Pastor Jimmy's Blog

Law or Grace? Law and/or Grace? Law and Grace? If I ever get this figured out to everyone else’s satisfaction, I’ll let you know. (I’m quite happy with my own limited perspective, thank you very much.)

Grace preachers are often accused of being soft on sin. At least, we’re often accused of being soft on sin by those who relish the role of prosecutor, judge, and jury, who act as if our primary job description in the scriptures is to eradicate sin in everyone else’s lives. (I’m still waiting for someone to show me chapter and verse on that one.)

To the contrary, I think grace preachers take sin more seriously. Rules only address external behaviors; grace applies to motives, thoughts, and attitudes as well. The rules may say “drive 55″, but my heart still wants to drive 75. The rules say “drive 55 or you’ll get an expensive ticket,” while grace says “my driving affects the safety of others, so I’ll stick with the rules.”

And who decides what rules are the most important? Why am I encouraged to preach about sexual activity but forbidden to speak about corporate greed? Why can I talk all I want about drunkenness, but not about our attitudes toward immigrants and the poor? Why are the Ten Commandments more important than the message of the prophets? Why don’t we have bumper stickers that say “Keep the Sermon on the Mount”?

The life of grace calls for me (and us) to submit ALL of life (personal and public) to the teachings and leadership of Jesus, not just the parts others see, and not just the parts that are convenient for me. That’s not to say rules and law are bad. I’m saying that we must use rules and law as God intended and not use them as a short-cut to avoid the total surrender God asks for.

What am I basing this on? Notice that God was “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” long before there was a Law of Moses. Notice that the Hebrews were God’s people long before they left Egypt and came to Sinai. The Law of Moses was given to help the Hebrews learn how to live as God’s own people. The Hebrews weren’t God’s people because they kept the Law; they kept the Law because they were already God’s people.

Rules can help me understand the disciplined life of the Spirit better. They can help me avoid mistreating others. But I must allow the rules to push me toward God. I understand God’s character better when I ask, “Why does God care about this?” Rules help me understand that my choices and actions have consequences, and that others are affected by my choices and actions. Rules help me understand that God hates sin, not because it’s a legal offense to God, but because sin harms myself and others.

But rules are no substitute for grace. Grace invites me into deeper relationship with God, while rules tempt me to stay distant and aloof. I refuse to give up the richness of the life of grace to settle for superficial religion. I am who I am because of the grace of God, and I am not ashamed to preach the life of grace!

I was eager to read Francis Chan’s “Erasing Hell”, having read and appreciated “Crazy Love” and “Forgotten God” (both of which I highly recommend). Chan writes in response to Rob Bell’s “Love Wins” (see last blog post), the book at the center of a recent firestorm of controversy.

Chan should be commended for his introduction. Discussing hell shouldn’t be enjoyable. We shouldn’t relish the idea that some will reject God and choose hell over grace. We cannot put ourselves in the role of “Holy Bouncer” and decide who gets in and who doesn’t.

Somehow I never knew that Chan was a graduate of John MacArthur’s The Master’s College and Seminary, institutions firmly rooted in the Reformed (Zwingli/Calvin/Knox/Beza, frequently mislabeled “Calvinist”) tradition. This tradition is known for academic discipline and an emphasis on God’s sovereignty over all else.

(Ironically, this same Reformed tradition also gave us the universalist movement Chan is writing against. The progression of early universalist logic: if God’s will is always done, and God’s will is that all be saved, then all will be saved.)

Herein lies, for me, the disappointment in Chan’s arguments. Objective truth as a system of logic seems to be primary, and a sense of loving relationship with God comes across as secondary. Having read Chan’s other books (again, which I highly recommend), I know this is not what he believes.

The dividing question I see here is “What is your dominant image of God?” For many, the dominant image is a judge in a courtroom. God has decreed a law, and is now honor-bound to see that that law is enforced. Everything therefore revolves around guilt and punishment. Jesus takes our punishment for us.

