those giftings in the church and many people had the same giftings and they all used them in public (I Cor. 14:26ff).
However, in order to prove that a church shouldn't have one pastor who does all the teaching, it should be asked if there is anywhere in scripture where this is not right. The only place I have is I Cor 14 again, which seems to indicate that everyone participates in the service who has something to say, but I don't know if this is proscriptive or descriptive. In general, I think that there isn't anything wrong with the practice, as long as the gifts of each individual are being used in the church.
b. They were both. Most sermons we have in the NT are extemporaneous, such as almost every example in Acts. However, Jesus had a set group of teachings that he presented in different ways in different occasions, but they were pretty standard. We have pretty much the same outline of teaching in Matt 5-7 and in Luke 6, in clearly different locations (unless you think that Matt and Luke invented the locations). Yes, there are differences, but the similarities are striking. Of course, Jesus also preached extemporaneously, but this wasn't his typical teaching style. When it says in Mark or Matthew "he taught" without any description of the teaching, we might assume that the teaching he gave in that location is presented elsewhere. It also says "he taught in parables in every place" in connection with the set of parables we have in Mark 4, which is almost the same as the expanded set in matt 13-- this set of parables he probably taught more than once.
The Wheat and the Tares (Matt 13)
Response to a discussion on this in MennoDiscuss.
I have heard it argued that this parable does not apply to the church, because the field is the "world". However, Jesus often uses the term "world" to mean the broader congregation of Israel (as we see clearly in John 15:19, that "the world" will hate disciples and in 16:2 "the world" casts them from synagogues). Thus, I consider Jesus' use of "the world" to mean the broader people of God, which would today include the church. So I think that today this parable is speaking of the mixed church.
This has an important application for church discipline. The owner tells the workers NOT to pull out the weeds, because they might, by accident, pull out the good plants as well. It seems that Jesus is saying that it is not for us to pull out those who do wrong from our churches. We teach, we train, we make efforts to mature and we protect the immature by showing and doing what is right, warning against the wrong. But who knows when the "evil" one in our midst might not become the one to repent?
It might seem that my interpretation here is in opposition to standard discipline passages such as matt 18, I cor 5, etc. It is not, however. We must discipline those who claim to be full disciples, making it clear to all the congregation what actions are acceptable and what not. However, this discipline is not supposed to be toward ultimate rejection, but ultimate re-acceptance. We need to take Jesus' and Paul's warnings about when we discipline those in the churches that in so doing we do not be judged ourselves. We must be gentle, we must be patient and we must seek the best for the one being disciplined. And, most of all, we must accept them at the first sign of repentance. After all, it is what God does for us.
I have heard it argued that this parable does not apply to the church, because the field is the "world". However, Jesus often uses the term "world" to mean the broader congregation of Israel (as we see clearly in John 15:19, that "the world" will hate disciples and in 16:2 "the world" casts them from synagogues). Thus, I consider Jesus' use of "the world" to mean the broader people of God, which would today include the church. So I think that today this parable is speaking of the mixed church.
This has an important application for church discipline. The owner tells the workers NOT to pull out the weeds, because they might, by accident, pull out the good plants as well. It seems that Jesus is saying that it is not for us to pull out those who do wrong from our churches. We teach, we train, we make efforts to mature and we protect the immature by showing and doing what is right, warning against the wrong. But who knows when the "evil" one in our midst might not become the one to repent?
It might seem that my interpretation here is in opposition to standard discipline passages such as matt 18, I cor 5, etc. It is not, however. We must discipline those who claim to be full disciples, making it clear to all the congregation what actions are acceptable and what not. However, this discipline is not supposed to be toward ultimate rejection, but ultimate re-acceptance. We need to take Jesus' and Paul's warnings about when we discipline those in the churches that in so doing we do not be judged ourselves. We must be gentle, we must be patient and we must seek the best for the one being disciplined. And, most of all, we must accept them at the first sign of repentance. After all, it is what God does for us.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
God's Economics of Charity
A response to the article, "Prosperity in Community"
http://beta.worldwideopen.org/resources/detail/295
Great article by the way. In it, you mention that "stewardship is frequently seen as increasing wealth for later distribution rather than distributing wealth for present increase of all."
