Observations of a Church Brat: Sin and Grace and Commentary

Introduction

I'm finding this entry difficult to write. For one thing, I'm having trouble making sense of rather sketchy notes written several weeks ago. For another, my original intent now feels somewhat anticlimactic or something. Perhaps I simply hesitate.Originally this was to be the flipside of the Schism, how we deal with sin as Christians, how we handle abuses within the church and without.

And I suppose I'll come back around to it. The church is a messy thing. My concern is, more or less, discouraging anyone. For it is just as incorrect to say 'we have no sin' as it is to say 'we are free to sin.'

I would submit, however, that we are but reflections, imperfect reflections born in a dark mirror. And, God help us, his grace is far more than sufficient.

During the interim, however, I decided to answer a few questions. One, is holiness attainable without God? Two, where does grace fit in?


Sin

Someone asked me if I believed men capable of attaining such holiness and righteousness, such obedience. And I'll confess, my answer, true to form, was rather lengthy (though not enough complete). But this is, in my mind, akin to asking me if it is possible to breathe or to eat or for my heart to beat, of its own accord. Natural law simply doesn't allow such spontaneous generation of life.

To answer quickly:

1. Sinlessness is impossible without God. We simply were not made to survive without him, just as we don't survive without food and water and breath in our lungs and blood in our veins.

2. We are no longer enslaved to sin and dead to righteousness post-salvation.

More coming...That's another entry entirely. First I want to swiftly define sin. Remember: I am talking about wrongdoing in a post-salvation context.


I've always defined sin as "anything that goes against the nature and character of God." But Scripture seems to take it further than that. Romans 1 writes that godlessness and wickedness are "knowing God, but neither glorifying him as God nor giving thanks to him" (Romans 1 paraphrase).

But rather, "their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles" (Romans 1).

I don't think I'm going to say much on our pre-salvation position here, other than that we are indeed perishing before we are brought into the fold, for two reasons: One, this series is primarily directed toward believers. Two, I'm dealing with human depravity on the Awake My Glory site soon enough with an entry titled "Uncreative." A few of you are giggling now. The rest of you are left to wonder. 0=)

The long story short: Something broke, and God reconciled us to himself through his Son Jesus Christ, the author and perfector of our faith (heaven help me, I love the book of Hebrews). So now, despite mankind having failed, Jesus has fulfilled the Law, and "just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert" that men might be saved, so Jesus was lifted up, in the belly of the earth for three days as Jonah was in the belly of a fish.

He was then resurrected by the power of the Holy Spirit (the same which now dwells within us) and seated at the right hand of God until everything is placed under his feet, where he forever stands as high priest and king before God and covers us in robes dipped in blood.

He who believes in the Son has life. He who does not believe in the Son stands condemned already.




Grace

"Religious" was my ultimate response to those who adhere to a form of spiritual anarchy, those who confuse righteousness with rebellion. Test everything, my friends, and work out your salvation with fear and trembling.

"Dirty" is my response to him who abuses the Law, using that which was intended for to toward evil. In other words, as I asked the one, I now say:

"If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing" (I Corinthians 13. 1-3).

I actually hesitate to use the above Corinthians passage because it is so overused and taken out of context. Just to appease myself, I ask also:

"You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth.

So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance" (Romans 2.1&2)?

Paul cannot, in this text, be meaning that we are never to pass judgment - indeed, he at one point praises another church for putting every word that comes out of his mouth to the test, and Jesus himself warns us to watch out for false teachers.


But if righteousness and holiness are matters of the heart, then, by design, so must sin and lawlessness be. For, as Paul points out, "where there is no law there is no trangression," and death reigned from Adam until Moses even though the official Law had not been granted. Again, this falls to matters of the heart.

Simply put, there's a right and wrong way to do everything. But there is also within the boundaries of the Law a measure of grace. And Scripture does teach that our heavenly Father does not discipline all his children the exact same way, just as an earthly father wouldn't. One, he does grant us a measure of personal conviction (that lovely "everything is permissible but not everything is beneficial" section everyone loves to use and uses to hate). And, two, "to his own master a servant stands or falls."