The problem with that view? In what human court would a judge allow me to accept the death penalty for someone else? While most courts wouldn’t care who pays a fine, no court will allow a substitute for jail time or execution. That would defeat the purpose of punishment.

A perhaps bigger problem with that view? The image of a courtroom comes primarily from Paul’s sermon illustrations of justification (“pardon”). (Never base all your theology on one sermon illustration!) From Jesus’ teachings we see a picture of God as “Abba” (“Daddy”), the loving father of the lost sons in Luke 15, as the one we pray to in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7).

Bell gravitates toward the loving parent image, while Chan relies heavily on the courtroom. These are two diverging perspectives. The courtroom image emphasizes law and punishment; the parent image emphasizes restoration and relationship.

My conclusion? No one theological system has all the answers. Theological systems are human attempts to understand what the scriptures describe as a “mystery.” “Mystery” doesn’t mean “hidden secrets waiting to be found,” but “this is beyond what you can fully understand.” God’s love and grace are truly beyond description.

If I have to choose between these two options, I’m going with the Prodigal God every time! If God is love (1 John 4:8), then God doesn’t remained detached and objective; God is personal and involved. Therefore, more is going on than Chan’s book allows for. Bell’s book doesn’t have all the answers, but at least he’s willing to ask the questions.

Next time: Balancing love and law, because I know someone will tell me I’m not taking sin seriously

On Sunday nights, I have begun a teaching series on Using Your Bible More Effectively. (Can you call it a “series” when we’re out most of the next month?) We started last night (June 27) with an overview, and will continue on July 25 with a deeper look at the Old Testament.

We are going to focus on using the Bible as a tool for personal spiritual formation, rather than on using the Bible as a tool for defending the faith, or trying to prove that the Bible is scientifically and historically reliable. (Using “My” Bible rather than Using “The” Bible.)

Why this particular focus? Because I believe that the Bible’s own job description says that God gave us the scriptures to help us move toward God, to make us more like Jesus, and to prepare us for living out God’s calling in our lives. (2 Timothy 3:14-17).

Let’s start with how the scriptures came to us. 2 Kings 22 records the discovery of a scroll in the Temple at Jerusalem during Temple renovations. We find almost no record of a written scripture before this time. In fact, we have almost no mention of the Law of Moses being kept after the time of Joshua. There is no mention of Passover in the books of Judges, Samuel, or Kings until this point.

Why is this important for studying the written scriptures? It tells me that the Bible didn’t come to us as “golden tablets” mysteriously appearing in their complete form, nor were the scriptures dictated with exact wordings. The scriptures were born out of the interaction between God and God’s people, out of the movement of God’s Holy Spirit among humanity. The Bible was given to us over centuries of time as a signpost pointing the way to God.

If the Bible came to us out of the activity of God’s Spirit among humanity, then that is also how it must be interpreted (2 Peter 1:19-21) . God’s Holy Spirit guides our interpretation of the scriptures to help us discern what God is saying to our world.

I am convinced that God is speaking to our world, and that the scriptures are an important part of that process.

I hope to expand upon these ideas in the next few blog posts. Questions and/or suggestions are always welcome.

A church that lasts knows how to serve. Notice that I didn’t say “a church that lasts serves.” Serving and knowing how to serve are two different things.

Often when we serve, we reach out to meet the needs of our community as we have defined them. At that point, the focus is on ourselves, not on the ones we are serving nor on the Christ in whose name we serve. We congratulate ourselves for trying, even if no one responds. We never bother asking why no one responds– we assume no one is interested in what WE wanted to do. (Would you go back to a restaurant where the waiters bring you what they want instead of taking your order for what you want?)

A church that knows how to serve knows that serving grows best out of relationship. It is only in relationship with our neighbors that we can discover the needs they want addressed and the questions they are asking. Through relationships our neighbors discover that we really care about them more than we care about improving our local mission statistics. A church that knows how to serve knows that our neighbors aren’t just the means to a bigger goal; our neighbors are the goal.

