He did not, however, come to make us feel better about being sinners, or to feel less guilty about our sinful behavior.
This is the biggest missing element in the New Age-ish gospel of the post-modern movement. Jesus didn't call a big group of people together, light candles, have everybody write their feelings on a piece of paper, and then burn them.
He didn't create a "mystical atmosphere", such as this emerging pastor writes:
"In contrast to the bright and cheerful big churches, he said, ''younger people
want it like a dusty cathedral...They want a sense of mystery and transcendence.''
I've been reading the gospel of Luke to the children. It's interesting how so much of the ministry of Christ gets skewed by those seeking a "softer" gospel. Listen to these verses:
Jesus says, twice in chapter 5, "Follow Me." And twice it is recorded: "And he left ALL, rose up, and followed Him."
He left everything behind. Jesus didn't come hang out in his life, enduring his habits and lifestyle very long...just long enough to say, "Leave it all for Me."
And this...
When the Pharisees questioned Him about the authority to forgive sins, He answers:
"Those who are well do not need a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners, TO REPENTANCE."
See, the deep love of Jesus and his holiness requires us to repent in order to follow Him. That's just the way it is.
And so when post-moderners squawk that fundamentalists don't treat people the way Jesus did, I'm left scratching my head.
We cannot truly love people unless we give them the truth about God's command to repent--just like Jesus did. We must tell them that a holy God wants to save them, and that following Christ is to leave all behind. Their lifesyle of sin. The lusts of the flesh. The pride of life.
We will continue to commit sin, yes; but if our theology is correct, we will hate it more and more, and come to see ourselves as depraved as we truly are. That's when the cross becomes so incredible, so unimaginable; and that leads to more hatred of our sin.
Because to be flippant toward my sin is to crucify my Savior all over again.
12 comments:
I look at it as if two swamps/pits are on both sides of the path. On the one side, a believer can fall into sins of the flesh, etc. But on the other side, a believer can fall into sins of legalism, law-keeping, pride, etc.
BOTH are dangers and, should we fall into them, *will* stop our journey forward into Christ.
But neither one is to be the focus.
Warmly,
Molly
Molly,
I agree with you. But I also see where the "mercy people" (you know what I mean) refer to legalism any time a reference to "obedience" or "repentance" or "fleeing sin" is mentioned.
And that is not what Jesus taught. To teach that for a person to follow Christ means he dies to himself, becomes enamoured with his Savior to the point that he cares nothing more than pleasing him, is NOT legalism.
In fact, two people can be doing the VERY same things (outwardly) and one might be a legalist, and the other not.
The thing with legalism is that no one knows who is one and who isn't. Because only determining the heart motive can determine if one is being legalistic.
I'm just as opposed to legalism as anyone. But I get tired of sincere, truth-desiring Christians getting falsely labeled as legalists.
But I also see where the "mercy people" (you know what I mean) refer to legalism any time a reference to "obedience" or "repentance" or "fleeing sin" is mentioned.
No, I don't know what you mean (in regards to the "mercy people"). I have very rarely dealt with people who are opposed to fleeing sin. Maybe we run in different circles.
To teach that for a person to follow Christ means he dies to himself, becomes enamoured with his Savior to the point that he cares nothing more than pleasing him, is NOT legalism.
Pleasing Christ is different from legalism, in my mind.
What pleases Christ? The fruit of the Spirit and the Sermon on the Mount are good lists.
I define law-keeping/legalism as following rules in order to maintain right standing with God.
I was a law-keeper, though I was not aware of it until the Spirit made it clear. I meant well. I had great intentions. But when I defined, "Christian," my definition included a whole huge list of things one had to do, think, and be.
A Democrat? Likely not a Christian. An egalitarian? Likely not a Christian. A Catholic? Likely not a Christian. A working mom? Likely not a Christian? A no-spanking parent? Likely not a Christian. And so on my list went, growing larger by the year. Though I was not following Jewish law, I was no different than the Galatians that Paul rebuked in his letter to them. I had fallen from grace. Not by sin, but by the exact opposite: by erecting fence after fence of "must-do's" and "don't-do's" and "should-do's."
So I agree with you: to follow Jesus means that we obey His lead. But I think we need to give a wide birth of grace when it comes to defining what that is, because there is room for much (sound, Biblically-based) debate on many of the particulars.
(On particulars, I am not refering to clearly penned boundaries such as adultery, etc. What I am refering to is items like homeschooling vs. other educational choices, wearing dresses vs. pants, using family planning or not, saying that the husband is the priest of the home or not, etc, items that the Bible simply does NOT say but that some camps are preaching as "God's Way").
