Category: Leglaism

Posted on

Stone of Sisyphus: Excercises in Spiritual Futility

In the 1966 “campy” Batman movie starring Adam West, Batman finds a bomb. His attempt to defuse the bomb was really about trying to get it over the docks and into the body of water before it explodes. Yet at every attempt to defuse the bomb, innocent people were in his way.

He looked out a window only to find a marching band playing, “Bringing in the Sheaves.” He ran down the stairs only to find a restaurant filled with customers eating dinner.  He headed out the door to the corner of the pier only to find some nuns walking by. Turning down the boardwalk he encountered a mother pushing her baby in a stroller. Rotating around, he headed to the dock only to bump into the band again, still playing “Bringing in the Sheaves.” Running back to the pier he spied a perfect spot beyond a ladder attached to the pier, until a man appeared on the ladder. Changing directions he headed to the corner of the pier only to discover a couple enjoying a romantic afternoon in a rowboat. And just as he found the perfect spot to unload the bomb, he sees a family of ducks swimming in the water.

In a moment of exasperation Batman looked directly into the camera to speak to the audience, thus breaking the “fourth wall,” and cried out, “Some days you just can’t get rid of a bomb!”

We live in a world where bad things happen and it’s like everyone or everything stands against us. You stub your toe first thing in the morning. Someone pulls out in front of you on the way to work, or worse you’ve totaled your car. You’re overdrawn and still have bills to pay. A friend backstabbed you and all trust is lost. You turned left when you should have turned right and now your GPS is yelling at you as it recalculates. And all the time you’re thinking, “Some days you just can’t get rid of a bomb!”

The Biblical story is filled with events where the world (people or systems) turned on the faithful. Joseph’s brothers sold him into slavery, and he’s eventually falsely accused of a crime and thrown in prison. David loses his kingdom to his son and is on the run with Absalom in hot pursuit. The kinfolk of Jeremiah turn on him and his preaching by dumping him in a well. Gomer cheats on Hosea. Jesus heals a man and stirs up conflict because the healing was on the Sabbath. Paul is falsely accused in Philippi and his affliction list in 2 Corinthians 11 is a sober reminder of living a life for Christ. The Hebrews writer may have said it best,

There were others who were tortured, refusing to be released so that they might gain an even better resurrection. Some faced jeers and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. They were put to death by stoning; they were sawed in two; they were killed by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated—the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, living in caves and in holes in the ground (Heb. 11:35a-38, emphasis mine).

Because we’ve all have days where we’ve been left holding a bomb, we have a choice. We can let it explode making a bigger mess. Or we can keep looking for a place to dump the bomb. Do we really have another alternative?

Soli Deo Gloria!
(i.e. only God is glorified!)

Posted on

Lining Up with Jesus Or Jesus Lining Up with Us?

By the time Jesus arrived in the world, the Jewish nation was hardly a unified people. Their land was divided into three sections: the Samaritans occupied the land between the Galilean Jews and the Judean Jews. Both the Galilean and Judean Jews saw themselves as part of the same people.  The Samaritans were loosely connected to the ancient Northern Kingdom of Israel and were deemed apostates by the Jews.

While the Jews might say they were one people, their fragmented social structure said otherwise. At least five sectarian groups splintered off to themselves. The two main groups were the Sadducees and Pharisees. The Sadducees came from the wealthy, aristocratic Jewish families and were responsible for maintaining the temple duties. Being friendly with Rome, they were to appoint the high priest, but that priest had to be preapproved by the State. The Books of Moses were the only basis for Scripture and they denied the resurrection. The Pharisees were keepers of the traditions. They not only accepted the written prophetic books as Scripture but also treated the oral traditions as authoritative. The Scribes and Teachers of the Law were typically from the Pharisees, and were known as “people of the book.” The Sanhedrin comprised of Pharisees and Sadducees and were the final ruling court for Jerusalem.  

The Essenes viewed Jerusalem and its religion as corrupt (which it was). Many of them occupied property at the base of the Dead Sea and dwelled in its caves. They spent their days copying Scripture and a variety of other scrolls while developing their own piety of poverty, daily washings and asceticism. They had time on their hands as they waited for Jerusalem’s destruction. When Rome did destroy Jerusalem, their moral victory was short-lived. The soldiers turned to the caves around the Dead Sea to destroy any remnant of the Jews.

The Zealots were strongly anti-Rome. It wasn’t uncommon to threaten officials or anyone favorable toward Rome as they hated the Gentile’s occupation of their lands. Jesus recruited a Zealot as one of his disciples, making one wonder what the conversations were like between Simon and Matthew who collected taxes in support of the Gentiles occupying the land?

