Life is Not Fair

All of us probably remember a specific moment from our childhood when some adult told us, “Life is not fair.” Most of us decided that was the way of the world and we better get used to it. A few of us, reject that reality and become somewhat awkward to be around.

Too often we teach our children coping mechanisms. The world is not fair so get used to it, prepare yourself to be disappointed, and then when the inevitable injustice happens it won’t disturb you so much. Very practical but not very Christian.

The problem with remaining indignant that the world is not fair is that it means you become sort of a walking wounded. Hmm…who does that remind me of? The permanent incarnation of Messiah is a man with wounds in his wrists and feet. A man who wept when his friend Lazarus died—even though he knew that in mere moments Lazarus would rise from the dead.

I’ve decided not to teach my kids to accept that the world is not fair. Obviously, I must teach them to acknowledge reality, but there is a more profound truth, the ultimate reality, the destiny of the world to come. The world is meant to be fair; injustice is not God’s design, nor His desire, and we are tasked with partnering with God in the repair of this world. Here’s to justice!!!

May I be a just servant, a just husband, a just father, a just pastor, a just friend, may my hope never flag, my faith never fail, may I be like my Father in Heaven. May His will be done on earth as it is in Heaven!

Cherry Tomatoes

This morning my son, Ethan, noticed a package of cherry tomatoes on the counter, his eyes lit up, he grabbed the container and turned to his mom,

Mom, may I ?!

First of all, what planet is this boy from? I couldn’t stand cherry tomatoes as a kid; it’s amazing to me how different he is than me in many ways. But second, I really appreciate that his default is to ask permission. May his heart remain teachable all his days.

One Law, Obligation & Distinction

Contrary to much of the propaganda within Hebrew Roots Christianity, the majority position of the Church throughout history has always been that the moral imperatives of God’s Law apply universally to all believers. While Luther produced a movement that introduced a strong dichotomy between Law and Grace, the overwhelming majority of Christians continued to insist that the third and primary use of the Law was to instruct believers in the proper way of living, to aid them in more closely reflecting God’s image. Only since the advent of dispensationalism did the idea that the Law has actually been annulled gain any popular consensus.

Much of the discussion surrounding whether we have an "obligation" to obey the Law focuses on whether we ought to condemn or judge those who strive to keep God’s laws differently than do we. Concerns over whether the law is legitimately split into civil, ceremonial, and moral categories are likewise often misdirected, though some have undoubtedly misused this conversation. The reality today, is that God does not consider those imperatives of the Mosaic Code that can be accurately described as pertaining to civil issues as binding on any secular government. Similarly, without a functioning Temple, without a ritually pure Aaronic priesthood, etc. no ceremonial imperatives regarding the practice of Temple-worship are presently applicable. So if, a Christian asserts, as does the London Baptist Confession of 1689,

The moral law doth for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof, and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it; neither doth Christ in the Gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.

we ought to heartily agree with them. They may define the contents of the “moral law” differently than do we, but that is a variance you will find among every believing community everywhere.

In reaction to struggles with the term "obligation" and with faulty human practice, some have recently suggested that while God holds his Jewish children to a standard of obligation regarding His Law, he does not oblige His Gentile children to the same standard of righteousness. While the specific demands of the law clearly vary based on sex, geography, time, sometimes even ethnicity, God’s general demand of obedience to His Law is universal and does not vary based on ethnicity. The Scriptural distinction is one of application not of obligation. When it comes to covenant participation/obligation the Holy Spirit, through the Apostle Peter was crystal clear:

“He [God] made no distinction between us and them,” (Acts 15:9a).

For sure, the demands of Torah differ depending on one’s relationship to Messiah, meaning that the “demand” of Torah to someone under the Old Covenant is condemning, while the “demand” of Torah to someone in the New Covenant is enlightening. I read somewhere recently that “Grace is the bridge from Law as mirror to Law as Lamp.” But still that obligation remains, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” (John 14:15; John 14:21; John 15:10; Romans 13:9; 1 John 5:2; 1 John 5:3; 2 John 1:6)

When it comes to an obligation to obey the eternal standard of God’s righteousness (Torah) all are on the hook; either to be condemned (if not in Messiah) or to be guided/instructed (if in Messiah), whether Jew/Gentile, Man/Woman makes no difference here… “all have sinned,” “be holy as I am holy,” these are universal indicators of obligation, reiterated to a mixed audience of Jew and Gentile in the New Testament lest we mistake their universal application.

The only proper distinction is secondary rather than primary. The motivation of the Apostles to mandate a grace-filled approach to law-keeping was practical (and an imitation of God’s approach), “tell the uneducated, new believers to be concerned with x,y,z.” These Acts 15 specifications for immediate observance would have prevented table fellowship, the common denominator of regular, daily life, and soon to be the central observance of the fledgling sect (after the destruction of the Temple).

