Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: legalism

  • Psalm 119:36 – What’s Your Inclination

    Psalm 119:36 – What’s Your Inclination

    Turn my mind to your testimonies,
    And not to ill-gotten gain.

    How about some alternatives.

    Hearten my mind to your testimonies
    and not to extortion.

    Bob MacDonald, Seeing the Psalter, 382

    Dispose my heart towards your instruction,
    not towards love of gain.

    Psalm 119:36 (REB)

    Christians frequently speak of the Hebrew scriptures (the Old Testament) as a book of all about law, and even sometimes as a book of legalism, in which salvation is to be earned by energetic keeping of God’s law(s). They contrast this to the New Testament, which is a book of love and of grace received through faith.

    I keep wondering whether those who believe this have actually read either. The Hebrew scriptures are filled with God’s grace, and constantly portray God as the one who acts first, while the New Testament speaks a great deal about action, things to do. Paul goes on about salvation by grace through faith, and then goes into a list of good things to do.

    The issue in both cases is the role that these things play in our relationship to God. This verse is a prime example. The Psalmist asks God to incline his heart (or mind) to do what God says. He then says the same thing in reverse. Incline me away from ill-gotten gain. Or from just the stuff.

    God does the inclining first, and we are inclined away from one sort of actions toward another. God’s action precedes and leads to our action. Scripturally, it is always this way. In fact, the very desire to ask for that inclination is the result of divine action.

    This verse points just a bit further than that to what I would say is the most common manifestation of idolatry, and that is the drive to acquisition. I’m not talking about getting things that one needs to live, or carrying out useful and productive work, or even investment. The question is what is the driving force. Why am I doing what I’m doing.

    You see, idolatry keeps our vision low. It makes us short-sighted. Do I want to acquire money so that I can accomplish good things with it? Or do I want money or other stuff just to make myself more important? Please don’t read this as merely wanting money for charitable purposes vs for business activities. I include productive activity, including investment, as accomplishing good things.

    This can go astray in a couple of ways. First, I can gain things by cheating. Cheating takes many forms, but it usually involves a form of manipulation, such as an employer convincing an employee that they will never get anything better, and that their only hope is to accept what that employer has to offer. Or it could be a worker who manipulates the work situation so as to appear more valuable that he or she really is.

    Second, this can take the form of pure acquisition for the sake of possession. I’ve often thought that Ebenezer Scrooge was more to be pitied for the fact that he did not actually enjoy any of his stuff than looked down on for his business practices. He manipulated people in order to acquire, and didn’t even enjoy the possession.

    If the stuff drives the bus, it’s going in the wrong direction.

    We often fail to see the value in things that God commands, whether through the written word, or simply through the nature of the world in which we live. As humans, we regularly try to live in ways that are not sustainable. We can see this in history time after time, yet we are inclined to act as though the consequences won’t catch us.

    Rules are hard to enforce on people who are not inclined to keep them. Just check out the traffic laws and observe the speed and other driving practices taking place on the road. We are inclined to take what shortcuts we think we can get by with. But if we change our inclinations our actions can change. And as the Psalmist demonstrates here, God is the one to ask for that change.

    What are you inclined to do? Would you like to see it change?

    (Featured image generated by Adobe’s Firefly in Adobe Express.)

  • Psalm 119:27 – From Precepts to Wonders

    Psalm 119:27 – From Precepts to Wonders

    Explain to me the way of your precepts
    and I will tell of your wonderful acts.

    We tend to think of particular rules or principles for living as fairly boring, somewhat annoying, and often unreasonably restrictive. We seem to live in a debate between what we ought to do and what we actually do. Even the most law and order oriented people I know have rules they don’t feel they need to keep.

    As Christians, we come at law largely from the perspective of salvation. Our works cannot save us. Yet many of us are so oriented to law that we have to work that back into the equation again, such that eventually our Christian lives are taken up by the question of how to keep the rules and what might happen if we don’t. Some of the loudest voices I have heard with regard to grace and justification by grace through faith turn to the worst sort of works as they attempt to produce–and urge others to produce–the supposed fruit of that faith. (Hint: You can’t. God can.)

    Christianity becomes for so many of us a process of producing “good church-going people” who are “pillars of their community” and as such good people are surely going to heaven because they are keeping up with all the things their culture believes are the proper things to do.

    Well, right until these pillars fall down because they really aren’t such examples of everything that is good and right.

    And then we, as Christians, announce that the Hebrew scriptures are all about law and empty of grace because we can find examples in Israelite history of just such pillars of the community, and we can find rules that look a lot like they might describe the behavior of good “temple-going people” who are pillars of their community.

    Like David.

    Oops! For those who actually read the Hebrew scriptures (in translation is OK!), this image really doesn’t work. Not if you pay attention.

    I’m currently listening on Audible to the translation of the Hebrew Bible by Robert Alter as I walk on the treadmill. (I moved my after-dark walks and too-cold walks to the treadmill!) Tonight I was listening to the story of David and Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11-12). If David was a man after God’s own heart, I would imagine some grace was involved.