Even if our definition of people’s needs is correct, when we build relationships and invest time and self in our neighbors, we uncover the more immediate concerns that are preventing them from addressing (or maybe even seeing) their deeper needs.

An important part of knowing how to serve is knowing how to be served. Allowing others to serve us respects their dignity and recognizes the worth God has created in each of them as well. Being served, especially when we are being served by those whom we are also serving, can build strong community, even among strangers.

We must also remember that we aren’t merely serving someone; we are serving with them. Those being served are on an equal level with those serving. Even if they are physically unable to help with the task, their mere presence contributes to the project. Let the elderly lady whose house we are painting bake cookies for us; that’s her contribution to the project. Let the person to whom we are taking food help bring it inside; that’s their contribution.

Good serving starts by good listening. We have to be quiet ourselves to hear what others are saying. When we listen to their hurts, to their fears, and to their questions, then we can better connect them with the Good News of Jesus and what the grace of God has to say to their situation. This kind of serving brings us all, recipient and servant, closer to God.

Jesus left us the command to make disciples of “all peoples everywhere” (GNT). (“Nations” does not necessarily refer to political entities, but to “ethnicities”.) That sounds like a simple command. However, what is a true disciple of Jesus?

(I strongly suggest viewing Rob Bell’s NOOMA video “Dust” here.)

A disciple is one who follows a master. In Jesus’ day, a disciple would literally leave everything and follow a rabbi from place to place. The disciple sought to model his life after the rabbi’s values, absorbing as much of the rabbi’s teachings and values as possible. The goal was to pass those teachings and those values along to another generation.

Which is a long way to go to say this: being a disciple is far more involved than merely believing the right ideas. If the right ideas (doctrines, theology, dogma, etc.) were all that mattered, then the cross wasn’t necessary. Something more is clearly going on. Otherwise, why the incarnation (God-in-the-flesh)?

The humanity of Jesus tells me that Jesus came to show us all how to live in this world too. The cross of Christ redeems (frees, saves, re-purposes) all of life, not only life-after-death. Jesus came to show us how to live this life in relationship with God and with God’s people. Therefore, making disciples goes beyond ideas into the realities of everyday living. Churches who make disciples help us live all of life in view of “God-with-us”.

How do “recovering sinners” (again, Shane Claiborne; see the post on Authenticity) respond to others’ sinfulness? How do we love the unlovable? How do we live out the Sermon on the Mount and the Great Commandments in a “looking out for Number One” world? How do we show hope to those from whom life has stolen all hope?

Churches that last make disciples. Not converts, not students, but disciples– people who are working together to model all of life after Jesus.

What will mark the church of the future? More importantly, what characteristics make the difference between a church that stands for decades and one that folds after the current generation is gone? What makes a church last for generations?

Authenticity is one such trait. Authenticity may be viewed in several different ways. I am not talking here about doctrinal purity or some other human, works-oriented notion that screams “look at how good we are.” I am talking about authenticity of relationships, beliefs, and practices.

The church is called to authentic relationships. We are not a church of perfect, sinless people looking for people just like ourselves. We are a church of “recovering sinners” (Shane Claiborne) looking to help each other on the journey toward Christ. This kind of church seeks to create a safe environment where members and guests can share their struggles in order to share the burden together. We don’t seek to judge another’s fallen-ness, but rather offer to help each other get up and get back on track toward Christ. We do so fully realizing that, at some point, we have needed and will need the same help ourselves.

The church is called to authentic beliefs. Again, I’m not talking about doctrinal purity, but beliefs that grow out of a fundamental conviction that God is life-giving grace. Do we focus so much on heaven that we forget grace calls us to change this world? Do our beliefs emphasize what Jesus emphasized, or just the parts we like? (Have you noticed that it’s much easier to live out the 10 Commandments than it is to live the Sermon on the Mount?) Are we honest about the difficulties of selflessly following Jesus in a self-centered world?