The Herodians supported the Herod family. Very little is known about this group as extra-biblical accounts are scant on details.

So when Jesus came onto the scene, who did he align with? It’s not always an easy question to answer. For instance, on the divorce question he seems to hold the more conservative or rigid position (see Mk. 10:1-12) that some Pharisees would agree with. However, at the same time he challenged the conservative interpretation of Scripture (Mt. 5:21-47). When Jesus leveled the seven woes against the Pharisees, he agreed that their teaching compatible with Scripture, but their behavior was not (Mt. 23:3).

Jesus was at odds with the religious leaders. Where they were about power and control, Jesus was about self-sacrifice. Where they were about prideful position, Jesus was about humble positions. Where they wanted to be served, Jesus was willing to serve. Where they talked about the good of the people, Jesus acted on behalf of the people’s good. Where they were focused on keeping their rules, Jesus was focused on turning hearts toward God. Where they were about manipulating the people, Jesus was about ministering to the people. Where they were never going to give up anything, Jesus was willing to let go of everything. Where they never trusted, Jesus had faith. They believed that if and when the Messiah arrived, he would naturally line up with them. Jesus arrived and was immediately at odds with the Jewish leaders.

So with all these fragmented splinters of Judaism, who did Jesus line up with? Or maybe a better question might be that if Jesus didn’t line up with his own religious and political structures, why are you so convinced he’ll line up with yours?

Soli Deo Gloria!
(i.e. only God is glorified!)

Posted on

CHURCH: The Rules for the Rules

The struggle for rule-followers to accept a life of grace is real. At every turn we look to rules to redeem and rescue us. But God keeps reaching into his deep pockets of grace to reach us. However, rules do play a role in the life of the church, and we grace-filled members need to feel the tension. After reflective consideration I’ve come to these five rules that play a role in guiding the church.

Rule #1 We are saved by God’s grace and not by the rules we keep. We can be looking at Ephesians 2:8-10, which reminds us that if salvation came by following rules then it’s accounted to us as wages, or we can study Galatians 2:16 where by nature the law condemns. No matter how good we are at keeping the rules, we cannot keep them to the level where we are sinless. And even if we kept the rules perfectly, rule-keeping cannot compensate for our own sinfulness.

Rule #2 The only law that matters is the law to love. The first century Jews had numbered and ranked some 600 laws, then they debated which the important ones were. When Jesus was asked about the greatest commandment (Mt. 22:23-40; Mk. 12:28-34; Lk. 10:25-28), he was invited into a local debate. His answer was a combination of the Shema in Deuteronommy 6:4-5 and Leviticus 19:18. Simply put, love God and love your neighbor. Jesus claims that every other rule emerges from our ability (or lack there-of) to love God and to love our neighbor (Mt. 22:40).

Rule #3 Never neglect the weightier matters of the law. Jesus seems to draw from Micah when saying there are some laws more important than others like justice, mercy and faithfulness (Mt. 23:23). Micah says that God wants us to “act justly, love mercy and walk in humbleness” (Micah 6:8b). Some laws are more important than others, and the most important ones seem closely tied to loving God and loving each other.

Rule #4 Those bent toward following rules are spiritually immature. When Paul discussed the role of the law, he depicted it as a “babysitter” until Christ came (Gal. 3:24-25). When we grow and mature, we no longer need rules to guide our lives because the Spirit’s work takes over. If we argue for rules then chances are we’re not the mature Christian but the baby who is demanding his/her own way. Because of our immaturity we may need some rules or boundaries in place to protect us, but we should never confuse wisdom with Scripture authority by binding our opinion on everyone one else.

Rule #5 Churches need operational rules. Because churches are comprised of varying levels of spiritual maturity, church leaders may need to make policy regarding a number of issues. For instance, what is the benevolent policy? Do they help everyone who asks? How much are they willing or capable of helping? Some of the rules may be harmless like how long the morning assembly should last. Some rules may very well violate the law to love or the weightier matters of the law, like whether or not to accept into membership a person of a different race. Important clarification is needed in regard to church policy: do not confuse the need for policy to guide an individual congregation with actual teaching from Scripture.

The irony of trying to live by grace is that we continue to create rules to guide our lives. So as I reflect on my proposed lost, I don’t know if I’m on to something or I’m just as immature as the next person. Nevertheless, those are my rules for having rules in the church.

Soli Deo Gloria!
(i.e. only God is glorified!)