Wheat and tares

I'll be honest: I worry about the ones who look to see how far they can go before finding the line, those who stand on the line, and those who make a point to cross it just to prove God won't zap them. (Truly, he should.)

I also worry about the ones who blanket condemn anyone who doesn't look the way they think Christians should. Christianity, by nature, has an element of sponteneity to it, an element born from grace, I think.

In other words:

Do not lie in wait like an outlaw against a righteous man's house,
do not raid his dwelling place;

for though a righteous man falls seven times, he rises again,
but the wicked are brought down by calamity" (Proverbs 24.15&16).

And, "For it is by grace you are saved through faith, and not by works, lest any man should both." Faith comes by hearing, and hearing comes through the Word of God. Furthermore, faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things unseen, for by it the elders obtained a good report (Hebrews 11.1-3, my paraphrase).

I know: "Show me your faith without works, and I will show you my faith by my works" (James). The problem is, God uses the following to provide tests for one who may or may not have the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, and self-control (Galatians 5).

So yes, we can tell over time whether or not someone is a believer. But what do you do when you see tares among the wheat?

So is the purpose of "Dirty."



Segueway

So, I'm asserting that sin is anything against the nature and character of God, any failure to acknowledge God, give him praise, or worship him, per Romans 1. If the James 2 definition of religion stands true, than unrighteousness is also failure to relieve oppression (and/or to oppression), to shirk justice and even love injustice (Micah 6.8), to hate mercy (or to love ruthlessness), to invent ways of doing evil (Romans 2), and to hate Truth and Light, but to love darkness and deception (John, I think, is the prime example on this one).

In other words: "Be excellent in what is good; be innocent of evil. And the God of peace will soon crush Satan underneath your feet."

Now, remember, Proverbs says:

There are six things which the LORD hates,
Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him:
Haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
And hands that shed innocent blood,
A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that run rapidly to evil,
A false witness who utters lies,
And one who spreads strife among brothers (6.16-19).

In other words, sin is hating God and your neighbor (which is largely the result of hating God).

Grace, then, is part of the redeeming work of God in which he takes that which is hateful, godless, and lawless - that which is unjust, unrighteous, and unmerciful - and makes it so. For, "It is God's kindness which leads to repentance.


Wolves

I said before, even a non-Christian knows the difference between a guy who wears a priest's robes and a guy who genuinely engages in the office of priest. So to those who say they've been 'burned by church' or who claim that Christians have stained the name of Christ...

I have to ask a few questions.

1. Do you consider experience equal with Truth?
2. Do you consider everyone who says they are Christian, Christian?
3. Do you truly believe a man who says he is religious will behave irreligiously?
4. If you yourself are a Christian, why do you reject your entire family because of one part of it?
5. If you truly believe that even believers sin, why do you expect sinlessness from them?


Jesus himself said many would come in his name, and to watch out for false teachers - many of whom sprang up before the completion of the New Testament. Remember: A man of God is known by the fruit he produces.

It works both ways, in other words. The completely unorthodox guy who drives the other up the way may very well know Jesus just as well as the guy in the suit who thinks tattoos are of the devil.

So be it.

Alright, I think now my train of thought is back. Next time, "Dirty." Also called "So you look like a son of God and smell like a son of the devil."

Kidding on the subtitle...

Next: Dirty, A

Observations of a Church Brat: Religious. (D)

Outpour

Okay, so I was going to leave this in three parts, but "C" was long enough to justifiy a "D." Next time we really are getting to "Dirty," because that's the one I haven't written yet. This section is a bridge, if you will - the conclusion of Religion and the beginning of Dirty. No, I'm not explaining the title.

So, thus far I have maintained that:

1. God has ordained religion and wishes such fulfilled, not abolished (Sermon on the Mount).

2. God has defined religion as feeding widows and orphans and keeping oneself unstained from the world (James 2), which translates into promoting justice and righteousness (Micah 6.8) and keeping the two greatest commands (Leviticus 19.18; Deuteronomy 6.4; Luke 10.38-42).