    But as we look at this passage, we are again looking at a much broader understanding of “law.” Note that in Psalm 119, we have at least two more general terms for law, Torah (instruction), and Word, as in God’s Word. Translating these as “law” gives modern English readers the wrong impression. As I read, I see in the term “Torah” a depiction of God’s guidance and interaction with people, i.e. an extended story of relationship. It’s about who God’s people are. In “Word” I hear the creator of the universe who is revealed in word and deed. Neither of these terms describes a code of law, such as Hammurabi’s code, or your state’s traffic code.

    What they do describe is a very deep relationship and an identity, God’s people, that becomes the key identity for those to whom it applies.

    In the New Testament book of Hebrews we have this same nature and identity, both Torah and Word, wrapped into the person of Jesus. I think it is worthwhile for us to know as Christians that when a Jew affirms loyalty to Torah, this is no more (or less) an affirmation of loyalty to a set of rules than ours is when we affirm loyalty to Jesus.

    Now Jews and Christians can both be legalists, forgetting Who it is they serve, and getting stuck on details, but this shouldn’t be blamed on scripture. We humans are like that. We like to get tangled up on the little things that we can understand and handle. Or at least that we think we can.

    But God is above and beyond that. God has a purpose for us that is so far above any of our thoughts that we can’t even imagine it.

    I’m drawn back again to Isaiah 55:

    For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
    nor are your ways my ways.
    This is the word of the LORD.
    But as the heavens are high above the earth,
    so are my ways high above your ways
    and my thoughts above your thoughts.

    Isaiah 55:8-9 (REB)

    And here in Psalm 119:27 we have the psalmist asking God to help him understand God’s precepts, and the result will be that he will speak of God’s wonderful acts. The reason is that everything God has to say points to God as God the creator and the author of all that is wonderful.

    And it all starts with trying to understand the little things, the precepts. Baby steps. Trembling, unstable, stumbling, hands reaching out along the path to wonder and amazement.

    What’s your next step?

    (Featured image generated by Jetpack AI.)

  • What Could Be More Dangerous than Liberalism?

    If you let your eyes wander up to the header you’ll see that my tag line includes the word “liberal” and not in a negative light. I’ve even written about being a liberal charismatic believer. So if you’re wondering how I can use both labels at once, follow the link. But in certain circles, “liberals” make good enemies, you know, the kind of enemies that you know will help make other people your friends—the enemy of my enemy is my friend, right?

    And so Adrian Warnock points to a post by Micah Fries, titled simply Fighting with Scripture. In this post he speaks of the joys of being Southern Baptism following the conservative resurgence, and how nice it is to know that those around him embrace infallibility and inerrancy. In this portion of the universe, the old enemy, liberalism” has been laid to rest and it is easy to ridicule, at least in these sanitized domains. Now my point here is not to beat up on Southern Baptists. I do not consider those who believe in biblical inerrancy to be either worse Christians or scholars than those who do not. In fact, I hope that more moderate and liberal theologians will read and engage with conservative scholarship. I do like to make the point that those of us who see biblical inspiration differently are not the enemies, and may have something to contribute as well.

    Just a couple of lines from the post:

    Liberalism, of course, reduces God’s word, and in doing so attempts to make a mockery of those who would dare take that word at face value. It assumes a position of great authority, in fact it could be argued that it assumes a position of greater authority than scripture itself as it attempts to “rectify” the “errors” found in the bible.

    When I see “of course” in a sentence like that I must confess that it gets under my skin a bit. You see, I don’t think I “reduce God’s word.” Rather, I attempt to understand God’s word as clearly as possible. I don’t “make a mockery of those who would dare take that word at face value,” in fact, I try to avoid mockery. (There are those who assume that disagreement, especially vigorous disagreement is mockery. I’ll just have to live with that.) But still, the issue here is not whether to take “God’s word” at face value. The question is just what that face value is.

    Let’s illustrate this for a moment from Genesis, the great controversy these days. I’ve just edited, and my company has published, a book titled Creation in Scripture by Herold Weiss. It takes a look at the various ways in which creation is discussed in scripture. What it taught me as I edited it was how much more there was to the “face” of what the Bible has to say about creation than most people realize. There are major texts in scripture that are rarely part of this discussion. Many people who try to discuss creation see a “face” of God’s word that is like viewing a large mountain through the trees. You see a little bit of the mountain where light gets between all the trees. But the mountain is more than what you see in that way.

    And how do I get the face value of scripture? Do I read Genesis 1 & 2 as a 21st century citizen of a scientific era? Do I try to get into the perspective of someone from the ancient world? The face looks considerably different depending on which of those perspectives I take.

    My intent here is not to demonstrate what particular view is better, but rather to show that the simple statement that “liberalism reduces God’s word” is somewhere between inadequate and false. It’s inadequate in the sense that it doesn’t do justice to what moderate and liberal students of scripture do when studying. It’s false because very often the liberal interpreter is actually seeing more of the “face” from which the “value” is derived.