How do you think that relates to the Wesleyan principle of "make the most money so that you can give the most money away." Or, put another way, "Gain all you can, save all you can, give all you can." And if we are go go against Wesley’s method, then who is to be the distributor of this wealth for the present increase of all. It seems the government, and sadly even the Church, is pretty poor at doing this.
Finally, how does this apply to those who find themselves in a position of service that also make a decent income (e.g. physicians)? It appears that one can have empathy, live in community, and have a strong income. However, the words of I John 3:16-18 still apply, and the prerogative then becomes "live modestly and give the rest away." Is there a better way?
Thanks for your response, J.
Honestly, I think that the number one thing that destroys ministry opportunities is th concern for a "decent income" or the attempt to "make the most money."
In Anawim, I have worked as a pastor and leader for 10 years without a regular income of any sort. My family had to begin as homeless so we could minister to the homeless. God is my boss and He is the one who provides us with everything we need. And He has. Abundantly. The more we worry about what money we will "make" then the less we are doing things for the Lord and we are actually serving Mammon, which Jesus said we cannot do both at the same time.
I believe that Scritpure teaches that if we have resources, then it is our just duty to give them to those who have need. (I John 3:16-18, as you quoted) And, if we do so faithfully, then God will provide all of our needs (Psalm 41:1-3; Luke 12:22-34 -read the whole thing!). So the economy of God is that of charity-- continually giving and receiving, and the more you give, the more you will end up receiving.
I am not saying that having a strong income is a sin. But the focus cannot be the income-- that is just feeding into the world’s unjust, uncharitable economy. We should never consider what one "deserves" as people who follow Jesus. If Jesus thought that way, he would never have sacrificed himself for our sins. Instead, we should think of the need and how, with our meger resources, we can meet the need. And then, out of heaven, God provides out of his abundant resources.
You are right, though. The Church, sadly, is terrible at distributing resources. Because, like the rest of the world, they want to build themselves up rather than meet needs. So who should distribute? The cheerful, generous giver who considers what the other needs, rather than seeing giving as an arduous task that must be done out of duty. Distribution should never be handed to the judge who surrenders a small amount based on a moral measure, however.
Of course, this brings up as many quesitons as answers. But I suspect this forum is too short to really discuss it at length.
One last thing, J, and this may apply better to your query at the end.
I believe that Scripturally, there are three models of giving that are all radical, and loving.
1. Sell your possessions and give to the poor. This is the model of live modestly and give the rest away that you mention. I think that it is the basic model you have presented by Jesus.
2. Live without possessions This is the model of the disciples. They didn’t give to the poor, really, but lived as the poor to give the gospel to the poor. They completely depended on God’s resources.
3. Shared use. This is the model of the early Gentile church. The early church, rather than selling everything they had, used it in community. Thus, if someone had a house, that house was to be used for the Christian community and had people in need staying there. If someone had food, they brought it to the community for all to share. We see this frequently in Acts and in Paul’s letters (I Timothy 6, e.g.)
So, although I think that the first model should be normative, all three models could easily be used together.
http://beta.worldwideopen.org/resources/detail/295
Great article by the way. In it, you mention that "stewardship is frequently seen as increasing wealth for later distribution rather than distributing wealth for present increase of all."
How do you think that relates to the Wesleyan principle of "make the most money so that you can give the most money away." Or, put another way, "Gain all you can, save all you can, give all you can." And if we are go go against Wesley’s method, then who is to be the distributor of this wealth for the present increase of all. It seems the government, and sadly even the Church, is pretty poor at doing this.
Finally, how does this apply to those who find themselves in a position of service that also make a decent income (e.g. physicians)? It appears that one can have empathy, live in community, and have a strong income. However, the words of I John 3:16-18 still apply, and the prerogative then becomes "live modestly and give the rest away." Is there a better way?
Thanks for your response, J.
Honestly, I think that the number one thing that destroys ministry opportunities is th concern for a "decent income" or the attempt to "make the most money."
In Anawim, I have worked as a pastor and leader for 10 years without a regular income of any sort. My family had to begin as homeless so we could minister to the homeless. God is my boss and He is the one who provides us with everything we need. And He has. Abundantly. The more we worry about what money we will "make" then the less we are doing things for the Lord and we are actually serving Mammon, which Jesus said we cannot do both at the same time.