With warmth,
Molly
i totally agree w/ you! i think that obedience has gotten a bad reputation. when did being obedient and being judgmental become synonyms?
it's all about WHY you are driven to obedience. do you obey to earn your salvation? do you obey to be better that others? or do you obey b/c you LOVE God and you know that he wants good things for you and he knows what is best for you and he SAYS to obey?!
kelly, i am loving the encouragement to obey. i think you are right on. thank you for sharing!!!
Wow, Molly, I think we actually agree here.
One interpretation we might differ on is the "law-keeping" items you referred to. Because you admit to using them as a measure of righteousness, it's easy to see why you feel the way you do.
The way I see it, there are areas that are not implicit in Scripture, but have many implications that we can learn from.
These areas are usually ones that do not distinguish "righteous from unrighteous". But rather, they are principles that result in a natural law of "blessing" if you will.
For example: when God told the Israelites to wash their hands after handling a dead body, it wasn't because it made them more godly. It was just common sense! It was for their good.
Take birth control. I think there is ample evidence in Scripture that preventing children is not God's best plan.
I do NOT advocate that preventing children is sin. (Although I think underlying reasons could cross into sin i.e. pride, selfishness, etc.)
I think there are natually occuring good consequences that result (generally speaking) when one receives children. (From scientific research we know that the more children a woman has the less her chances of certain cancers--and vice versa.) Again, it is for our good.
Homeschooling....same thing. I think there are enough Scriptural principles that conclude sending children to a pagan institution is an unwise choice for Christians. But I have wonderful Christian friends who do it.
More often than not, there are many negative consequences as a result of Christians allowing their children to be educated by an anti-God system. Common sense...not legalism.
So in looking at Scripture and concluding that there are principles that apply to all believers and discussing those principles (because the church has stopped doing it) is not the same as saying "you must do this to be saved".
I think there is salavation, and there is godly living that should result from salvation. Christians are forsaking the "godly living" for a more comfortable life. I do believe Christians should be set apart--in love, word and deed.
This article really sums up what I think about grace.
http://www.internetmonk.com/articles/G/grace.html
And, seriously, I sincerely want to know: do you know Christians who tell people NOT to flee from sin? In my circles, most Christians struggle the opposite direction (the church of Galatia instead of the church in Corinth).
On birth control, etc, one can derive a life principle based on how one reads the Scripture. But making it a rule for other Christians is where a big line gets crossed. That's putting burdens on people's backs that God doesn't put.
Andrea Yates was a QF mom. She didn't need the burden of thinking that birth control was emphatically a sin. And there's nothing post-modern about saying that family planning is a personal choice between a family and their God. *shrugs*
Same with homeschooling. Jesus was very likely sent to a school (if he was raised as a normal Jewish boy, that is). So the books that say that homeschooling *is* God's way and all other choices are second rate are drawing lines and putting up fences for Christians that God doesn't put up.
That's the camp I used to be in. If you are a good Christian, you *will* homeschool. You *will* not use any form of family planning. You *will* view your husband as your priest. You will, you will, you will, and all those things were not ever once plainly commanded in the Bible! Ouch!
So it was legalistic, because we were told that a good Christian had no other choice but to do those things.
I have a good friend who chooses not to use birth control. I think that's awesome! The fact that they do not require everyone else to do the same makes it NOT legalistic. It makes it her personal choice, inspired by what she sees the Bible to say is a good choice to make. :)
Same with homeschooling. In our current surroundings and for our particular family, homeschooling is currently the best choice we personally see for our children. One year at a time. :) I'm not being postmodern. I'm being mature, weighing and considering my options, and making the best prayerful decision I can.
I could go on, but you probably get the point. :) Jesus said what He wanted, tells us in the Scriptures what He values most of all. I think Isaiah 1 really hits the nail on the head when it describes what God wants. We think in terms of do's and do-not's. The poor and the "undesirables" (to the religous leaders) flocked to Jesus because He actually cared about them (not cared to control them, literally cared ABOUT them).
Of course that's going to involve helping them get out of things that are hurting/destroying them. But Jesus didn't focus on sin. He loved THEM. Sin is this side thing, sin is something that lost it's sting, sin is a pit on the side of the road that we can fall into if we leave the path. But sin isn't the point of the path, nor is it the focus of the path, nor is it the purpose of the path.
Isaiah 1:17 tells me what God says is closest to His heart, and it goes right along with the parable of the sheep and the goats. Those who do not have, those who are left out, those who have no voice, those who don't count, those who are undesired and undesirable...this is what matters, far more than these silly side issues we get all wrapped up in, mistakenly thinking they are big things. God is always good at getting to the heart of the matter. Ouch. Sometimes I wish He wasn't quite so pointed about it. :)
Warmly,
Molly
Molly said:
"Sin is this side thing, sin is something that lost it's sting, sin is a pit on the side of the road that we can fall into if we leave the path."