3. God has specified the manner in which we are to worship him.

4. God has specified the manner in which we carry out religion.


That said, the narrative, historical accounts of the Old Testament, the Acts of the Apostles, and the four Gospels of Jesus, are meant to demonstrate God's applications of the principles found in the aforementioned Law.

The Prophets and the Apostles, then, largely acted in similar fashion to Jesus explaining the parables to the disciples (on occasion).

Demonstration. Explanation.

None of this abolition nonsense.

But fulfillment.

Remember: God spoke through the Law and the Prophets, then sent his Son Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1), who now sits at the right hand of the Father as our mediator and who has sent us the gift of the Holy Spirit, who is the seal of our redemption and our counsel regarding this enormous thing called the Way of Christ.

And the Son of God never intended for to become spiritual anarchists. In fact, most of the time these men of God had to keep reminding everyone that there's a right and wrong way to do just about everything. We love Paul's passage on freedom in the Spirit, but not so much the next section where he talks about submission and obedience to that same Spirit.

The poor First Century church - predominantly Jewish with a few Gentiles running around who were even more clueless than their Jewish counterparts regarding how this thing played out - had lots of problems. That's why the New Testament exists. (Thought-cookie complements of my pastor.) They didn't do it all right. They were running for their lives, in survival mode, and they were dealing with racism, elitism, idolatry, and all kinds of warped perversions that, if we made the full list, would sound eerily like the same human depravity history dares record.

The point is: If they weren't doing it right, and the apostles had to correct them (rather sternly, I might add), then that means they were doing it wrong.

Yes, that was my stroke of genius for the day. 0=)

And so what I see today is not a new thing, but rather the same old thing wearing new clothes - what the believers in the first generations of our faith struggled with then is the same we face today. Never, ever rip Christianity into a historical vacuum - otherwise you by default render such faith, such heritage, such inheritance, utterly meaningless. (But that's another post.)


Remember: The Law is not evil. Without the Law, we do not know what sin is, and we have neither a need for a Savior, nor any knowledge of good and evil. The greater the sin, the greater the grace. Where there is no Law there is no transgression. The Law is our tutor, our overseer, our guide. The Law is a description of the ways of God. His nature, his character.

And thus such is beautiful. True, the Law can only condemn, never save. The one who dutifully keeps the Law is not rewarded for simply doing what he must - rather, the one who goes above and beyond the call of mere duty is rewarded.


Still, the Law remains.




Shadows

Do I think God means for us to keep all the dietary and ritualistic shadows of the Law? No, the Jerusalem Council (headed by James, I might add) took care of that. But I think the Law should be studied on account of the principles behind them. The Mosaic Law tells much about what holiness and righteousness should look like.

Priests - The priests stand between God and man and behave as mediator and intercessor, praying day and night and offering sacrifice and praise, offering council and healing and justice. Now, stay with me, here: Peter calls us "a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people" set apart that we might "show forth the praises of him who has called us out of darkness into his marvelous light" (I Peter 2?) They were teachers, physicians, musicians, caretakers of the tabernacle/temple, advisors, and more. Many times they were also judge, jury, and executioner as well. These are not to be confused with prophets, who largely were not priests or even Levites.

Levites - The tribe from which the priests came. They could do most of the things the priests could, and their purpose was primarily to enable the priests to do their jobs without hindrance.

Governmental/Civil Law - The manner in which a ruler provided justice and righteousness, also the manner in which we are to treat others.

Dietary Law - I'm of the mind that what affects the body affects the spirit, and vice versa. Furthermore, since we think better in word pictures, images, and Story, I think this was largely a two-fold device. One, Jews didn't have a lot of the sanitation problems others had as a result of the kosher diet. Two, this not only showed the wisdom, provision, and protection of God, it also displayed the metaphor of the people of God manifesting submission to God and manifesting Paul's principle that some things we do not do despite our freedom to do so.