The distinction the Apostles make between Gentile converts and Jewish believers doesn’t need to be “wrestled” with; it’s obvious. I expect my son to obey me in all things, yet I begin only with high-chair manners, and slowly add to the "burden" of obedience as his understanding progresses. When I say to my 1 year old, “eat your food” that does not mean I don’t also expect him to be kind to his sister as soon as he understands kindness, etc., etc.

Because I have a different standard of obedience for my 2-year-old than I do for my 9-year-old, does not mean that both are not obligated to obey.

To say, “we believe that God’s Law is still the binding and unchanging standard for the Jewish people,” is not scripturally accurate; it makes an unbiblical distinction that cannot be found in the apostolic writings. I believe that God’s Law is the binding and unchanging standard for His people, Jew and Gentile.

Now figuring out how to apply God’s Law in any given geographical or chronological place…that’s the topic of another post.

In Christ

Robert Webber writes in Common Roots,

The most basic definition of the ecclesia in the New Testament is “the people of God in Christ (1 Cor. 1:2).

Several of us have been contemplating the nature of “the church” lately, so I was struck by the two words “in Christ.”

Surely this particular is new; prior to Pentecost no one seemed to realize that the Church was, of necessity, “in Christ.” This revelation, then, identified a body with a new self-understanding of its identity. Surely it was the same body but it undoubtedly had a new awareness of its purpose and character.

Evangelism Old & New

In the old way of witness, we asked the unchurched to believe in Christ, then to come to the church. In the postmodern form of witness we bring people to Christ through the church. The church is the doorway to Christ. For this reason, if we are to be an evangelizing church in today’s world, we must begin with a healthy, vital body of believing, worshiping, discipling, nurturing, and socially active people–a church that is the continuation of the incarnate presence of Jesus in the world–a communal embodiment of what is preached.

- Robert E. Webber, Journey to Jesus

Through Modern Eyes

In modern times the break from the historic Christian substance came when the church began to interpret its faith through modern categories of thought. The shape, then, of dominant Protestant theology, both liberal and conservative as it developed through the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries, was neither reformational nor historic, but modern. Consequently, the return to historic Christianity is also a return to reformational Christianity. Since it is in understanding the early church that evangelical Christians are most deficient, we will draw mainly from the early church fathers in this work.

– Robert E. Webber in Common Roots

History Repeats Itself

Before Constantine ‘Christians had known as a fact of experience that the church existed, but had to believe against appearances that Christ ruled over the world. After Constantine one knew as a fact of experience that Christ was ruling over the world, but had to believe against the evidence that there existed a believing Church.’

Rodney Clapp in A Peculiar People: The Church as Culture in a Post-Christian Society, quoting from John Howard Yoder in “The Otherness of the Church” in Mennonite Quarterly Review 35 (October 1961: 212)

Applying God’s Law

Nate,

At what point is the OT obsolete?

I just got done reading Lev 19….my son (against my wishes, as my wife is an unbeliever) is in public school.  There are several classes that are making totem poles.  Now, you may think I am crazy, but it clearly says in Ex 20:4:

“You shall not make for yourself a carved image–any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth”

You may think I am tripping, but I will not allow this….he is my firstborn, first born unto God….this will not be tolerated! …..anyway, so I was just browsing around Leviticus this morning and thought to myself…what the heck?

Where do you take it (OT)? (to what point)

Well, you have a legit dilemma on your hands.  The first thing I would answer is that the traditional, historic position of the Church-universal is that the OT never becomes obsolete. In fact, a famous 14th century philosopher (and monk) named William of Ockham (you may have heard of Ockham’s Razor – entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem – which basically means the simplest answer is likely to be the accurate one) suggested that stealing was evil simply because God said that it was, which sounds good so far, right? But what Ockham meant is that God could have decided the opposite; He could have decided stealing was ethical, and it would have been. The Church rejected this as heresy and said that no, the law of God was an expression of God’s very nature and could no more change than could God. Therefore, since God is immutable, His law is immutable (not subject to change).  Since no one questions whether God is immutable, I guess that much is decided.

The big question is, since some things in Scripture obviously change (for example, Adam and Eve could only eat fruits, vegetables, and seeds; but after Noah everyone was allowed to eat meat) what is part of God’s eternal law and what is not?

A majority of the Church throughout history has answered that God’s moral law is eternal. The Anglican Church expressed it this way in the 39 Articles of Religion (written over a 30 year period and finalized in 1571):

“The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: . . . Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral.”

So now we have yet another question: which commandments are the moral ones? I have never run across, nor do I have, a bullet-proof answer to that question, which is why at King Messiah Fellowship we have the following guideline:

“We believe the Bible is a revelation of the righteousness of God, and a description of the lifestyle of the redeemed community throughout history. While God’s commandments are to be considered prescriptive, we acknowledge that they require adaptation from generation to generation.”