Sin is not something that we fall into, sin is IN us, we are born with it. For some it is covered by Jesus' blood (saved people), but we still struggle with it daily! Sin is what Jesus came to save us from. After repentance He tells us to go and sin no more, which can only be done through Him. But there is still sin to flee from.
I believe Scripture says death lost it's sting, not sin.
I understand about not falling in the whole legalistic 'pit', but that does not free us from obedience.
Homeschooling/Christian schooling, dresses, spanking, etc...are not salvation issues, but they are issues.
Press On Kelly!
Molly,
I'm realizing that often in your comments you are responding to "the camp" you used to be in, and the things that used to bother you about these issues, instead of responding directly to what I've said in the posts and comments.
I didn't say a "good" Christian will do this or that; I didn't say the issues you brought up make you a better Christian.
I said there are principles of living that Scripture reveals to us (if we want to see them) that are FOR OUR GOOD. And I don't mean just personally for our good, but even as a society for our good. (And some of the issues I may argue are sin, but not in this thread.)
The reason I blog about these things is because I see Christians losing a spiritual war in our culture, and I believe it has a lot to do with our flippant attitude towards life, and our rejecting basic, wise concepts of living. Refusing to let Christ be LORD of our lives, affecting all that we do.
You referred to Jesus going to school...not even a comparison. I contrasted homeschooling with sending your children into a PAGAN, anti-God institution. If Jesus went to school, you can be sure Scripture was his text book, and his parents weren't fighting for his heart.
I rarely ever talk about dresses or skirts and I've never held up any dress code for people to follow. But I do talk about modesty. And if you think God doesn't care about that, I think we must be following different Gods.
Again, this post wasn't addressing most of the things you brought up; this post addressed the new theology of the day (I have no idea whether you would be in this group or not) that says grace is blind to sin, and Jesus doesn't really care about how you live.
Sin is not something that we fall into, sin is IN us, we are born with it. For some it is covered by Jesus' blood (saved people), but we still struggle with it daily! Sin is what Jesus came to save us from.
Well, here is my humble opinion on that statement.
I think Jesus came to save us from sin and death, YES, but I believe that sin and death are the secondary issues----that salvation was about SO MUCH MORE than just getting rid of a sin problem.
I think the NT speaks of salvation as being born INTO something. Born again isn't referring to born OUT of sin, but being born INTO something. Being "in Christ" isn't all about being "out of sin," it's about being IN HIM. The focus isn't on what we left behind, it's on what we've come into. (Please see Ephesian 1, especially Paul's prayer for the church in vs. 17-19, which have very little to do with sin, and his other prayer for the church in Eph. 3:16-19, also having very very little to do with sin. Paul is emphatically NOT agreeing with the idea that the purpose of salvation was to save us from sin, but more like to bring us INTO God).
To focus on sin is like the Hebrews focusing on the Eygpt they left behind, instead of focusing on the Promised Land they entered into. Remember Eygpt and be thankful you're out of it, yes. But focus on it? NO. Moses and Joshua weren't focused on getting them OUT of Egypt, they were focused on getting them INTO the Land of Rest. If their primary focus was on getting out of Eygpt, they would have rotted in a desert. The point of getting out of Eygpt was because they had SOMEWHERE FAR BETTER to be.
Same with us. We've been set free from the kingdom of darkness, says Colossians 1:13, BECAUSE we are now in the Kingdom of the Son of His love. It's not a "what we left" thing, it's a "what we've come into" thing.
To think that salvation is fundamentally to save us from sin is the same thing as saying the Promised Land was all about getting them out of Egypt. It wasn't. Egypt was a secondary issue---an important secondary issue, to be sure, but NOT the purpose, not the focus, not the foundational point of the whole thing. The exodus was all done SO THAT THEY MIGHT come IN to what God had for them.
Paul tells us that we can focus on obeying all the laws, OR we can focus on Love---- which will, he says, fulfill the law. John 13:34,35, Romans 13, 8-10, Matthew 22:40, Gal. 5:14, etc.
Same with sin. We can focus on sin, sure, but it's BETTER if we focus on walking in the Spirit, which means, well, we won't be sinning. :) Galatians 5:16, Romans 8:1-4, etc.
See, I think Scripture tells us that sin is the secondary thing, never the focus. Sin is something that happens WHEN we aren't walking in our God. The focus should be walking in our God, not abstaining from sin.
Sin is what happens when a love of God is cold. The answer isn't to point out and focus on sin. That does nothing. That's what the Law did, and we all know that "the Law made sin abound." Focusing on sin gives us no power to escape it. Focusing on walking in the Spirit and bearing His fruit, however, DOES.
But I do talk about modesty. And if you think God doesn't care about that, I think we must be following different Gods.
Woah. If someone doesn't agree with you on modesty, you feel okay about suggesting they're not part of God's family? I'm just not sure a statement like that is called for.