In other words, I highly doubt there's anything inherently wrong with cooking a goat in its mother's milk. However, you could take a larger principle behind it: It's rather sadistic to kill a child before its mother, then drain her blood and roast the child in it.

Forgive that word picture.... 0=)

A less graphic example: There is nothing inherently wrong with an alchoholic beverage. However, I don't drink (aside from my primary reason of despising the stuff) largely because of the potential to cause myself or another to sin. (Yes, I have grounds for that -- But now isn't the place for further exposition; this is long enough.)

The point being: We just don't do that.

Laws of Cleanliness - Again, my understanding is that we are set apart by God for a specific purpose. As a result, sometimes we just don't do things. Other times, we do them, but then we must go and, in essence, purge ourselves. The purification (or consecration) process can happen an indefinite number of times, you'll see, in the Mosaic Law. Post-Crucifixion, however, that manifests itself in the single, ongoing, post-salvation (or rather, it begins at salvation) work of sanctification in a life.

Laws of Worship - Like it or not, God told us, among my pastor's 'party or die' quip, that there is a way in which to worship. Priests underwent consecration rites. Levites were split into three clans, each having their own specific role. One clan was to tend the tabernacle (later temple) and nothing else. One handled the things inside the holy of holies, and nothing else. The third group was given a divine command to pick up instruments, sing, dance, and make music.

Furthermore, God ordained that no man should come without a gift to bring to the altar. Now we translate this into the 'living sacrifice.' The principle becomes that WE, not grain or drink, are the sacrifice - as we come before the throne of grace with fear and trembling and with confidence and humility. We 'lift up holy hands and pure hearts,' and souls we yield to no other. We relinquish the thing in our hands and present ourselves before the Almighty.

(Sidenote: Paul calls himself a drink offering. The pouring out of drink - I'm forgetting the exact ingredients - over the altar was essentially a gift to God - it is not the same as an atonement offering, for which Christ was our sacrifice in place of a bull or ram. Wave/fellowship and free will offerings could be brought at any time to the priest to sacrifice to God, and this is what I mean here. I am not putting people in place of the atoning sacrifice or sin offering - which is what the bit with Jacob, Isaac, and the ram were implying.)

Yes, there are variations. I doubt David stripping off his robe was commonplace. I personally consider my choice in clothing part of my preparation to attending the corporate gathering of believers (namely, can I sit or kneel without being uncomfortable or immodest?). For you it's likely something else. But that's beside the point.

Clean hands. Pure hearts. Justice. Mercy. Set apart. Priestly.


The high priest - If we are the priestly order, Jesus is our high priest, and we serve both under and with him. Rather than the yearly sacrifice, Jesus presented himself once before the mercy seat (aka throne of grace) and sat down at the right hand of the Father, where he is and intercedes on our behalf.

Israel - Many people have their own ideas on Israel. I submit they remain the chosen nation of God, and that those who are of Abraham are those who are his by faith (as Hebrews' author and Jesus and Paul state). It seems accurate to say that Israel was called out of the world, and we are called both from the world and from Israel. This is where the bit on being grafted into the olive tree comes in. In case anyone was curious, the wild branch is anyone not Jewish.


Burnt-out corpses

"Okay, okay, but what does this have to do with my hatred for all things 'religious.' Your definition, Kaci, I like, but everyone else doesn't see it that way."

First, I highly doubt even the world confuses the occupation of a priest with a truly righteous man. Second, I once more fall upon a literary example. I recently read Donita Paul's (and you will hear me rave about her, because I happen to think she may have surpassed Narnia with her DragonKeeper books). One of the characters poses the following to another: "Suppose someone steals your clothes, robs someone, comes back, and returns your clothes to you. When the authorities come, you say you aren't that person, but they don't believe you." His point being that the true followers of Wulder do not behave in such ways or do such things.