    This reminds me of my discussions with KJV-Only advocates. They refer to any word or phrase that is present in the KJV but not in a modern version as something that has been removed from scripture. In vain does one point out that the best Greek manuscripts do not have the word or phrase in question, and that one might just as well say that the KJV added it to scripture. What are you taking as your standard? More importantly, how are you using and applying that standard?

    In order to have valuable discussions of these points we need to state the questions a different way. Conservatives, moderates, and liberals understand scripture differently. We need to discuss passages on that basis, and examine our hermeneutic first. It’s often valuable to take a passage that is slightly less controversial and ask how we look at that passage. We may well continue to disagree (doubtless in many cases we will), but perhaps we would have a better understanding of why and how.

    I share the concern of the authors I linked with reference to legalism, though I don’t think the accusation that it is “adding to scripture” is the best way to address it. I suspect legalism is more a matter of where we place things in our thinking and acting. Having just taught from Ephesians 2 and done preparation to teach from Ephesians 3, I see a fairly clear relationship between grace and action. It’s not that legalists do too much, though some do, it is that they place rules and their actions in the wrong place in their relationship to God. Grace, God’s grace, comes first.

    In pursuing correct theology, I think we often fall into the same danger. We make theology our works and become legalistic in terms of what people should believe. But placing barriers of knowledge and belief ahead of grace is just as damaging as placing barriers of action. We can get into the position of earning God’s favor through getting things right just as easily as through doing things right, and often with even greater damage.

    Legalism will not be defeated by making sure people’s theology of grace is thoroughly correct and orthodox. Legalism is defeated by grace in action. God’s grace, and yes, God’s grace displayed through God’s people.

  • Integrity is more than Not Lying Outright

    People often think that legalism is about trying very hard to be right, and that the main problem with it is that people can’t succeed at it. I would suggest that there’s something more characteristic of legalism, and that it results from trying to paste on the narrow letter of some “right” things to oneself without really taking it in.

    A legalist reads the commandment about “bearing false witness against one’s neighbor” and construes it very narrowly, either as lying under oath or as lying outright. Then he tries not to lie outright. If he can deceive people in some way other than lying directly, he doesn’t care. Similarly the legalist looks at a list of sexual commands and tries not to do those specific things, or perhaps not get caught doing them (note that he’s not lying outright, just deceiving).

    The alternative, one taught by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) is to take the right approach into one’s mind and heart and then live out that integrity. This person tries to live in a non-deceptive manner. If he finds he has deceived someone, that’s the time for confession and repentance. In sexual matters, he tries to live up to his promises and not to injure people through irresponsible activity. If he fails, he does his best to restore damaged relationships and to limit the hurt to others.

    Please note here that I’m not comparing Christianity and Judaism. If that were not inappropriately done so often I wouldn’t have to mention it. There’s no basic reason why a Jew must be a legalist and a Christian not. I personally know many examples of Christian legalists, and Jewish examples of a deeply internal faith and ethic. In fact, in speaking the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus was teaching within the range of Judaism of his time.

    That’s how long it takes me to get to my point, which is this: Those who fuss over gluing moths to tree trunks (a place where they would naturally rest, but not when it was convenient to photograph them) in order to take their pictures, should perhaps not stage scenes themselves. I normally have no problem with staging scenes in order to take photographs, as long as the staging is either true to life or appropriate to the genre involved.

    But integrity involves a consistent viewpoint. If you believe staging a scene is inappropriate, you shouldn’t do it. If you think it’s OK, it should be OK for your enemies as well.

    This goes a step further if the scene was staged to suggest that an event occurred in which more Pepperdine students attended than actually did. (HT: The Panda’s Thumb) But the whole thing would be nitpicking if we were not dealing with a standard already set. I would suggest dropping both, but I eagerly await a clear repudiation of the claim of fraud in the peppered moth case.

    I doubt that will happen, but it should.

  • Reading 11/12/07

    Update: Edited to correct the date in the header from 10/12/07 to 11/12/07. I truly have not invented a time machine!

    Here’s some things that caught my attention:

    • Richard Rice Discusses Open Theism
      20 years ago I read his book The Openness of God when it was first released. I was intrigued by its ideas of open theism then, and I continue to be intrigued now. I appreciated the summary of key issues provided in this post by David Larson. (From the Spectrum Magazine blog/Association of Adventist Forums).
    • Hard and Soft Legalism
      OK, I’m a legalist, but so was Jesus. If the point of this series is to show that N. T. Wright isn’t 100% in the reformed camp, then I suppose it’s succeeding. As a matter of Biblical studies, not so much.
    • “What is at stake is the very nature of Anglicanism” (from Gentle Wisdom) and Romans and Rhetoric Again. (Hat tip: Lingamish on the second post.)
      The key arguments are about the Bible statements regarding homosexuality. This is a particularly contentious topic, of course, and I would urge charity on all who participate in it. None of the participants have taken their stands lightly, in my view, and all deserve serious consideration.

    Such are the varied topics of which I read with interest!