Fine Young Man

Chew on this one:

If we insist that we need laws or rules to keep us from doing the wrong thing and make us do the right thing, then…

we are really saying that Jesus’ love for us is not powerful enough to keep us from doing the wrong thing and make us do the right thing.

“We are ruled by Christ’s love for us” (2 Cor. 5:14, CEV).

Tonight in Gospel Transformation, we got into some sinking sand as we discussed the implications of not returning to law and experiencing freedom in Christ.

Wednesday night attendance was our example.

Suppose we take seriously the freedom we have in Christ. Let’s also suppose we choose to exercise our freedom by not coming on Wednesday night (this could be for a variety of reasons such as we don’t get anything out of it, I get off work too late, etc.).

Do we not reveal our heart by making that choice? Isn’t it the truth that we would rather not come on Wednesday night? If that is true, then doesn’t God already know it? The answer must be yes.

Why must we insist on rules and laws? Isn’t it because we fear the abuse of those things if we don’t insist on them? If I say that I do not have to assemble, am I afraid that I won’t? Another way of saying it is to say that only reason I come is because I have to or I must.

Here’s the danger of not taking the freedom seriously. The danger is that we won’t stop acting religious long enough to allow our heart to change.  One thing that might happen is that we stop attending for awhile. In that time, we might come to realize that we miss it or need it, at which point our heart is engaged again. Isn’t this what we mean when we say that Jesus is more concerned with our heart?

Of course, the opposite is true, too. We might also find during this time that we really didn’t want to go in the first place. We might never return. But again, isn’t this who we really are and doesn’t God know it anyway. I’ve heard this referred to as the “great gamble”. It’s a huge risk.

The reason we might not want to take freedom in Christ seriously is that we are afraid to find what is really inside us. That’s too bad because God wants to heal that too.

I keep hearing comments about us needing to be more spiritual or grow spiritually. I think I know what people mean by that. No, I take that back, what do we mean by that? Do we intend to go through each day in a trance with God telling us every move to make? That’s not what I intend. Here’s my question: what does ‘more spiritual’ look like? What would we be doing if we were?

I asked the apostle, Paul, that and the answers I got were surprising. Take Ephesians for example. Starting in chapter 4, maturity is maintaining unity and loving each other. Maturity is using our gifts to serve others. Maturity is living our lives in the light of Christ’s goodness and grace, watching how we live and talk and think. Maturity is being a good husband or wife, parent or child, slave or master. Spiritual maturity is not some gnostic trance but working out the real-life implications of God’s grace in all our lives. If that’s what we mean by ‘more spiritual’ then yes, we need to be ‘more spiritual’.

Excerpt from John Mark Hicks blog regarding “Systematic Christian Doctrine”. You can read the entire post here.

Ellen T. Charry has argued that the function of Christian Doctrine is aretegenic, that is, it is “conducive to virtue” or it generates a virtuous life (By the Renewing of Your Minds [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977], p. 19). The purpose of Christian doctrine is character formation, spiritual formation. Theology should give the people of God an identity (a sense of calling and status) and equip them with normative ideas and values that shape them into the image of Christ. The function of Christian doctrine is practical—to build a community which images God. Thus, the goal is neither polemical victory (to glory in being “right” on every issue) nor theological ingenuity (to glory in a “new” idea). It is pragmatic. Christian doctrine should serve God’s intent to seek a people that share his values and holiness in communion with him.

Theology is neither metaphysical speculation nor polemical exchange, but the applied story of God toward the goal of character formation—to be formed into the image of Christ. As Paul told Titus, if we will teach Christian doctrine (stress the theology of Titus 3:3-7), then the Christian community will be full of good works (Titus 3:8). This is the kind of “teaching” that is “good and profitable.” A community is shaped by its doctrine; it will become what its doctrine is. Teachers and preachers pay heed. Doctrine must be aretegenic if it is to be biblical.

What theology does Paul have in mind? He summarizes it in Titus 3:3-7. If Titus would have a vibrant community of faith, he should stress this: (1) the triune work of God—the Father who loved us through Jesus the Son and renewed us through the Holy Spirit; (2) our utter fallenness and thus the need for redemption; (3) the divine initiative for our salvation, the motive that moved the divine initiative, and the divine work which accomplished it; (4) the nature and means of our salvation as our redemption is not only forgiveness by the grace of Jesus Christ but transformation by the power of the Spiorit; and (5) the creation of a community of believers with eschatological hope.

Stress these things, Paul told Titus, and the people of God will be dedicated to good works (transformed living in service to others). They will avoid foolish controversies and quarrels about the law (polemics will not be their focus). They will be God’s people who image Christ in a fallen world; they will be a people who live according to the age to come rather than fashioned by this present evil age.

Paul's reasoning in Corinthians

We’ve been digging in to 1 Corinthians 11-14 and discussing the interaction between men and women in worship. I’m toying with this drawing to capture Paul’s rationale for the instruction that he gives in the section about how the Corinthian women are to behave in the assembly. I think the main force of his argument is his understanding of the creation story.

So, Question #1: Is the action consistent with the story of God in creation?

Question #2: What message is this action sending culturally for us?

Question #3: How have the churches worked through this action in the past?

After that Paul brings in both the culture at large and the custom of the churches. I put these in the creation story because each of these operating independent of the biblical story have the propensity to miss the mark regarding the relationship of the genders. I think Paul is adopting these as support of his argument as long as they are reflecting the reality of God’s creation.

How men and women interact in worship becomes a discussion of 3 different environments in which we exist – the biblical story, the tradition of the churches, and the cultural proprieties of our day. I think this might provide a pair of glasses through which we can view and think through the ways both men and women can participate in the work and worship of our church.