So you're burned out and mad at 'instituted religion.' Bah humbug. I'm mad at the government, but I ain't promoting anarchy. And as much as I hate red tape, that tape protects me. As much as I hate traffic, I'm not complaining over the construction work that leaves me better off than before. And I may not like street signs, but they get me where I need to be. I may not like having to manually turn my lights on and off, but it's for my own safety (and so my car doesn't die).

Here's the thing: I think we'll all agree that it doesn't actually matter what color the sanctuary carpet is. But I think we might agree that it shouldn't be drawing attention away from the worship of God. I think we'll agree that order is required whenever you put a large number of people in one place. There really isn't a right way to do it, although some are more efficient than others.

I think we'll agree that some Bible translations are superior to others, that there are tenents of our faith we cannot back down from, and that maybe one person keeping us all on the same key singing mostly the right notes of the same song isn't such a bad idea.

I think guys in suits or jeans helping the late people find seats and getting us offering plates (bags, boxes, whatever) in an orderly fashion isn't a bad thing. I think your ritual for getting your heart properly positioned toward the Father isn't a bad thing - whatever it may be.

I think setting aside time to read and study Scripture, to pray, to reflect and meditate, is invaluable. I think our hearts breaking over people trapped in darkness is appropriate. I happen to think I can sing a hymn a cappella as easily as I can sing a contemporary litany. I happen to think that if covering my head is a sign of reverence, so be it. And I happen to think KJV is not of the devil, nor God's gift to man. (Please no puns.)

I happen to think that rebellion is intolerable and that bitterness, strife, and envy have no place -- on either side of the Schism.

Here's the thing: Which is better on the Sabbath, to save a life or destroy it? Or, even, which is better, to abolish the Law or fulfill it?

Another thing: By the measure in which you judge, so you will also be judged. You who find a priest ostracizing a troubled teenager atrocious, do you yourself ostracize the priest?

I get it. The church is messy. Unfortunately, "If men were angels, government would not be necessary" (The Federalist Papers).

Law, order, and goodness are not evil. Please let me stress this. If a law is ungodly, then respond to it. That doesn't mean we go about becoming the very things we hate.


Next: Dirty.

Observations of a Church Brat: Religious. (C)

True Religion


I apologize for the length of this section, but apparently I had more to say than originally believed. That said....I'm picking up with James.


Remember: True religion acceptable in the sight of God is to feed widows and orphans and keep yourself undefiled by the world. James's definition has worked for two thousand years, and the narrative display for thousands of years as recorded in Scripture. Therefore, I consider this definition the most accurate. I mean, that whole God-breathed thing...


Righteousness

James also says that real religion is to walk in obedience with God, following all of his laws and decrees, hearing the voice of God, keeping in step with the Spirit. Real religion is to abide in Christ and to be holy imitators of him. To produce spiritual fruit.

Or, to say simply, "Worship is your entire life" (Louie Giglio).

Righteousness comes by faith, not the Law, so the Scriptures - old and new - teach. (I will never put one at odds with the other, mind you.) And I know most people think of regulations and rituals whenever they think 'religion.'

Fine.

But just because people think it doesn't make it true. Furthermore, in my recent reading of the OT Law, I was absolutely floored by the sheer number of variations of Deuteronomy 6.4 -- largely within Deuteronomy itself. No wonder Jesus quoted it so much. I shall have to do a full rendering of the text at some point -- but it's well worth the read, especially if you read as my friend Jeremy interprets the book and consider the entire Law a mere exposition on the meaning of Deuteronomy 6.4 and Leviticus 19.18.

Remember: The implications of "My sheep know my voice" are that anyone who does not is not yet a part of this family (the outcome of that sentence I'll deal with another day).

I find, more or less, that the shadows themselves are beautiful. "The New is in the Old contained; the Old is in the New explained." More or less, the OT is Story -- the narrative, parable display of what is in the NT put into principle and exposition. Acts and the four Gospels are actually done in similar form as the OT. The rest is akin to Jesus pulling the disciples aside and explaining the parable of the Sower and Four Soils.