I was just rambling on about my own experiences. I thought they were all related, because we were talking about legalism, right? Let's see, I've been told that dresses are God's best, that a good Christian woman will view her husband as her priest, that family planning is sin, and that homeschooling is God's Way, all by leaders in the same general movement you yourself are in (you're associated with Vision Forum, Ladies Against Feminism, etc, correct?). None of these things are actually specifically in the Bible, all are extrapolated from someone's interpration of the Bible, yet they are taught as if they are Biblical and are regularly referred to in such language.
RC Sproul Jr. just recently wrote that homeschooling IS God's Way, said it was The *Biblical* Way to educate our kids, so I'm not pulling this stuff out of thin air. One of your friends/aquaintances put it up on her blog, no less. I'm not making this stuff up, it's just out there.
I was responding to a concept we were discussing: legalism. We were having a discussion, so I thought I was being appropriate. But then stuff like this statement you just made towards me really throws me for a loop. Yipes.
Where is this anger coming from? Do you want to have a thinking discussion, which means that will sometimes be with people who don't always see things your way, or do you prefer to only converse with those who agree with you? I am asking because I want to know, becaaauuuse for some reason, you interest me and I'd like to continue to engage in dialogue, buuuut, I seem to make you mad on a regular basis. If you'd rather have only like-minded people to speak with, I can pack up my dollies and go back to my own place. :)
Warmly,
Molly
Walking in the Spirit and fleeing from sin go hand in hand. They are equally important. We better remember the land of Egypt, so we don't end up there again, but we also enjoy the milk and honey. Abiding in Christ is the key, but we also need to confess our sins and remember WHY we need to abide in Him.
I am not familiar with Sproul's recent statement, but I have to wonder the context. Perhaps it is the word homeschooling that makes people uncomfortable? When what he means is that it is the parents responsibility to educate their children, which in my opinion can be Christian school. And I agree that IF Jesus went to 'school' it was about the Tora, not to agree to a pagan standard of learning so He could 'graduate'. You cannot even use that for an argument.
I know Kelly well enough to know that she loves a good debate. I think her frustration (that is my word, not hers) is not with you, but how there is a HUGE segment of the Christian population that preaches love and mercy with no justice, which has lead us to a relaxed Christian culture that says, "Jesus loves you, you're OK, I'm OK, we're all going to heaven."
Which in turns releases us from any type of standards (yep, I know "standard" is a buzz word!). Which brings me to the point, if we walk like the world, talk like to world, look like the world, how the lost know us from the world?
Don't comment that I think we should all wear denim jumpers...because I am sitting here in my shorts and t-shirt (which is because I am at home working the yard today). I have gone to Kelly's house MANY times in pants and she has never questioned my salvation. ;o) lol
Our primary way to witness about the the love of God IS to live differently, love in sincerity, be available to minister, basically walk the walk...which means we do not conform to the world's standard, which is: My life/faith is about me and God, period!
Why has Christianity gone down hill so much in the USA? Why is crime up and literacy down? Why is there such massive debt on every level? Why is there no truth in politics? Why is there such smut everywhere we look? Because Christian's have lost their zeal and their code of conduct! Even our founding fathers of whom several were not Christians still acknowledged God's laws and precepts in pubic and law making.
Sad how far we've gone.
As you can tell I am not as eloquent as Kelly nor Molly, so I hope this makes sense.
Molly,
I am not mad at you. I am frustrated over the flippancy (not necessarily YOURS, but "the movement" I've been discussing) over sin.
Sorry if the comment knocked you for a loop. The point I was trying to make is that if the Bible commands us to dress modestly, (whatever that means for YOU...I've set no standard for that) then we better be concerned with modesty.
You can re-word it, and talk about Egypt analogies, and being in Christ, and all those things have an appropriate consideration.
But fancy words don't erase the bottom line that as Christians we are to seek after God's heart, figure out what he wants for our lives, the external changes should follow the internal changes, and not try to sweep all the other stuff away.
More about this very thing on today's post ;-)
I do appreciate your debates here...Just as your comments seem to respond against a "movement", my comments to you are not alwaysjust to you, but to the "movement" as well.
In addressing each other that way, you are bound to assume things about me because you associate me with another group, and vice versa.
You'd be surprised at the diversity of beliefs, lifestyles and practices among "our group"...Just because I support and promote most of the Vision Forum ministry, doesn't necessarily mean I hold all the very same opinions of every other person associated with them. Just keep that in mind.
I like what you said, Mrs. Crawford, about the "movement" we're in. I've heard so many folks take issue with me over things that I myself never even said! :) It can be frustrating, having to deal with the pressupositions others bring to the table when they talk about "this movement."
I'm really enjoying this discussion. :)
Post a Comment