I believe that Scritpure teaches that if we have resources, then it is our just duty to give them to those who have need. (I John 3:16-18, as you quoted) And, if we do so faithfully, then God will provide all of our needs (Psalm 41:1-3; Luke 12:22-34 -read the whole thing!). So the economy of God is that of charity-- continually giving and receiving, and the more you give, the more you will end up receiving.
I am not saying that having a strong income is a sin. But the focus cannot be the income-- that is just feeding into the world’s unjust, uncharitable economy. We should never consider what one "deserves" as people who follow Jesus. If Jesus thought that way, he would never have sacrificed himself for our sins. Instead, we should think of the need and how, with our meger resources, we can meet the need. And then, out of heaven, God provides out of his abundant resources.
You are right, though. The Church, sadly, is terrible at distributing resources. Because, like the rest of the world, they want to build themselves up rather than meet needs. So who should distribute? The cheerful, generous giver who considers what the other needs, rather than seeing giving as an arduous task that must be done out of duty. Distribution should never be handed to the judge who surrenders a small amount based on a moral measure, however.
Of course, this brings up as many quesitons as answers. But I suspect this forum is too short to really discuss it at length.
One last thing, J, and this may apply better to your query at the end.
I believe that Scripturally, there are three models of giving that are all radical, and loving.
1. Sell your possessions and give to the poor. This is the model of live modestly and give the rest away that you mention. I think that it is the basic model you have presented by Jesus.
2. Live without possessions This is the model of the disciples. They didn’t give to the poor, really, but lived as the poor to give the gospel to the poor. They completely depended on God’s resources.
3. Shared use. This is the model of the early Gentile church. The early church, rather than selling everything they had, used it in community. Thus, if someone had a house, that house was to be used for the Christian community and had people in need staying there. If someone had food, they brought it to the community for all to share. We see this frequently in Acts and in Paul’s letters (I Timothy 6, e.g.)
So, although I think that the first model should be normative, all three models could easily be used together.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
God Is The Same
Question put forward on Facebook: "How do we reconcile the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament?"
The God of the OT is the God described as "merciful and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in lovingkindness" (Exodus 34, Psalm 103).
The God of the NT is the God who killed Ananias and Saphira.
The God of the OT is the God who had mercy on Ahab-- the worst king of the northern tribe of Israel-- and didn't judge him when he repented. (I Kings 21)
The God of the NT is the God who does not forgive the one who has all of Jesus and rejects him (Hebrews 6; Hebrews 10:26ff)
God is merciful throughout the Bible.
God is judging throughout the Bible.
God is love throughout the Bible.
God is vengeful throughout the Bible.
Even as it is said of Jesus, so is God the Father: The same, yesterday, today and forever. He never changes.
Only our ability to respond to Him changes. Praise God that He sent His Son, so that we longer have to respond in legalism and judgement, but can now rest in repentance and His forgiveness!
The God of the OT is the God described as "merciful and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in lovingkindness" (Exodus 34, Psalm 103).
The God of the NT is the God who killed Ananias and Saphira.
The God of the OT is the God who had mercy on Ahab-- the worst king of the northern tribe of Israel-- and didn't judge him when he repented. (I Kings 21)
The God of the NT is the God who does not forgive the one who has all of Jesus and rejects him (Hebrews 6; Hebrews 10:26ff)
God is merciful throughout the Bible.
God is judging throughout the Bible.
God is love throughout the Bible.
God is vengeful throughout the Bible.
Even as it is said of Jesus, so is God the Father: The same, yesterday, today and forever. He never changes.
Only our ability to respond to Him changes. Praise God that He sent His Son, so that we longer have to respond in legalism and judgement, but can now rest in repentance and His forgiveness!
Christian Pacifism 101
The strongest argument for Christian pacifism is the New Testament. The simplist argument is Jesus said "love your enemies" and then described that loving includes not harming, not killing. To love someone is to do good to them; to kill someone is the opposite of doing good (See Mark 3:4).
The reason why Jesus and the others didn't get preach against soldier's killing is because, for the most part, they didn't. They acted as a police force in Judea, not a military killing machine-- the Romans who did that work were sent elsewhere.
