It was fine but cold today, so the son and I went walking in the Maniototo. During the conversation he turned to theology… and said that the rules G-d sets us are complicated.
I said that they are simple, but the implications are complicated.
23The same day some Sadducees came to him, saying there is no resurrection; and they asked him a question, saying, 24“Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies childless, his brother shall marry the widow, and raise up children for his brother.’ 25Now there were seven brothers among us; the first married, and died childless, leaving the widow to his brother. 26The second did the same, so also the third, down to the seventh. 27Last of all, the woman herself died. 28In the resurrection, then, whose wife of the seven will she be? For all of them had married her.”
29Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God. 30For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. 31And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God, 32‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is God not of the dead, but of the living.” 33And when the crowd heard it, they were astounded at his teaching.
34When the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together, 35and one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36“Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” 37He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38This is the greatest and first commandment. 39And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
Jesus is quoting not only scripture in his second reply, but he is alluding to a set of interpretations that came out of the Pharisees themselves. You can reduce the law of God to two principles and from that build the remainder. The other commandments are, if you like, a divine commentary on these principles.
But that requires that we think It is easier to live with a set of rules — to say that this is correct or that is incorrect because of church teaching. This has led to certain groups, particularly the ultra-reformed and the ultra fundamentalists — to reinvent the law. To state that certain activities are bad — as the joke goes, Baptists ban fornication because it will lead to dancing — (when the reverse applied).
Schaeffer wrote a generation ago that the law acts like a veil. For behind the law is these principles, and raw accountability to God. And we cannot stand that. We retreat into tradition.
The principles of Christianity — mere Christianity, to quote Lewis, are simple. The implications have always been difficult.
In modern societies this has led to two conversations — one licit and the other illicit.
The licit conversation is around what this means. This conversation has gone on for two thousand years. How we live, how we apply the law to our society, in our society, has to be addressed by every generation. I think it was Luther who said that he can preach the entire gospel — but if he does not confront the issues of his day , and his time, he is not preaching the gospel. Serious Christians tend to club together on many of these issues… and learn from each other’s mistakes and successes.
The illicit conversation is to push the second law… that we should love our neighbour — and ignore the first. If we love God, we will do his commands. Including the ones we hate. The best example of this is the gay controversyy — where my local town has an openly gay Anglican priest, and this is defended as “love your neighbour” — missing the need to love God and keep his commands.
(The irony of appointing a Methodist, a congregation that is dying, to a commission for the Anglicans, where there is still life, is a little too close to the bone).
The gospel is simple. Our salvation is simple. Walking with God, however, is not easy, is a challenge.
spot on.
just read that link – about the anglican commission.
things were that bad in this country.
while the methodist church might be heading on the downward curve, i’m reminded of john wesley’s words when describing the anglican church as a ‘rope of sand’. (no offence to any methodist or anglican – i appreciate the litany.)
they need a two? year long commission into the basics of christianity to tell them what the average joe could discern about christianity from reading certain parts of the bible in ten minutes.
your thoughts on this point chris -
having grown up in a traditional presbyterian, then assembly of god church, then attending pentecostal/hillsong style church as a young adult, the liberal issues they are struggling with, mostly this gay controversy, seem puzzling.
the message of christianity is clear on that – yet the are indecisive and unable to clearly see the gospels truth
I’m a fairly traditional guy, so I’ve attended some conservative churches over the past few years, yet attending a traditional church(presbyterian and evangelical) raises the point – what if the denomination your with goes against the gospel on this controversy?
what then?if ive repeated the comment – sorry computer playing up – any reply appreciated
I come to this blog with more than a little trepidation. I was brought up in the Church of Scotland, and after deciding that Christianity had no relevance to me in the world of the 1960′s and 1970′s, I was boirn again in 1979, during the weekend between my first three university finals and my last three. shortly afterwards, I moved to the town where I was expecting to put down roots and worshipped in a United Reformed Church (an amalgam of the Congregationalists and the Presbyterians). A couple of years later, I was moved by my employer and moved to the local URC to find that it did not preach the Gospel, indeed the last sermon I remember was from someone who preached that we should be culturally sensitive to others and not preach the Gospel at all. My (as she was then) fiancee and I did not stay long after that.
We moved to an Anglican church where we stopped for 10 years until the vicar lied to me. Since I could not rely on the leader of that church telling the truth, I felt that I had to move on and moved to the local Baptist church which was preaching the Gospel. We had no problem thre until the minister who had arrived a little after us started to preach that homosexual activity was not, of itself, inconsistent with Scripture. My view on that, as told to the minister was that I was thanbkful he was not teaching children road safety because they would all get run over on a zebra crossing and we went looking for another church after 15 years with the Baptists. We looked at the local churches and in the village (suburb) nearest us there were three churches, an Anglican, a Methodist and an Elim church. Except for a couple we had known in the Anglican church we were the youngest by around 10 years, and when our younger daughter expressed an preference for the Methodist church, we decided to join with them.
I don’t think that I am a died in the wool denominationalist of any sort.
In theology there is not too much separating the Methodists and the Anglicans, and I have some problems with the theology and in particular the role of the clergy, but they worship the same God I worship and the culture is not too uncomfortable, so I’ll stick it out, even though younger daughter has now decided that she “don’t believe in any sky fairies” any more.
So, when I say that in my view, the Anglicans are the dry bones that need the breath of God breathed into them to make them alive, because although there are real men of God working there, there are also charlatans, liars, and adulterers and homosexual offenders. The lack of people offering themselves for ordained ministry has meant that the Anglican church has not rid itself of clergy whose conduct is unbecoming to holy orders, as canon law puts it. I do not say that Methodism is any better, but its structures should enable it to teach the Gospel to those who are newly Christian with less reliance on clergy than the Anglicans.
One thing that I think Martk Driscoll has gotten right, and by the way, he is calvinsit, not arminian, is when he tells his folks not to shoot the other good guys. He separates the primary matters of faith, the Trinity, virgin birth, Jesus death resurrection and ascension, and the future return of Jesus, from minor issues like music, the role of the clergy, the format of the worship and so on.
I must however, disagree about the implications of the Gospel. There are not complicated. They are simple. But they are not easy. They are very difficult. They involve doing right when it is clear what is right and what is wrong. But the cost of doing right is going to be high. In my case not reporting a different, higher (and hence lower qualtity) result for one criterion in raw materials bought into my employer’s stores cost me a demotion. It still cost me a lot less than his faith cost St. Paul. It was a price worth paying. At the end it is whether we are willing to stand up and be counted or not. Does being a Christian have sufficient impact in our lives that, were it a criminal offence there would be enough evidence to prosecute?
Pingback: Proxy measures of authority. | Dark Brightness
well, I was baptized and confirmed in the presbygerian church, married in an Anglican with my old Presbyterian minister giving the readings, Spent time with the Baptists, Pentecostas and Open Brethern, and am back with the Presbyterians. When I move into a town I look for a church. Denomationsal labels do not mean much. I ask if the gospel is preached, are there young people and families, is there a sense of pastoral care… and if it is good enough, I stop.
There is no perfect church.