you'll catch your death
I wonder... just how many people who attend church are christians.
I ask out of fear... Why? Because I think we may be teetering on the edge of a cliff, no longer sure if were standing or falling. In so many ways we are trying to move beyond the legalistic tendencies of our recent ancestry, but in the process maybe we've taken it too far? I mean if we have very few rules it becomes easy for us to sin less doesn't it? I recently had a conversation on this and it moved in a direction where we could get rid of rules, okay, but then what's holy, what's sacred? The reason that the law was written (the first law) was because people were dumb, I mean you dont have to make a rule for something people don't do right? I mean let's look at it this way if we dont need rules, why not get rid of the laws in our own country, I mean the money we would be saving on enforcement and detention would be astronomical, but what would be the cost?
I wonder maybe us trying to get rid of the legalistic rules is because we need to feel better about ourselves. I remember one time when I was probably about 7 or so we had a list of chores and rules to do and follow, and when I stole some candies that I knew I shouldn't have taken I knew that I was in trouble, but I took down the rules and hid them (I dont think that my parents ever found them, although I know right where to look) Why did I hide them? Without the rules to lear down at me I thought that I might get away with it, and let me tell you that by backside didn't get away with anything, in fact I actually think that because the rules were hidden I recieved a larger punishment then usual.
God didn't make the laws to hurt us - just to remind us that without them we'd catch our death. Even though Christ died to save us from sin, doesn't the law help us to see it, to acknowledge it, to try to change to become more holy.
I guess I answered a different question than the one I asked.. basically I wonder how many people don't know that Christianity is a closed community - you have to believe this to get in, I say this because without the rules to help us live Godlier lives we might just appear to be good people instead of Christ followers, and without the law to follow we may not be that different after all, and if were not different then why would they or should they change their own lives? I mean do we even change our own?
All this to make a point, extremes are treacherous and can be deadly we really need to think about what we are doing and where that will take us. In the same breathe the verge often contains the most abundant and prolific life.
I ask out of fear... Why? Because I think we may be teetering on the edge of a cliff, no longer sure if were standing or falling. In so many ways we are trying to move beyond the legalistic tendencies of our recent ancestry, but in the process maybe we've taken it too far? I mean if we have very few rules it becomes easy for us to sin less doesn't it? I recently had a conversation on this and it moved in a direction where we could get rid of rules, okay, but then what's holy, what's sacred? The reason that the law was written (the first law) was because people were dumb, I mean you dont have to make a rule for something people don't do right? I mean let's look at it this way if we dont need rules, why not get rid of the laws in our own country, I mean the money we would be saving on enforcement and detention would be astronomical, but what would be the cost?
I wonder maybe us trying to get rid of the legalistic rules is because we need to feel better about ourselves. I remember one time when I was probably about 7 or so we had a list of chores and rules to do and follow, and when I stole some candies that I knew I shouldn't have taken I knew that I was in trouble, but I took down the rules and hid them (I dont think that my parents ever found them, although I know right where to look) Why did I hide them? Without the rules to lear down at me I thought that I might get away with it, and let me tell you that by backside didn't get away with anything, in fact I actually think that because the rules were hidden I recieved a larger punishment then usual.
God didn't make the laws to hurt us - just to remind us that without them we'd catch our death. Even though Christ died to save us from sin, doesn't the law help us to see it, to acknowledge it, to try to change to become more holy.
I guess I answered a different question than the one I asked.. basically I wonder how many people don't know that Christianity is a closed community - you have to believe this to get in, I say this because without the rules to help us live Godlier lives we might just appear to be good people instead of Christ followers, and without the law to follow we may not be that different after all, and if were not different then why would they or should they change their own lives? I mean do we even change our own?
All this to make a point, extremes are treacherous and can be deadly we really need to think about what we are doing and where that will take us. In the same breathe the verge often contains the most abundant and prolific life.
posted by Steve @ 11:52 PM
14 Comments:
"I say this because without the rules to help us live Godlier lives we might just appear to be good people instead of Christ followers"
Interesting thought, I would have argued the opposite... that without what is behind the rules, not the rules themselves, we might just appear to be good people instead of Christ followers. God isn't just looking for obedience, if he were he wouldn't have given us free will...
You said, "I wonder how many people don't know that Christianity is a closed community - you have to believe this to get in, I say this because without the rules to help us live Godlier lives we might just appear to be good people instead of Christ followers,..."
Where do you think grace fits into all of this?
Not sure how I feel about rules. Especially in the sence that you put it. You made reference to how this nation would be run without rules, and you are completely right, I think it would be quite chatoic.
I think though that what needs to be remembered is the Kingdom through all this. As flesh we need rules, as spirit, the rules are dead now because we are alive through something else, not by keeping rules, and that something else is Jesus.
A desire for rules and order is natural I think, but I don't think its the answer.
I think that my point is that there are extremes on either side, and my usage of the law in our context is more of an example of how to live Christ like and centered lives. If we didn't need that example to say oh yah and this not cool then we wouldn't know and then you would be surprised just how far we would fall.
Grace yes it does fit in but if we just live our lives expecting Grace to step in and fix up our mess without realizing that what we are doing is wrong so called cheap christianity isn't christianity at all and I think that often we promote that cheap version of christianity and if were doing that and living it in our lives then we're not christians either.