The NT as a whole argues against the whole miltary machine. Revelation-- getting back to topic-- is an excellent example. The whole book glorifies martyrs-- those who submit to death rather than have their faith be compromised-- and assumes that those in the military machine are those who kill the martyrs. It's a pretty fair assumption. But even if one disagrees with that assumption, we have to admit that those who participate in the society of the Beast-- the military empire-- and those who participate in Babylon-- the commercial support of empire-- are condemned. If we accept this as Scripture, we have to take it seriously and not just dismiss its radical notions.
BTW, the basis for saying that the early church was anti-military isn't based on Roman records but on Christian documents. We have martyrologies of soldiers becoming Christians and then were killed because they refused to participate in warfare. We have early Christian authors saying that participating in the military in unacceptable for a Christian. To see these sources, you can find them in Eberhard Arnold's excellent book, "The Early Christians."
The reason why Jesus and the others didn't get preach against soldier's killing is because, for the most part, they didn't. They acted as a police force in Judea, not a military killing machine-- the Romans who did that work were sent elsewhere.
The NT as a whole argues against the whole miltary machine. Revelation-- getting back to topic-- is an excellent example. The whole book glorifies martyrs-- those who submit to death rather than have their faith be compromised-- and assumes that those in the military machine are those who kill the martyrs. It's a pretty fair assumption. But even if one disagrees with that assumption, we have to admit that those who participate in the society of the Beast-- the military empire-- and those who participate in Babylon-- the commercial support of empire-- are condemned. If we accept this as Scripture, we have to take it seriously and not just dismiss its radical notions.
BTW, the basis for saying that the early church was anti-military isn't based on Roman records but on Christian documents. We have martyrologies of soldiers becoming Christians and then were killed because they refused to participate in warfare. We have early Christian authors saying that participating in the military in unacceptable for a Christian. To see these sources, you can find them in Eberhard Arnold's excellent book, "The Early Christians."
Strength And the Christian Life
Discussion on MennoDiscuss: What do you think evangelicals mean by the sin of "trying to live the Christian life on one's own strength."
I think what evangelicals mean by this second esoteric phrase is trying to live the Christian life without the Spirit is wrong. The fact of the matter is that it isn't so much wrong as impossible. If a person tried to love their enemies, sell their possessions and give to the poor, do religious acts only for God's reward not man's, etc, it's just not human. So we have to have God's strength to help us do as Jesus asks.
The problem comes in when they say that we are doing something wrong by doing what we can. Look, if I can, on my own, not say hateful things about my brother or sister, then why shouldn't I? Is that a sin? We should admit that we can't do it on our own, that we need God's help, but to not do what we can... of course we should.
I think what evangelicals mean by this second esoteric phrase is trying to live the Christian life without the Spirit is wrong. The fact of the matter is that it isn't so much wrong as impossible. If a person tried to love their enemies, sell their possessions and give to the poor, do religious acts only for God's reward not man's, etc, it's just not human. So we have to have God's strength to help us do as Jesus asks.
The problem comes in when they say that we are doing something wrong by doing what we can. Look, if I can, on my own, not say hateful things about my brother or sister, then why shouldn't I? Is that a sin? We should admit that we can't do it on our own, that we need God's help, but to not do what we can... of course we should.
Evangelicals On Legalism
A post on legalism originally here:
http://heraldsofhope.org/newsletters/0901/pg3.html
And then posted on MennoDiscuss here:
http://mennodiscuss.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=7714&p=222568#p222568
The text from the article first, and then my response:
Few subjects have as much variation among believers as our interpretations of personal holiness. Many Christians interpret the freedom we have in Christ very liberally. They tend to run with their freedom and often pay little heed to Christ’s commands. These people focus on the love of Christ and the community of the Church rather than God’s holiness and doctrine.
At a deeper level, it is very easy for us to have a simple view of holiness because it requires little of us - if all we understand of the Christian life is freedom, our view is likely informed more by the world than by Christ. The sacrifices to which He calls us do not resonate with a “freewheeling” Christianity. A low view of sin and righteousness can mar our witness by blurring the distinctions between the Church and the world and open us up to the temptations of the enemy.
The opposite extreme is represented by legalism - the view in which personal holiness is of paramount importance. These folks go to great lengths to avoid the appearance of worldliness and take very seriously God’s call to “Come out from their midst and be separate. . .” Very little in their lives is free from rules and traditions, and they often spend a great deal of time and effort to follow them strictly.