Righteousness comes by faith, and faith comes by hearing. But 'out of the overflow of the mouth the heart speaks.' And, 'a good tree does not produce bad fruit.'

Remember: The same who said "righteousness comes by faith" also said "be holy [perfect], as I am holy [perfect]."


Yes, Paul wrote that beautiful and deviously descriptive Galatians passage on "it is for freedom Christ has set us free!" and circumcision of the heart and, my personal favorite, "as for these agitators [the Jewish believers who wanted the Gentile ones to be circumcised], I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!" (5.12).

But remember: Circumcision is still circumcision. It hurts. And it's bloody. And the earlier it happens, the better. (My apologies to all guys who just read that.)

Forgive the dance around crudeness, but it's in the text as the prime example, so there but for the grace of God go I. 0=)

Remember, remember, always remember: The entire Law is summed in two verses. And what matters to God is a circumcision of the heart.

In other words, what we do and say matters, not as a result of what saves and doesn't save, but as a matter of the display of what's in our hearts.


Holiness

A friend pointed out to me that I considered holiness "more than what you do or don't do." I hadn't thought of it that way, but then realized he was right -- I just never said it that bluntly.

In other words, the striving for holiness and righteousness is never a bad thing. God wants such things for us, and has enabled us to attain them through faith in the workings of his Son.

I think what troubles me often is how willingly we take Paul's hammering on freedom out of proportion or context (or both), but then wonder why we can't reconcile those sections with other sections such as "he who sins after believing in Christ crucifies him twice and is no longer capable of being saved, indeed is worse off than before" (Hebrews 10, I think).

In the end, "It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Hebrews 10) and "Better to fall into the hands of God than men" (King David).

More often than not, I tell people "strive for excellence, not perfection." Largely because excellence is easier to measure. And regardless of how you choose to interpret certain portions of Scripture, the most accurate one is that which does not deviate from the nature and character of God. And God doesn't condone wickedness. Especially from his children. (Hey, read the prophets if you don't believe me.)

Again, I use the pre-Crucifixion texts to underscore the principles in the post-Crucifixion texts. Israel has been and will be the set apart nation meant to declare the glorious name of the Almighty. Indeed, Paul himself writes that 'if the natural branches can be cut off; what makes you think you can't be" (Romans)?

The point, very plainly, is "So Israel wasn't safe from the wrath of God; what then, O Gentile, makes you think you are?"

For God has spoken through the Law and through his prophets, and through his Son (Hebrews 1), and now through his Spirit, sent by the Son as a seal and as our guiding light until such time as he returns.



Next time: Religion, part D - final installment of this section (really)

Observations of a Church Brat: Religious. (B)

The Recap

So I finished out (or rather, semi-finished) before by saying that God has a prescribed way in which he wishes things done, and it's to our benefit to do them that way. I think my first example was possibly stronger than my second, but bear with me.

Again, I begin with the premise that God has not only revealed true religion to us, but given us the means of fulfilling such. Remember: the sum of the Law is Deuteronomy 6:4 and Leviticus 19:18. That means everything else must hinge on these two things. Furthermore, God requires obedience. The Covenant contained within it both a blessing and a curse: Blessing if he was obeyed, his laws and ways followed; cursing if he was disobeyed and forsaken.

I mean, didn't Jesus say, "I have not come to bring peace but a sword" (Matthew 5)?


The Golden Rule

So, according to Jesus, the greatest commandment is to love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength; and the second greatest is to love our neighbors as ourselves (which even the non-believing world can translate into the golden rule).

It was Jesus, then, who said "he who does not despise his father and mother, take up his cross, and follow me, cannot be my disciple." It was Jesus who said, "my sheep know my voice" and that whoever obeyed him loved him; but whoever disobeyed him did not.

Furthermore, Hebrews makes it plain that sin has no place in the life of a Christian. James pounds the podium for four three chapters while describing his one-liner definition of religion.