And we are called to authentic practices. Do we say “everyone welcome” then hope certain people don’t attend? What about “red and yellow, black and white”? What about “pierced and dyed, tattooed and spiked”? Are we baptizing and sharing communion as proclamations of grace, or as mere commandment-keeping? Do our worship services help people encounter grace or scratch our “itching ears”?

I realize this is pretty radical stuff. But… well, there are no “buts”. The gospel calls us to a radical, authentic life of grace. Are we ready to rise (under the power of God’s Spirit) to the challenge?

Why do I “like” Lent? Because I know I need Lent. Not only am I in need of constant renewal from God’s Spirit, I also know that I am not so good about scheduling time with God.
I’m not talking about daily devotional time, daily prayer time, or something like that. I’m not so good about blocking out a whole day, or at least several hours, just to listen to God. I can’t hear God’s voice as well when I’m surrounded by dozens of other voices screaming out for attention.
Lent is a powerful reminder that we must be intentional about our relationship with God or other voices will take precedent. Use this season to set aside intentional time for God. Start “small”, maybe a half-hour or so. Tell God everything that’s going on, good and bad, but spend most of your time listening.
And I’m going to do the same right now!

More thoughts inspired by A. W. Tozer (see previous post; again, thanks to Anne Jackson) on whether worship is merely noise in God’s ears…

A while back (which, being translated, means I’m getting old) there was a semi-popular song “Me and Jesus”:

“Me and Jesus, we got a good thing goin’; Me and Jesus, we got it all worked out….”

Sounds good, right? It’s very Baptist-sounding, right? I can worship God (or serve or whatever) just fine by myself. Right???

Nope. I don’t see any evidence of this in scripture. In fact, I see the opposite. The writer of Hebrews strongly encouraged his/her audience to continue meeting together, in spite of trends away from community. (Hebrews 10:25) Most of the letters to the early church in the New Testament address how to live together as God’s community of faith, as God’s family.

In fact, the togetherness and community of the early church was its most powerful witness to the outside world. The world knew something was real about what the church was preaching because they saw how the church cared for one another and grew together as community. (Acts 2:42-47. Bookmark it– I will refer there often!)

I’m not saying we cannot worship on our own apart from established church services. I am saying that if we do not nurture our connection with Christian community, we weaken our connection with God and actually cannot worship (or serve or anything else) as well.

We were not created to live alone (Genesis 2:18). We were created to live in community; one could even say that community was created for our benefit. Coming together to celebrate Christ in worship energizes our personal prayer and worship, as well as our service and our study and, well, everything we do as we follow Christ TOGETHER!

So, while it’s not grammatically correct, can we start living and singing “We and Jesus…”?

Tony Campolo says it so much better than I ever could. He’s been serving there for years and has seen what life is like down there.

I actually did think about this one for Sunday, but it didn’t fit the flow. Then again, that’s why I started the blog.

No matter what our intentions are, if we are so busy working in church or other activities that we don’t have time for family or for our own spiritual development, we’re too busy!

At this point, I’m not talking about service that claims to be honoring God when we’re really honoring self. I’m talking about well-intentioned over-serving. Whether we feel like God will pay more attention to us or whether we want to do as much as we can for God, we miss the point when we sign up for anything and everything.

We should be thinking about service as calling. How is God calling me to use my resources (talents, passions, possessions, finances, etc.) for others? How is God calling me to contribute to my church’s in-house ministries? How is God calling me to contribute to ministry in my community?

As in mind my last post (Church Work is Not Necessarily Service), we must remember that busy-ness in God’s name can hinder us from truly opening up to God. We should seek out one (or a few, but not several) place to serve in church, a place that will not only allow us to contribute to the whole but also allow us to grow spiritually as well. When we’re serving in God’s way in God’s time, we experience optimal results, not only for ourselves, but also for our church family and our community.

If you’re on the verge of burnout from over-serving, or if you’ve given up on church after giving it 150%, check out Anne Jackson’s little book Mad Church Disease. It’s a very personal, bluntly honest testimony about the dangers of sacrificing self for the institution of "church" rather than celebrating church as the life-giving body of Christ.