We see a precedent for this in the Gospels, where Jesus declares to the disciples that in the context of a council of elders they can count on His guidance (via the Holy Spirit) and actually have the authority to determine what will be a permitted way of walking out God’s Law (compare Matthew 18:18-20 and John 20:21-23).

This is why the church has often said that the three pillars of decision making should be Scripture, Reason, & Tradition. They understood that as godly elders made community rulings throughout history, they formed what we know as Tradition, and it should be one factor we take into consideration as we try to figure out how to live out God’s laws in this place and time.

Soo…so much for introduction to the problem itself. Now let’s consider the specific scenario at hand. Clearly God said in the 10 commandments (which everyone considers part of the moral law – except for those who exempt the Sabbath from that category) that we are not to make for ourselves a carved image. HOWEVER, what does that mean–does this prohibit all statues or sculpture? Does this prohibit all art and photography? I don’t think so; why not? From analyzing the language of the passage and keeping verse 4 in the context that includes verse 5, it becomes apparent that God is prohibiting the making of a carved image for purposes of worshiping it. Clearly this is not a blanket prohibition on sculpture.

However, the Indians made totems for idols. Or did they; the evidence seems to indicate that they did not, although culturally ignorant missionaries tended to view the totem poles as idols, that wasn’t what they were to the Indians.

Furthermore, are the school kids carving the totems for idolatry? I doubt it. Since it seems that there is not a black and white, hard and fast, no-questions- asked commandment against making totems, I begin to ask myself further questions. Questions like, “How will my wife perceive this if I deny my son from participating?” “Will it seem to represent a God of grace and mercy to her, or seem more like a tyrannical, dictatorial God that I am using/abusing to bolster my quest for male power and dominance?”  Of course, I don’t suggest that is true, only that it could be misperceived in that fashion.

Clearly, there are lines that cannot be crossed; if the school is teaching that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle alternative than I will have no choice but to exempt my son from that class, and it would be preferred to remove him from that school. But the situation with totem poles is not one of those black and white issues.

Soo…I cannot tell you what the right decision is in this scenario, but I can tell you that from an outside the situation analysis it seems to me that I would probably allow my son to participate, depending of course, on what is being said about the totem poles.

Drumroll, please…

Announcing…

coming soon...

*Logo subject to change

Would Anything Be Different?

I believe that much of the American churchgoing population, while not specifically swimming downstream, is slowly floating away from Christ. It isn’t a conscious choice, but it is nonetheless happening because little in their lives propels them toward Christ.[1]

A friend asked me what is hopefully a soul-shaking question: “If Christ wasn’t in your life, what would be different?” Before you answer too quickly, consider this:

A Christianity reducible to therapy or activism is, in the end, sentimentality. It is therapy and activism performed by people who could as easily do what they do without talk of Jesus and Israel and the kingdom of God, but who have mouthed these platitudes so long they can’t quite let them go.”[2]

Dallas Willard wrote:

I have to try to do real good work; and that’s my business – to do real good work. I wouldn’t say it’s the best in the world or anything like that, others can make judgments, but my intention is to do the best work possible. And by that I don’t mean within my human limitations; I also mean God helping me. I’m going to put my human limitations on the line, but my expectation is not from them. I expect to see something happen that I could not possibly do. And I would do that if I were preaching or witnessing on the streets, or doing whatever wherever. I want to see something happen that I couldn’t possibly do. [3]

Is your life committed to something that on your own, without Christ, you could not accomplish?

For myself, it is clear that without Christ my life would be radically different. However, I too often find that I’m laboring for Him according to the powers He created in me, rather than in dependence upon the power of His Holy Spirit.

---

[1] Francis Chan, Crazy Love: Overwhelmed By A Relentless God (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2008), 93.

[2] Rodney Clapp, A Peculiar People: The Church As Culture in a Post-Christian Society (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1996), 18.

[3] Dallas Willard, “My Journey To and Beyond Tenure in a Secular University”, http://www.dwillard.org/biography/tenure.asp, accessed 10/20/2009.

Paying Attention

Elorah will turn 3 in January of 2010. She’s been talking up a storm for some time now, but not necessarily in discernible English. So I’ve become a bit accustomed to smiling at her and saying something along the lines of “Oh, really?” or “Wow”.

This Sunday morning she caught me off guard. Elorah was telling me something about a teddy bear, while I was drinking some orange juice. I smiled at her and nodded, when suddenly from 35 inches off the floor I heard a mildly indignant,

Dad, talk to me.

Ethan & Morning Prayers

Monday: Morning Prayers in the Long household…

Daddio: “…which God will establish forever. Selah”

Ethan: (in all seriousness) “La”

You’ve got to love a six-year-old who is paying that much attention!