Remember: True religion is to feed widows and orphans and to keep yourself unstained from the world (pure, set apart, holy, consecrated, undefiled, etc).

"Be excellent in what is good; be innocent of evil; and the God of peace will soon crush Satan underneath your feet" (Thessalonians?).


Furthermore, James makes a point (and I like using James, because the poor guy's story is rarely told, and I gotta admit life as the Messiah's kid brother had to be interesting) to make sure we could all (and we can) chant the following in unison:

What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

But someone will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?

Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"—and he was called friend of God.

You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.

I think often times on this one we lose sight of James's point. Either we read it and think, "Oh! James's point is that faith immediately produces good works!" or we think, "Oh! James just couldn't get past the whole 'keeping the law' thing."

Remember: This was Jesus' half-brother. The man did not believe until Jesus resurrected and Jesus personally tracked him down and presented himself in fully glory to him. He thought Jesus was nuts, at best. And yet he became one of the leaders in the church in Jerusalem, very respected, and, apparently, a force with which to be reckoned. James and Paul in one room would have been a clash of the titans. Even Paul sought James for council, if my memory serves correct. So to dis James is to dis one of Paul the Apostle's mentors.

And James says that real religion is not only good, but required of us. Real religion is 'to obey God and keep his commands' (Ecclesiastes 12). To love justice and prefer mercy (Micah 6.8) and to walk humbly with God. Acts of righteousness, very much, are when we care for the needy, lift the yoke of the oppressed, encourage the downcast, enable the weak, provide for the naked and hungry.


Next time: Religious, part C

Observations of a Church Brat: Religious. (A)

The Truth

My apologies for not posting sooner. I fully intended to post at least once before leaving town, if not twice. So let's see...where was I?

Oh yes.

Dorci asked:

I'll never understand why one who loves Christ would disdain being identified by the name.

Well, the truth is, in part I can see it. Fear, bitterness, anger, and pain do things to people's minds. The problem is, while many can empathize, we also know you can't live in that place very long.

And then Kevin jumped in:

It is a wacky subject indeed. I don't have much to add, but I knew some Messianic Jews at one point in time and they had some interesting things to say about the nature of Christianity.

One thing that came from my discussions with them and others was the nature of the "right way" to do religion. The Messianic Jews claimed to be practicing the church as it was practiced at the time of Christ's death, but then again so do the members of "The Church of Christ." (Side note, I feel it is a little presumptuous to call your denomination and methodology THE Church of Christ, excluding all others) It begs the question, is there a "right" way to religion? (Verbing nouns weirds the language) A question that could hardly be begun to be answered in this little box.

You and my pastor. 0=) Is there a right or wrong way to 'do religion'? Arguably, yes and no. I'd lean more toward yes, actually, but bear with me.

I say "Yes," because "He had shown thee, O man, what is good and what the Lord requireth of thee: But to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God" (Micah 6.8) and "who may ascend the hill of the Lord? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who has not lifted his soul to an idol" (Psalm 24, my paraphrase based off an old song).

Furthermore, we have, again, the James 2 section: "True religion is to feed widows and orphans and to keep oneself unstained from the world."

This does not count the numerous times God rebukes his people for doing worship outside the proper bounds (Can we say Uzzah touching the Ark of the Covenant, anyone?): I believe it was King Josiah (could be wrong) whose reign noted that not since the days of the prophets had anyone observed the Passover as prescribed. Furthermore, so many priests, at one point, had not kept themselves pure that their brothers (non-priests within the tribe of Levi) had to fulfill the priests' duties until the priests were consecrated.

Furthermore, God repeatedly hounds Israel for giving lipservice but not coming to him with fear and trembling, with broken spirits and contrite hearts. The Hound of Heaven chases Israel, reminding them on and on about the Mosaic Law (Exodus 20-Deuteronomy). Repeatedly, Israel is commended for ceasing their idol worship, but with every commendation is the additional line: "But the high places and Asherah poles remained."


All of this to say : God does care how you come to him.