Also we can not possibly keep the law sinful nature etc, so that is where free will and Grace fits in, Kingdom, yes but we still have to remember our past to move forward, and while we do not need to be judged by the law, we can still use it as a guide, unless someone has a new or better road map that I don't know about.
Hey Steve,
I understand your concern, that in our desire to not be legalistic we might throw the baby out with the bath water (so to speak). Or that we will justify our sin with "grace."
Even though these seem like two extremes, I don't think they are. They both are attempts to do things our way instead of God's way.
So, do we, in our fear, try to attain righteousness through living the rules of the law?
You said, "we could get rid of rules,..but then what's holy, what's sacred?"
Since Christ came to fulfill the law, we don't have to follow rules or get rid of them.
Where rules measure actions, Christ looks at the heart. He has invited us into a relationship with him which is not defined by a set of rules, but by loving Him and loving others.
Sure, this can be scary because it leaves it open for us to interpret what "life with Christ" means, but isn't this what the Christian life is all about?
You'll see examples of this throughout Jesus' teaching. The rich man who came to Jesus (for example) and said he had followed every rule, and Christ told him to go and sell all his possessions. (Mark 10:17-21).
Christ points out that it's not just about following a set of rules, but there are matters of the heart that can't be overlooked. You can follow the law and still be missing the point.
It seems to me that you're equating following the law with becoming more holy so that there is actually change in our lives.
I think it's a lot easier to follow a set of rules without changing.
Actually, I think that both are important, but doesn't the early church give us examples of how being Christian, living the life is like, just how much interpretation do you think we can make? I am certainly not educated enough to make interpretations of what I think it means to be a christian, I mean sure I have an opinion but where does my authority come from in giving that opinion, right now Blogger I guess, but maybe I shouldn't go running around with my wacko ideas, someone might get hurt.
I think that the heart has a great deal to do with our faith, and that faith in Christ is how we are saved by grace, faith of course being a matter of the heart (well really of the mind since the heart just push's blood around). But the early church has a great deal to say about what it means to be church and I think that we do them a dis-service by attempting to interpret it, sure maybe we need to be attempting to understand it but interpret maybe not. Don't forget that many of the early church leaders actually got to sit in on some of Jesus teachings, and the apostles were screened approved and given authority to say what they said and taught by Jesus, and that authority better mean something to us or we are in for some trouble.
The past stands for something... but what is history and what is a memoire (inspired by a conversation)
Maybe we need to ask what are we interpreting for... understanding or so that the teachings fit what we are?
Steve,
just had a chance to read your thoughts here. Rather profound i must say. Seems like you are processing important questions and the implications. I think many people like questions, but few are able to understand or dive into the implications of what they think.
If i can add to some of thoughts.
Sarah, i think your thought on grace is extremely important. I'm not sure how steve would answer this, but grace, as revealed in scripture, always implies with it the idea of (truth and love) and truth by it's nature is exclusive.
p.s. hi nathan and sara
A CLARIFICATION ON LEGALISM
Also, about legalism, we might be using the same word but talking about different things. When Jesus addresses this idea of legalism, he's pointing us to the issue of hypocrites. Meaning that he was upset at the people of the law for not obey the law they were professing,"NOT FOR HAVING LAWS."
For example the intro of Matthew 23 set the contexts. Jesus advises that the problem is they don't practice what they preach. NOT THAT what they are preaching is necessarily bad.
We also see this wonderfully in the story that Brandon used on Sunday. John 8. The depth of this story is profound. The point IS NOT that the woman was being judged for committing adultery. The point was that the religious leaders were not obeying the law and they were using the law to their advantage. They say "THE LAW OF MOSES SAYS TO STONE HER" (John 8:5) WRONG WRONG WRONG.. That's not what the law says..
See Lev. 20:10.. The law reads that both man and woman need to be brought to justice and both must be stoned. THAT'S the Law.
Jesus came to fulfill the law and in no way did he ever speak badly against it since it was his idea to begin with.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
(Sorry, I removed my last comment because I had so many grammer mistakes...I'll try again)
Hey Steve, ;) (Miss you already)
I think interpretting and understanding are very similar terms. But how do you see them as different? Why do you think we shouldn't interpret the early church?
How "educated enough" do you think one has to be to interpret what it means to be a Christian?
I like your last post: "Maybe we need to ask what are we interpreting for... understanding or so that the teachings fit what we are?"
Very good question! What do you think? How do you think we do the later? Why are your motivations in understanding the early church and its teachings?
Hey Dom,
Your comment on truth (as being exclusive) got me thinking. Does this mean God and/or the church is exclusive? How do you think exclusive truth fits into our lives as we seek to follow Christ?
Cheers!
Hey Dom, could you expand on what you mean by "truth by it's nature is exclusive"... I'm not sure I understand :)
as for education I think that we can make our own interpretations, but we must be able to accept that they may be wrong, aka if someone with more education or greater wisdom tells us that our interpretation is bunk.
I think that all interpreations we make should be as an effort to understand what has been said and written not as an attempt to interpret new meaning, there is no new meaning.
I think we need to look at the rules from a different perspective. Are the laws set out to us from a gruelling and unpleasable master -- or are they given to us from a loving father who only wants the best for us.
Exclusive truth, yes why because it excludes everything that is not true, I am a true fact hence all other facts relating to this are now considered false.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home