Posted on

The Delimma of a Zero Tolerance Police

The first time I heard the term, “Zero Tolerance Policy,” was in the wake of the Columbine tragic shooting. I was intrigued by the term. Schools, motivated by Federal Government funds, decided to take a strong stand against violence, and I applauded them. In the wake of the shooting, two boys came to a school in Greene County, Tennessee dressed in overcoats like Columbine shooters. They thought it was going to be funny as they carried no weapons. But the outcry was loud and they were suspended. Personally, I was glad. It looked like the “Zero Tolerance Policy” was going to work.

Then other reports began to surface which began undermining the purpose of the policy. The first was an Eagle Scout holding a 4.00 GPA in school. He had never needed disciplined and was, by all accounts, a model student. Then he returned from a camp out and failed to unload all of his camping equipment from his truck. In the back was a hatchet and a knife. The student, under the new “Zero Tolerance Policy” was expelled from school. Another account involved a kindergarten child who, in a “boys being boys” moment, bit his cookie into the shape of a gun. The student was expelled because of the policy on guns in school.

Holding a “Zero Tolerance Policy” does sound like one is taking a strong stand against crime and behavioral problems. Advocates claim that the policy levels the playing field so that it eliminates any room for discrimination. Thus, punishment is unilaterally given for those who are in possession of weapons on school grounds, or bullying, or possessing drugs or any kind.

I can see how Christians are drawn to the “Zero Tolerance Policy.” They can point to Scripture showing God acting unilaterally in punishment for sin. So Nadab and Abihu are executed for offering “strange fire” in the Tabernacle (Lev. 10). Uzzah is killed for touching the Ark of the Covenant (2 Sam. 6:6-7). And in the New Testament God puts Ananias and Sapphira to death for lying to the Holy Spirit concerning the amount of money they gave to the church (Act. 5:1-11).

As powerful as these stories are, they are outliers and exceptions to the rule for how God deals with his people. God’s merciful judgments are far more numerous than his justice judgments. He spared justice for Adam and Eve when they ate the forbidden fruit. He spared justice for Cain when he murdered his brother. He spared justice for Moses for failing to maintain God’s holiness before Israel; God allowed him a view of Cannan. He spared justice for David over Bathsheba, though the fallout in his family seemed punishment enough. The truth is God does not operate out of a “Zero Tolerance Policy;” he works from a grace and mercy position.  

The “Zero Tolerance Policy” has not curbed the violence like it has promised (i.e. look at the number of school shootings). The policy does not distinguish between opioids and a baby aspirin (i.e. the same punishment for distributing opioids is the same punishment for giving a student an aspirin for a headache). It tends to be a quick fix for long term problems. It tends to embolden those in position of power and weaken those who have no say. And some studies have suggested that the policy targets minorities (i.e. it does not level the playing field).

So if God built his relationship with humanity based on a “Zero Tolerance Policy” in regard with sin, who would escape punishment? As Paul quoted the Psalms in Romans 3:10-18, his answer is clear: no one. If God treated us exactly like we deserve, none of us could stand before him. But God doesn’t treat us like we deserve, does he? So if God has rejected a “Zero Tolerance Policy” as a mandate to deal with humanity (i.e. you and me), why do we keep thinking that this policy is a good policy to follow?

Soli Deo Gloria!
(i.e. only God is glorified!)

Posted on

You Might Be a Pharisee If . . .

In Sunday morning’s sermon, Jamie Riley (my fellow minister at Sunshine Church) listed a number of warning signs for Pharisaic attitudes that permeate throughout churches. As he was speaking, my ADHD mind began chasing thoughts, such as, “how did/does the Pharisaic mind rise to prominence?” An over simplified answer might be that anytime a high view of Scripture is embraced, a Pharisaic expression of legalism soon follows. People who are passionate about following God’s Word will eventually create their own rules to protect God’s Word from being broken. When they find themselves in positions of power and authority, they’ll impose their interpretation and rules on the people, believing they’re holding true to God’s Word. Ultimately, what started as good intentions ends with protecting the status quo, their authority and position. 

The second thing that went through my mind was the connection to all the redneck jokes, and how easy it could be to connect Jamie’s list to Jeff Foxworthy’s one-liners. So with apologies to Mr. Foxworthy, here is an expanded list of Pharisee tendencies provided by Jamie from Sunday morning. 