And yes, I realize I haven't touched on how the rites and regulations were all mere shadows and such, how we have freedom in Christ's fulfillment of the Law, but bear with me -- that's next time, lest you imagine I've forgotten.


Brimstone

Okay, okay, so many are 'burned by the church' or by 'legalistic, fundamentalist, evangelical holier-than-thou Pharisaical hypocrites' (did I miss one?) within said church.

Fine.

I have made my best friend cry. And she didn't ditch the church over it, either. Nor decide my entire church was full of a bunch of hell-bound hypocrites as a result.

I have watched people ostracized, mocked, ridiculed, belittled, and harassed. I have watched enough wolves posing as sheep and tares eating wheat to make a man gag on himself. I've watched people mocked for doing the right thing, and praised for doing the wrong.

In fact, I myself was going the way of the "I hate all things 'religious' and 'institutionalized church' for awhile. Oh, and believe me, I could have. I've been around Christians of (almost) all flavors. Some are immature. Some are going to be in for a shock when they realize they weren't quite as heaven-bound as they imagined. And some will be shocked at who wasn't as hell-bound as they imagined.

But the point is this. I have, myself, been skeptical of about every possible thing within the church. Why bring a Bible? Why dress up? Why not? Why pews, why not? Why a choir, why this, why that -- why is this unacceptable; why is that allowed?

In fact, at one point I'm pretty sure I was going completely anarchist as far as Christianity as a worldview goes (Yes, another term -- but for another day).

I think it sort of hit me over the last couple years, even as I struggled to embrace that which terrified me. I offer two examples, one regarding me, and one my pastor tells occasionally.

I remember one spring break I took my second mission trip to Memphis TN - same church group, different mission team - to the same place we'd stayed at before. In effort to protect the guilty and innocent, I'll not name the others, nor the organization we stayed with. Anyway, I'd stayed in this place the year before; these people were wonderful and treated us well, too well, in my estimation. 0=) We were not doing anything actually with that organization, but we were asked to attend worship, meals, and to do the Bible study prepared for their own team of workers.

As it happened, a few theological differences (minor, in my estimation; and I don't care to list them all -- suffice it to say it mostly centered around the spiritual gifts and the worship service itself) cropped up, and my team spent several hours trashing these people.

Well, of course, I found such behavior diabolical and spent the better part of a week and a half ranting about it. Furious was I.

Then something happened. I was lying in bed stewing over the matter (amazing how the human mind can totally fixate and replay the same thing ad nauseum) and found myself thinking, "I have never and will never do such a thing!"

About the same time an image came into my head. It's a familiar image that comes to mind whenever Jesus' parable of the tax collector and the Pharisee praying in the temple comes up. Little more was needed, because I immediately froze.

I know well the Pharisee's prayer, and it was identical to mine.

Example two: My pastor tells this story of how one Christmas he wore khakis and a red dress shirt -- a striking contrast to his usual jeans and either polo or open button down with a white undershirt or something. He later received an email, he tells it, from someone telling him he was a cop-out for dressing up.


Fire

I suppose all of this is to ask, who was right? Both? Neither? Either?

Or rather, whose deeds were claimed as righteous? Mine, for my blistering, murderous hate of my brother? My brother, for causing dissention and accusing our siblings of heresy? My sister, who acccused a brother of hypocrisy?

Paul repeatedly told his students not to fall into such trappings, because all those things do is glorify the Self, in the end. My anger may have been well-founded, but "the anger of man does not bring the righteousness of God" (James 2).

I think more often than not we forget things, and God has to remind us, whether gently or with a God-sized two-by-four. In the end, the reason I had to dismiss my love for a good debate and for splitting hairs over the whys and why nots was because in the end I was doing the very thing I despised: trading the glory of God for lies and perversion.

God has a prescribed way of doing things. He expects obedience, holiness, and righteousness. He expects faith and humility, love toward him and, as the overflow of our new hearts and minds and souls and strength, all humanity.


Alright....In the interest of space I'll break this one up.


Next time: Religous, Part B