Legalism becomes grievous sin when we believe that we have within ourselves the ability to attain God’s favor. Even when well intentioned, we cannot live up to the required standard. This leads us to judge others and ourselves by the “severity” of our wrongs rather than by God’s standard (that all sin is equally offensive to Him and destructive to our relationship).
A strong devotion to holiness does not have to be legalistic, however. Just as we dishonor God in pursuing righteousness on our own, we honor Him when this pursuit is borne out of love for Him. Jesus’ statement, “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments,” sets personal holiness as an outcome rather than a condition of belief. His concern is not with individual sins but with sin (that is, whether we pursue Him or pursue ourselves).
Does the Lord want us to live in righteousness? Absolutely. Did He fulfill the law and set us free? Completely. But His command was neither “keep the Law” nor “be free”—He confronts us with something much simpler and yet so difficult that we can’t hope to live up to it outside of the Spirit’s enabling: “Follow Me.”
Spirit-led holiness motivated by love is perhaps the most distinctive marker of the faith; it is a picture to a dying world of the hope of forgiveness. Such an attitude is vital if we are to have the impact God desires.
Sincerely in HOPE of the Gospel,
HERALDS OF HOPE, INC
J. Mark Horst, President
This is reflective of a common evangelical viewpoint, and I think it's really confused. Perhaps the author knew better, but didn't write well, I'm not sure.
He certainly starts out well-- focusing on obedience to Jesus' commands, saying that there is a place between complete freedom and a law based on tradition. And he ends okay as well-- talking about following Jesus and obedience as being Spirit-led.
But in the middle he certainly sounds anti-nomian (in opposition to any regulations). As if any individual sin we do doesn't matter at all in God's eyes-- God is ready to overlook that-- as long as we have prayed the right prayer or whatever that gets us into Jesus.
It is an issue with evangelicals that as long as you've done the right entrance exam ("sinner's prayer", baptism, four spiritual laws, whatever) and you're in the right club (name church here) then it's all going to be okay because salvation is based on "grace" not "works". What evangelicals are scared of is the accusation that they are saying that unless a person DOES something they can't be saved, which is the original Lutheran idea of "works"-- salvation by doing something. This has been taken more broadly as meaning salvation by NOT doing something as well. As if we could murder someone without repentance and not be saved (no one actually believes this, but you could put almost any other sin in place of "murder" and it would work).
The fact is, the NT does demand of us a certain lifestyle. Jesus is, in some ways, more strict about how we should live than Moses-- we can't look at another woman, not just not have sex with her. If we have a habitual lifestyle of sin, then we do not enter God's kingdom (I Cor 5-6). So to help other brothers and sisters not live that way, and to stricly avoid sin is not legalism, it is a part of our salvation.
The problem of "grace/faith not works" is the problem with just about any one line theological statements: The definitions of the words change over time and people don't remember what the original idea was. So theology becomes as much as a fad as music.
http://heraldsofhope.org/newsletters/0901/pg3.html
And then posted on MennoDiscuss here:
http://mennodiscuss.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=7714&p=222568#p222568
The text from the article first, and then my response:
Few subjects have as much variation among believers as our interpretations of personal holiness. Many Christians interpret the freedom we have in Christ very liberally. They tend to run with their freedom and often pay little heed to Christ’s commands. These people focus on the love of Christ and the community of the Church rather than God’s holiness and doctrine.
At a deeper level, it is very easy for us to have a simple view of holiness because it requires little of us - if all we understand of the Christian life is freedom, our view is likely informed more by the world than by Christ. The sacrifices to which He calls us do not resonate with a “freewheeling” Christianity. A low view of sin and righteousness can mar our witness by blurring the distinctions between the Church and the world and open us up to the temptations of the enemy.
The opposite extreme is represented by legalism - the view in which personal holiness is of paramount importance. These folks go to great lengths to avoid the appearance of worldliness and take very seriously God’s call to “Come out from their midst and be separate. . .” Very little in their lives is free from rules and traditions, and they often spend a great deal of time and effort to follow them strictly.
Legalism becomes grievous sin when we believe that we have within ourselves the ability to attain God’s favor. Even when well intentioned, we cannot live up to the required standard. This leads us to judge others and ourselves by the “severity” of our wrongs rather than by God’s standard (that all sin is equally offensive to Him and destructive to our relationship).