You Just Might Be A PHARISEE If . . .

you experience years of spiritual unrest, because you’re never quite secure in Jesus’ promise of forgiveness . . .

you’re a surveillance expert, looking and monitoring people to see if (or hope?) they fall in their walk with God . . .

you feel like you can thank God that you are not like (insert label here [see Luke 18:9-14]) . . .

you hold an unhealthy relationship with authority, i.e. taking great pride in holding a place of authority and abusing that authority to gain control over people . . .

you practice un-merciful exactness so that God’s mercy is limited to only people who follow every minute command in Scripture . . .

you believe that simply showing up for worship every Sunday makes you right with God . . .

you spend more time talking about what you are “against,” and not what you are “for;” certainly, you rarely ever act on what you are “for” because the position on the topic is more important than actually ministering to the people impacted by the position . . . 

you believe God actually needs you, and that the church cannot survive without
you . . .

your salvation is based on works, not on Jesus; you actually think that your good works will get you into heaven . . .

you make every issue either “black and white” or that every issue holds “heaven and hell” ramifications . . .

you read the Bible to substantiate your convictions, not to be shaped into God’s image . . .

someone tries to confront you, and you get angry or offended . . .

a creative and charismatic leader is a threat to your place and position in the church . . . and

you pick and choose which parts of Scripture you’re going to follow and obey.

Soli Deo Gloria!
(i.e. only God is glorified!)

(Clarification: Jamie did not invent his list but gleaned them from numerous sources. I have expanded and fleshed out his list with more examples for the purposes of the article).                                 

Posted on

The Unwritten Rules

During the Saturday double-header televised baseball games of the 1970s, the network showed video clips of controversial plays. Before the umpire actually made the call, the video stopped and challenged the viewer with, “You make the call.” After the commercial break and before the game resumed, they returned to the video and explained the proper call, and you were able to test your knowledge of the rules. My rules of the game knowledge was never very good. 

The Major League rulebook contains about 71 rules; conversely the Little League rulebook holds 111. Every game has rules, and in order to avoid chaos and an unfair advantage, the rules are written down, explained and published so that everyone knows the framework by which the game is played. No one wants to play a game where rules are fluid and are arbitrarily changed just to give an advantage to one player or team. 

Baseball, unlike any other game or sport, has a series of “unwritten rules” to help guide the play of the game. According to one website, at least twenty-five of these rules exist. Some of these rules include: don’t steal third base with two outs; if a pitcher hits a teammate, hit one of theirs; no showing up or bat flipping for a home run (refer to previous rule). At least twenty-five of these so-called rules exist, and my guess is that the list will get longer not shorter with time. Baseball isn’t the only group to have rules run amok. 

According to some sources, the Jewish religious leaders in the first century had calculated that the Law contained over 600 rules. To top it off, they quickly debated among themselves the most important rules to obey. Thus, when Jesus was asked about the greatest commandment (Mt. 22:34-40; Mk. 12:28-34), they were inviting him into a current discussion/debate. While one may marvel at their penchant for numbering commands, it was their Unwritten Rules that exposed their hypocrisy. 

I’ve read a number examples of the rules that were enforced in order to protect the Israelites from breaking the commands. They decided a specific distance was safe enough before breaking the 4th Commandment. They also refused to eat eggs that chickens laid on the Sabbath, because the chickens “worked” to lay the eggs. Of course we can quickly see their flawed thinking, and even mock them, because noting others’ legalism is easier than noticing our own tendencies. They were man-made. They were fluid and could easily be changed. They became more important than keeping the Law itself. They were the Unwritten Rules.

When we prescribe a dress code for worship, or demand everyone to use a certain translation, or refuse to allow certain songs sung in the song service (i.e.  Stamps-Baxter or “camp songs”), or saying the Old Testament doesn’t really count because we’re New Testament Christians (the list is endless), are we not simply creating or enforcing Unwritten Rules? 

Two passages come to my mind concerning these Unwritten Rules. First, when Jesus was asked about the greatest commandment, he focused on Deuteronomy 6:4-5, “loving God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength,” and Leviticus 19:18, “loving our neighbors as ourselves” (Mt. 12:29-31). Secondly, when he uttered the seven woes against the Pharisees and teachers of the Law, he told them they should have spent more time focusing on the more important points of the Law: justice, mercy and faithfulness without ignoring the other matters (Mt. 23:23). 

Without creating another set of rules it seems Jesus’ challenging words are clear enough. Keep loving God and each other a priority.  Start investing in justice, mercy and faithfulness. Stop creating Unwritten Rules, because keeping the first two challenges are hard enough. 

Soli Deo Gloria!
(i.e. Only God is Glorified!)