Are we under the law? Part 1

Christians are not under the law (that is, the first five books of the Bible). We live in the realm of grace (Rom 6:14). That makes sense. A lot of the Old Testament doesn’t seem relevant, except the 10 commandments and some other moral laws. So we keep them and get rid of the rest.

Let me state it again. Christians are not under the law. In fact, if you’re a non-Jew, you never were (Rom 2:14. 1 Cor 9:21 and Gal 4:8).

Paul uses the term 'under the law' some eleven times in eight verses spread over Galatians, Romans and 1 Corinthians. It refers to those who are Jewish or Jewish Christians. For Paul, there is a freedom that they can now experience. This is also why he is against placing Gentiles under the law.

So what do we make of the law?

Firstly, it helps to reveal our sinfulness (Rom 5:21). Christians are not under the law as letter, commandments, book, decrees or covenant.  1 Timothy 1:8-10 says that the law used lawfully is not for the righteous (believers), but to condemn the lawless. So the law reveals our need for salvation. It points out how terribly sinful we are. Let’s face it, we over estimate our strengths and ignore our weaknesses. The law helps us to understand our old nature.

Secondly, we get a better picture of love. I believe this is how Jesus uses the law in Matthew 5. He shows what the exemplary love is behind the law. It is the principles that govern loving relationships which those in Christ want to follow.

But if we're not to throw it out, how should we use it? More to come

Why I won’t commit to loyalty

A virtue that we often hold up today is loyalty. It is expected in marriage, at work and between friends. But is loyalty a virtue that we should hold above all others?

My answer is no. There are circumstances when breaking a confidence is a good thing. For example, when a work colleague commits fraud, when you are aware of sexual abuse or when your marriage could be saved through counselling.

The problem is that we have confused loyalty with faithfulness. Faithfulness is about committing yourself to the good of someone else.

It means that you are dependable, that you will consider how you can express love towards someone, what is in their best interests. Loyalty on the other hand is about obedience. It is doing what the other person has told you to do, even if you believe the behaviour is wrong.

Faithfulness will commit me to working through difficulties, whereas loyalty only commits me to silence. Faithfulness promotes a desire to care, whereas loyalty maintains the status quo.

Faithfulness is always better than loyalty because it stems from love. It can applied is so many different contexts (work, family, church, friends). Faithfulness sees relationships enriched, it sees people doing abundantly more out of love, it develops a deep generosity that benefits everyone.

To change from loyalty to faithfulness begins with our language. Instead of saying,  “Will you do what I ask?”, try “I was wondering if you could help me”. Instead of saying, “I will do what you have asked”, try “I’d be happy to _________, if that would help you.”

Trust develops relationships, so lets work at being faithful and reap the benefits.

Missional vs confessional church

I must admit that I am using this as a means of thinking aloud. So I look forward to your responses, and I hope you will forgive me for my errors.

I was reading the book The Church Planter by Darrin Patrick. I enjoyed the challenges he gives to the type of character a church planter should have. When it came to the How of Mission Darrin spoke of contextualising.

“The attractiveness of contextualizing the gospel is that we actually listen to the questions people are asking. We are able to listen patiently to the hopes, challenges, and fears that people in a culture express through art, theatre, literature, and film and to communicate the gospel in a way that connects…Many unbelievers in our cultural setting will be attracted to the gospel as they come to understand how it connects to them in the deepest possible ways.” Pg 195

I think this is a good definition of a missional church. You understand your community and you show how the gospel impacts on their lives and it makes a difference. This is smart and relevant. But is it what we’re called to do?

I think that we are called to be a confessional church. I think this makes sense of Matt 16:18, Eph 2:19-20 and 1 Cor 3:10-15. I think that the priority is NOT to the world but to our Lord (Matt 28:16-20). We proclaim Him (Col 1:28, 2 Tim 4:1-5) as the Christ, the one who is the firstborn over creation and the church. He is the one who is reconciling all things in heaven and on earth (Col 1:21). Isn’t this relevant enough?

I think we need to be a confessional church. Why?

1) It’s biblical. As I’ve shown above and throughout the Pastoral Epistles, the task for a minister is to preach the word of God.

2) It recognises the sinfulness of humanity. The gospel will always appear foolish (1 Cor 1:18-31). It is the power of the gospel that can overcome hard hearts (Rom 1:16).

3) It impacts on what and how we preach. We can become so aware of the issues in our community that we look for passages that are relevant. A confessional church will be exegetical in practice because it is not only circumstances but our mindset and behaviours that need to be modified in light of resurrection of Jesus and the redemption of creation

Now I believe that we ought to know our community. Demographical material is of value. But I will preach that Jesus is Lord to the accountant who is about to go on their ski trip. I’ll preach Jesus is Lord to the lady whose husband just left her for another woman. I’ll preach Christ to university student who is considering what they will do with their life. To them this isn’t the highest priority, but to our God there is no great confession that we can make.