A strong devotion to holiness does not have to be legalistic, however. Just as we dishonor God in pursuing righteousness on our own, we honor Him when this pursuit is borne out of love for Him. Jesus’ statement, “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments,” sets personal holiness as an outcome rather than a condition of belief. His concern is not with individual sins but with sin (that is, whether we pursue Him or pursue ourselves).
Does the Lord want us to live in righteousness? Absolutely. Did He fulfill the law and set us free? Completely. But His command was neither “keep the Law” nor “be free”—He confronts us with something much simpler and yet so difficult that we can’t hope to live up to it outside of the Spirit’s enabling: “Follow Me.”
Spirit-led holiness motivated by love is perhaps the most distinctive marker of the faith; it is a picture to a dying world of the hope of forgiveness. Such an attitude is vital if we are to have the impact God desires.
Sincerely in HOPE of the Gospel,
HERALDS OF HOPE, INC
J. Mark Horst, President
This is reflective of a common evangelical viewpoint, and I think it's really confused. Perhaps the author knew better, but didn't write well, I'm not sure.
He certainly starts out well-- focusing on obedience to Jesus' commands, saying that there is a place between complete freedom and a law based on tradition. And he ends okay as well-- talking about following Jesus and obedience as being Spirit-led.
But in the middle he certainly sounds anti-nomian (in opposition to any regulations). As if any individual sin we do doesn't matter at all in God's eyes-- God is ready to overlook that-- as long as we have prayed the right prayer or whatever that gets us into Jesus.
It is an issue with evangelicals that as long as you've done the right entrance exam ("sinner's prayer", baptism, four spiritual laws, whatever) and you're in the right club (name church here) then it's all going to be okay because salvation is based on "grace" not "works". What evangelicals are scared of is the accusation that they are saying that unless a person DOES something they can't be saved, which is the original Lutheran idea of "works"-- salvation by doing something. This has been taken more broadly as meaning salvation by NOT doing something as well. As if we could murder someone without repentance and not be saved (no one actually believes this, but you could put almost any other sin in place of "murder" and it would work).
The fact is, the NT does demand of us a certain lifestyle. Jesus is, in some ways, more strict about how we should live than Moses-- we can't look at another woman, not just not have sex with her. If we have a habitual lifestyle of sin, then we do not enter God's kingdom (I Cor 5-6). So to help other brothers and sisters not live that way, and to stricly avoid sin is not legalism, it is a part of our salvation.
The problem of "grace/faith not works" is the problem with just about any one line theological statements: The definitions of the words change over time and people don't remember what the original idea was. So theology becomes as much as a fad as music.
Biblical Legalism
A question was posed on a forum in MennoDiscuss about what the Bible says about legalism:
Biblically, that which we call legalism I think is discussed in the following ways:
a. Enforcing a law without regard to the needs of the other person. "I require mercy not sacrifice" Matthew 12
b. Insisting that one become a part of the law of Moses in order to be a follower of Jesus. This was the main discussion in the book of Galatians.
c. In matters not determined by Jesus, enforcing one's opinion or interpretation as legally binding. Romans 14
However, Biblical legalism is not a matter of not having a code to live by, because Jesus affirmed that we were not to murder, commit adultery, defraud, dishonor one's parents, etc. As well, he gave more laws such as to love one's enemies, to not be a hypocrite, to not judge, etc. There is a code for us to live by, and to say that all followers of Jesus obey Jesus is not legalism in a biblical sense.
Biblically, that which we call legalism I think is discussed in the following ways:
a. Enforcing a law without regard to the needs of the other person. "I require mercy not sacrifice" Matthew 12
b. Insisting that one become a part of the law of Moses in order to be a follower of Jesus. This was the main discussion in the book of Galatians.
c. In matters not determined by Jesus, enforcing one's opinion or interpretation as legally binding. Romans 14
However, Biblical legalism is not a matter of not having a code to live by, because Jesus affirmed that we were not to murder, commit adultery, defraud, dishonor one's parents, etc. As well, he gave more laws such as to love one's enemies, to not be a hypocrite, to not judge, etc. There is a code for us to live by, and to say that all followers of Jesus obey Jesus is not legalism in a biblical sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)